HomeMy WebLinkAbout20131647.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE RESPONSIBLE ACCELERATION OF MAINTENANCE AND
PARTNERSHIPS (RAMP) APPLICATION FOR THE INTERSECTION OF
STATE HIGHWAY 392 AND COUNTY ROAD 74
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with a Responsible Acceleration of
Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP) Application for the intersection of State Highway 392 and
County Road 74, from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, to the Colorado
Department of Transportation, with terms and conditions being as stated in said application, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said application, a copy
of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP)
Application for the intersection of State Highway 392 and County Road 74, from the County of
Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on
behalf of the Department of Public Works, to the Colorado Department of Transportation be, and
hereby is, approved.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 1st day of July, A.D., 2013.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the B
Deputy Clerk to the B
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Date of signa re:
EXCUSED
William F. Garcia, Chair
cc? Pal
7-7-A0/3
2013-1647
EG0068
UFP.V[I'NENr OF fUAA5I'URfAiION
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (RAMP)
DETAILED APPLICATION FORM
(DUE: JULY 1, 2013)
CDOT has launched the RAMP program to expedite the implementation of projects and solicit partnerships in
transportation solutions. This application form is only for the projects that have succeeded through the Pre -
Application phase. The information provided in this application will be used to evaluate projects for priority
consideration statewide. Please fill out the form carefully and provide as much information about the project
as possible. You only need to answer the questions that are applicable to your project. Applications are
submitted to Regional Transportation Director (RTD).
If you need any clarification on the application form, please contact CDOT RTD, Operations office, or HPTE
office. For instructions and other helpful information on RAMP, see the website:
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/RAMP. Please limit attachments to the ones specified in the application
form. Do not submit any supporting studies, documents or analysis with the application form.
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Application Number (assigned by CDOT for the Pre-Application):4-30
Applying Entity Name(s): Weld County, Public Works
Contact Name: Richard White
Contact Title: Project Manager
Application Date: July 1, 2013
Email: rdwhite@weldgov.com
Phone: 970-304-6496 x3742
PROJECT INFORMATION
(Please provide the same information as in the Pre -Application.)
Project Name: SH 392 & WCR 74 Intersection Improvements
State Highway/Interstate: 392 Mileposts (Begin/End):
Project Limits (i.e. from county or cross street, if applicable): CR 74 & CR 69
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to add warranted auxiliary lanes to the intersection of WCR 74 & SH 392, where
higher than average crash potential currently exists. This and other improvements will help improve the safety and
flow of traffic on the state highway. Widening the intersection and increasing the corner radius dimensions will
allow turning movements to be made more easily. The possibility of some realignment of the intersection will be
looked at to help with the skew -angle of the intersection that currently exists.
This project is a public -private partnership with High Sierra Water Services who constructed their facilities on the
northwest corner of the intersection. Per Weld County's Improvements Agreements approved by the Board of
County Commissioners, High Sierra will pay their proportional share of the improvement costs. Weld County
believes this project can be very competitive in meeting the Primary of goal of RAMP, which is to leverage funds to
address critical needs to the State Highway System. Weld County and the Devleoper are committed to matching
more than half of the total project cost. Therefore, this RAMP funding can go a long way towards improving the SH
392 corridor.
An—got/7
Project cost (incl. study and implementation): $2,249,875 RAMP request $1,000,000.
Program Category:
(Check all that apply)
❑ Program 1— Operational Improvements
® Program 2a — Public -Private Partnership
❑ Program 2b — Public -Public Partnership
❑ Program 2c — Public -Public Partnership (Devolution)
EVALUATION CRITERIA
(Fill out for programs 1, 2a, and 2b only.)
1. Mobility Benefits
Is the project part of a congested corridor (v/c >0.85): ❑YES ,I NO
(Check list of congested corridors at the RAMP website: http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/RAMP)
Describe current mobility/operations condition. For corridor projects: Provide ADT for the corridor and
major cross streets. Provide the number and spacing of signals if applicable.
* CDOT traffic data records (in 2011) show 2,000 vehicles per day (VPD) on SH 392
* Weld County records show approx. 300 VPD on WCR 74 (in 2010) at this location
For Intersection projects with signal: provide summary of signal warrant analysis and traffic counts. For
Intersection project without signal: provide peak hour turning movement counts. If available, provide
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for both main and side streets. (Use: turning movement count example,
available at http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/RAMP).
This intersection will not be signalized at this time. A signal warrant study would be conducted to determine if a
signal is warranted. Once the intersection meets warrants, funding for the signal will have to be coordinated with
CDOT. No signal is included with this RAMP request.
Peak hour turning movements:
* Existing (current)turning movements at this intersection exceed the minimums in the State Highway Access Code
to warrenty auxiliary lanes.
* Projected traffic volumes will increase turning movements. Left and right turn lanes and right turn accel./decel.
lanes are warranted on SH 392. Left and right turn lanes are warranted on the west leg of WCR 74.
2
Describe the mobility/operations improvements of the project. Projected traffic volumes will increase the
turning movements which already meet warrants for auxiliary lanes. Left and right turn lanes and right turn
acceleration/deceleration lanes are warranted on SH 392. Left and right turn lanes are warranted on the west leg
of WCR 74. Increasing the corner radius dimensions will allow turning movements to be made more easily.
1.1 Primary Mobility Criteria
(If quantifiable data is not available for some of the indicators, go to 1.2 and provide qualitative information)
Indicators
Current level
Predicted level
(Within the year of project
completion)
Travel Time Reliability
Travel time delay
VMT in congestion
VHT in congestion
Number of stops
Frequency of queues, time of queue
Queue length
Duration of queuing
Location of queues (specify)
Level of Service (LOS)
Additional Remarks: See section 1.2 for
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Primary Mobility Criteria
3
1.2 Primary Mobility Criteria (qualitative)
If you cannot provide quantifiable information on the above mobility indicators, please choose from the list and
describe the impacts of the project on the following. Please note that you do not see al the options if you decide
to print the form and fill it manually.
Operations/Mobility
Criteria
Choose from the list
Describe project
impacts
Travel Time Reliability
(TTR)
• Does the project
improve travel
time reliability?
Not Applicable
❑ Project will significantly improve TTR over a
corridor/network
Congestion and dangerous
conditions will continue to
exist at this intersection
unless the warranted
improvements are
constructed.
Project will significantly improve TTR for a limited
area
❑ Project will moderately improve TTR over a
corridor/network
❑ Project will moderately improve TTR for a limited area
❑ Project will slightly improve TTR over a
corridor/network
❑ Project will slightly improve TTR for a limited area
❑ Project will not improve TTR
❑ Unknown
Delay
• Does the project
reduce overall
delay?
Not Applicable
❑ Project will significantly reduce delay over a
corridor/network
Without the installation of
warranted auxiliary lanes,
through traffic on SH 392
will need to wait for
turning traffic.
Project will significantly reduce delay for a limited
area
Project will moderately reduce delay over a
corridor/network
❑ Project will moderately reduce delay for a limited
area
❑ Project will slightly reduce delay over a
corridor/network
❑ Project will slightly reduce delay for a limited area
❑ Project will not reduce delay
Unknown
Queuing
• Does the project
reduce queuing
(length, times, or
frequency)?
Not Applicable
❑Project will significantly reduce queuing over a corridor
/network
❑Project will significantly reduce queuing for a limited area
Traffic on SH 392 currently
needs to wait for turning
traffic, the addition of turn
lanes will allow queuing
without impacting the
through lanes.
// Project will moderately reduce queuing over a corridor
/network
// Project will moderately reduce queuing for a limited area
❑Project will slightly reduce queuing over a
corridor/network
Project will slightly reduce queuing for a limited area
❑Project will not reduce queuing
❑Unknown
4
Traffic management
• Does the project
improve response
to travel demand?
Not Applicable
❑Project will create centralized control of traffic
operations
❑Project will expand control of traffic operations
►1 Project will improve control of traffic operations
❑Project will not improve control of traffic operations
❑Unknown
Access to alternate
modes
• Does the project
improve access to
alternative modes?
• Does the access to
alternative mode
services improve
traffic
volume/delay?
• Does the project
reduce transit travel
times?
L. Not Applicable
❑Project provides new alternative mode services that
will reduce traffic volumes or delay over a
corridor/network
❑Project improves existing alternative mode services
that will reduce traffic volumes or delay over a
corridor/network
❑Project reduces transit travel time
❑Project impact on alternative modes will not improve
traffic volumes or delay
a Unknown
Level of Service
• Does the project
improve operational
conditions within a
traffic stream based
on service measures
such as speed and
travel time, freedom
to maneuver, traffic
interruptions,
comfort and
convenience?
Not Applicable
❑Project will significantly improve LOS over a
corridor/network
Ill Project will significantly improve LOS for a limited area
❑Project will moderately improve LOS over a
corridor/network
G. Project will moderately improve LOS for a limited area
❑Project will slightly improve LOS over a
corridor/network
❑Project will slightly improve LOS for a limited area
❑Project will not improve LOS
❑Unknown
Alternate routes
• Is the project
isolated or are
alternate routes
available?
Not Applicable
❑Project addresses a need in an isolated area or where
no other transportation network is available
/1 Project addresses a need where the transportation
network is inadequate to handle additional traffic
volumes
►/Project addresses a need where the local
transportation network is limited
Project is located where a local network is available
and adequate for highway traffic
❑Unknown
Signal Warrants
5
• Are signal warrants
met? Are multiple
warrants met?
• Peak hour warrant
must meet
location/land use
requirements per
MUTCD.
Not Applicable
❑Intersection meets 2 or more signal warrants
❑Intersection meets 1 signal warrant
❑Intersection meets peak hour warrants, but not the
location requirement
❑Intersection does not meet signal warrants
,.. Unknown
Turn Lane Analysis
• Are turn lanes
required by the
State Highway
Access Code
(SHAC) or other
requirements?
• Are existing turn
lane lengths
sufficient?
Not Applicable
Congestion and dangerous
conditons will continue to
exist at this intersection
unless the warranted
improvements are
constructed.
/1 Volume of turning movements and conflicting through
traffic require turn lanes where none exist per the SHAC
❑Turn lanes exist, but existing lanes need to be
extended or improved per the SHAC or defined by traffic
model
/L Project will increase traffic volumes or change traffic
patterns to require turn lanes
❑Turn lanes are not required based on volumes, but will
improve general operations of the corridor
Turn lanes are not required
Unknown
Access Access Management
• Are access
management
practices being
implemented
that result in
improved
operations?
gNot Applicable
The number of accesses are being reduced by 50% or
more
The number of accesses are being reduced, less than
50%
❑A non -traversable median is being added
❑A Two-way Left Turn lane is being added
❑Left turn lanes are being added
❑Right turn lanes are being added
Unknown
Overall Overall network
performance
• Does the project
benefit extend
beyond project
limits?
• Does it improve
network
performance?
Not Applicable
❑Project will significantly improve the performance of a
corridor/network
/1 Project will moderately improve the performance of a
corridor/network
❑Project will provide opportunities for future
improvements of the performance of a corridor/network
❑Project will slightly improve the performance of a
corridor/network
Project will not improve the performance of a
corridor/network
Unknown
1.3 1.3 Secondary Mobil'ty Criteria
Quantify or describe additional mobility benefits not addressed above:
6
2 Safety Benefits
Describe existing safety condition.
Congestion and dangerous conditons exist today at this intersection. With the projected increase in traffic
volumes, the number of accidents, will likely increase.
Describe safety components of the project.
Congestion and dangerous conditons will continue to exist at this intersection unless the warranted auxiliary lanes
and other improvements are constructed.
2.1 Primary Safety Criteria
(If quantifiable data is not available for some of the indicators, go to 2.2 and provide qualitative information)
Crash Type
Crash
Severity
Number of
Crashes
Data range of
Crashes
Predicted level
(Within the year of
project completion)
(for CDOT use only)
Broadside Collision
PDO*
Injury
1
2009-2012
Fatal
Debris on Road
PDO
1
2009 - 2012
Injury
Fatal
Low Power Line
PDO
1
2009 - 2012
Injury
Fatal
PDO
7
Injury
Fatal
PDO
Injury
Fatal
Note: Crash types include: overturn, Pedestrian, rear end, side swipe, broadside, head on, approach turn, bicycle, fixed
object, wildlife, off road, etc. Document crash history: 3 -year minimum, 5 -year preferred. Consult CD0T/Region Traffic
Engineering if data is not available. If crash data is not disaggregated by type, put the aggregated number on the first
three rows and write a remark. Add additional rows as necessary. *PD0 (Property Damage Only).
Additional Remarks: This intersection does not have a large accident history. However, the unusual geometry of
the intersection combined with the large amount of truck traffic leads to dangerous conditions existing at the
intersection.
2.2 Primary Safety Criteria (qualitative)
If you cannot provide quantifiable information on the above safety indicators, please choose from list and describe
the impacts of the project on the following:
Safety Criteria
Choose from the list
Additional Remarks
Crash frequency
• Is there a high
crash
frequency?
Not Applicable
❑Frequency
performance function
above expected norms, per safety
(SPF) for the type of facility
at expected norms, per SPF
below expected norms, per SPF
I Frequency
❑Frequency
❑Unknown
Crash pattern
• Is there an
existing crash
pattern?
Not Applicable
❑ There is a clear
❑ There is a
crash pattern
weak crash pattern
crash pattern
/1 There is no
❑Unknown
Severity of crashes
• How severe
are the
crashes?
Not Applicable
❑Majority of
❑Majority of
Majority of
the crashes result in fatality
the crashes result in serious injury
the crashes result in minor injury
the crashes result in property damage
/Majority of
Unknown
Safety Criteria
Choose from the list
Describe project impacts
8
Crash frequency
• Does the
project
mitigate crash
frequency?
Not Applicable
❑Project will significantly reduce crash frequency
❑Project will moderately reduce crash frequency
The addition of turn lanes
would likely reduce the chance
of future accidents.
// Project will slightly reduce crash frequency
❑Project will not reduce crash frequency
❑Unknown
Crash pattern
• Does the
project address
the crash
pattern?
Not Applicable
❑Project will significantly address crash pattern
Project will moderately address crash pattern
❑Project will slightly address crash pattern
❑Project will not address crash pattern
►/Unknown
Severity of crashes
• Does the
project reduce
the severity of
crashes?
Not Applicable
❑Project will significantly reduce severity of crashes
The addition of turn lanes
would reduce the chances of
head on and broadside
collisions.
►/ Project will moderately reduce severity of crashes
❑Project will slightly reduce severity of crashes
lProject will not reduce severity of crashes
❑Unknown
2.3 Secondary Safety Criteria,
Quantify or describe other safety benefits not addressed above:
3 Asset Related Benefits (Asset types such as pavement, bridges, signals, culverts, facilities, equipment, etc.)
Quantify amount (if applicable) of the assets and describe their conditions.
This project involves an exsting two lane asphalt paved state highway that is in poor condition, in accordance with
CDOT data.
9
List and describe the assets (existing and new) that will be impacted by the project.
The existing two lanes of paved state highway will remain and new asphalt auxiliary lanes will be added. A 2 inch
asphalt overaly will be added over the surface of the existing and new roadway throughout the limits of the
project.
3.1 Primary Asset Related Criteria
(If quantifiable data is not available for some of the indicators, go to 3.2 and provide qualitative information)
Asset Type
Indicators
Current level
Predicted level
(Within the year of project
completion)
Pavement
Stock of asset (amount)
2 lane miles
Annual Operational/Maintenance costs
$9,977.45
Good/Fair condition
Poor
Remaining service/useful life
< 0 useful life
Stock of asset (amount)
Annual Operational/Maintenance costs
Good/Fair condition
Remaining service/useful life
Stock of asset (amount)
Annual Operational/Maintenance costs
Good/Fair condition
Remaining service/useful life
Stock of asset (amount)
Annual Operational/Maintenance costs
Good/Fair condition
Remaining service/useful life
Stock of asset (amount)
10
Annual Operational/Maintenance costs
Good/Fair condition
Remaining service/useful life
Remaining service/useful life
Note: If more than five assets are impacted by the project, either expand the table or use a separate page.
Additional Remarks:
3.2 Primary Asset Related Criteria (qualitative)
If you cannot provide quantifiable information on the above asset related indicators, please describe in detail the
existing conditions and impacts of the project for each asset listed above):
Describe the asset condition (i.e., functionality, reliability, etc.).
Existing condition(s):
This project involves an existing two lane asphalt paved state highway that is in fair condtion currently. The existing
two lanes of paved state highway will remain and new asphalt auxiliary lanes will be added. A 2 inch asphalt
overaly will be added over the surface of the existing and new roadway throughout the limits of the project.
Impacts) of the project:
The overall SF area of aspahlt pavement would be approximately doubled and additional signing and striping would
be needed.
Describe the remaining service/useful life (i.e., age, sustainability, durability, etc.).
Existing condition(s):
The serviceable life of the existing roadway will be extended by the application of an asphalt overlay throughout
the project limits.
11
Impact(s) of the project
Describe the annual operational/maintenance costs (i.e., type and extent of resources used).
Existing condition(s):
Impact(s) of the project:
3.3 Secondary Asset Related Criteria
Describe other asset related benefits not addressed above:
4 Transit Benefits (for transit related projects only)
Describe the existing transit service or problems related to the lack of transit service.
N/A
12
Describe how the project impacts the existing or new transit service.
N/A
4.1 Primary Transit Criteria
(If quantifiable data is not available for some of the indicators, go to 4.2 and provide qualitative information)
Indicators
Current level
Predicted level
(Within the year of project completion)
Number of Routes
Number of Ridership
Passenger trip per service hour
Cost per mile
Cost per passenger trip
Additional Remarks: N/A
If you cannot provide quantifiable information on the above transit indicators, please describe in detail
the existing conditions and impacts of the project on the following:
Describe the extent, frequency and coverage of the Routes.
Existing condition(s):
N/A
Impact(s) of the project
13
Describe the pattern and volume of ridership.
Existing condition(s):
N/A
Impact(s) of the project:
Describe the annual operational/maintenance costs (i.e., resource devoted to running the service,
maintenance of buses, stations and facilities, etc.).
Existing condition(s):
N/A
Impact(s) of the project:
14
4.2 Secondary Transit Criteria
Quantify or describe other transit related benefits not addressed above.
N/A
5 Other Benefits
5.1 Secondary Criteria
Quantify or describe other benefits (i.e., economic, environmental, community, etc.).
Weld County and cities and towns within the county and adjacent communities are all being impacted by the oil
and gas idustry which has large operations underway currently. The current Weld County roadways are inadequate
to handle the volumes and the loads from the oil and gas trucks. This project will benefit residents who use the
roadways and encourage the oil and gas industries to continue to provide funding for intersection projects.
6 Other considerations
What will be CDOT's role in the design, construction and management of the project?
The project will be designed by Weld County staff. The CDOT process will be followed throughout the design and
construction of this project. The only CDOT responsibilty would be oversight of any CDOT funding and construction
costs reimbursement.
What will be the partner's (private and/or public) role in the design, construction and management of the
project?
The Weld County Project Manager will be responsible for overseeing the design and construction and will involve
CDOT in the processes throughout the project.
15
COST/DRAWDOWN SCHEDULE
(Fill out for programs 1, 2a, and 2b only)
(List all the funding sources, Private, Public, CDOT non -RAMP, and CDOT RAMP.
Specify whether it, is cash or non-cash/in-kind.)
Funding Sources
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
TOTAL
Weld County
839,900
839,900
Private Developer
409,975
409,975
RAMP Funding
1,000,000
1,000,000
Total proposed project cost
839,900
1,409,875
2,249,875
For in -kind funding (Design, R.Q.W. and materials), please describe and estimate the value.
Is the project scalable: ❑ YES O NO
If YES, please describe scaled down project:
Provide scaled drawdown schedule
Funding Sources
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
TOTAL
16
Total scaled project cost
Additional Remarks:
EVALUATION CRITERIA
(Fill out for program 2C, Devolution, only)
Functionality of the road (e.g., local road functionality, lacks connectivity to SHS, etc.):
Will the devolution disrupt the smooth functioning of the highway system? YES NO
Explain:
Maintenance Difficulty:
❑High
❑Med
❑Low
Describe:
Describe other benefits if applicable (i.e., community benefits, economic development, etc.):
List any requests specified by the local agency/government for the proposed devolution:
17
Net present value of savings over 20 years (use 'RAMP Devolution Program_NPV_calculator, available at
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/RAMP. Please submit the spreadsheet with this application form):
FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
(For programs 2a, 2b, and 2c only.)
Provide letter(s) of financial commitment with this application.
For HPTE project, please contact HPTE office to determine additional information requirements.
CDOT staff that provided technical support on the application.
(Fill out for all programs)
Name
Title
Email
Remark
Larry J. Haas
Region 4 Ops.
Engin.
Larry.Haas@state.co.us
Karen Schneiders
karen.schneiders@state.co.us
18
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PHONE: 970-336-7204
FAX: 970-352-0242
1150 O STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
July 1, 2013
Don Hunt, Executive Director
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 E. Arkansas Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80222
Dear Mr. Hunt:
In accordance with the RAMP Application, this letter represents Weld County's Financial
Commitment to the State Highway 392 & County Road 74 Intersection Improvement Project. This is
Weld County's only Public -Private Partnership application. In order to maximize leveraging RAMP
funding, Weld County and the Developer are committing more than half of the total project cost for
this application request of $2,249,875. Weld County's RAMP request is for $1,000,000 with the
County and Developer matching approximately $1,249,875 of the total project cost.
If the project is awarded, Weld County's commitment to partnership will be evidenced through an
Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT. Weld County looks forward to partnering with CDOT on
improving the SH 392 corridor. We hope selection committee sees the value this project provides
the overall functional integrity of CDOT's highway system.
Douglas Rademacher, Pro Tem
BOA DO'
a
Very truly yours,
WYCOMMISSIONERSCOMMISSIONERS
William F. Garcia, Chair
Mike Freeman Barbara Kirlaneyei
cc: Monica Mika
Elizabeth Relford
HIGH SIERRA WATER SERVICES. LLC
April 26, 2013
Colorado Department of Transportation
Mr. Johnny Olson, RTD Region 4
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO
Re: Weld County RAMP Application Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Olson:
This letter is in support of Weld County's RAMP Application for SH 392/County Road 74
intersection improvements.
High Sierra Water Services has a saltwater injection facility near this intersection and
fully supports the roadway improvements to increase the safety for our staff, clients and
our neighbors.
These projects exemplify cooperation between Weld County, CDOT, and the private
sector to improve the general health, safety, and welfare of the entire region. In
addition, these projects meet the intent of the RAMP program and further the mission
of the Colorado Department of Transportation to provide the best multi -modal
transportation system for Colorado that most effectively moves people, goods and
information.
We hope the Transportation Commission sees the intrinsic value these projects provide
to the overall functional integrity of CDOT's highway system.
Sincerel
D'm?� White
Vice President
High Sierra Water Services, LLC
HIGH SIERRA WATER SERVICES, LLC
8207 W 20rh Street
Suite B
Greece, CO 80034
970.356.5500 Phone
970.3563503 Fa,
ww.r.highsien rv. atcecom
1
I
NOT TO SCALE
N
......................
a
U
s
WCR 69
U
0
w
0
a
a
N-
O
O
Z
Q
N
a)
2
U)
O
w
U)
0
a
0
a
WCR 69
z
0
H
U
w
L7
ZW2
ti • H
Q a ▪ Z
O 2U
H
a
N
6)
2
WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE
Project Name
WCR 74/SH 392
�1 �)
1
r
ktf
.
Project Limits
REALIGNMENT
DATE
25 -Apr -13
RAMP REQUEST AMOUNT (44%)
$1,000,000
EST. DEVELOPMENT MATCH 20%
( )
$409,975
u Y
LA OVERMATCH (DESIGN & ROW)(36o/u)
$839,900
TOTAL LOCAL MATCH (56%)
$1,249,875
TOTAL PROJECT
$2,249,875
DESIGN
2014
R.O.W.
2015
CONST.
2015
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
UNIT
UNIT COST
CLEARING, GRUBBING, & REMOVALS
LS
$75,000
QUANTITY
TOTAL
EXCAVATION
CY
$8
1
$75,000
EMBANKMENT
CY
$10
5,000
$40,000
EROSION CONTROL/REVEGETATION
LS
$20,000
10,000
$100,000
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (12")
TON
$15
1
$20,000
HOT MIX ASPHALT (8")
TON
$70
16,500
$247,500
DRAINAGE/IRRIGATION ITEMS
LS
$35,000
12,000
$840,000
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
$15,000
1
$35,000
MOBILIZATION AND FIELD OFFICE
LS
$100,000
1
$15,000
$100,000
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
LS
$25,000
1
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
$35,000
1
$25,000
FORCE ACCOUNTS
FA
$50,000
1
$35,000
UTILITY RELOCATIONS
LS
$50,000
1
$50,000
CONTINGENCY (15%)
N/A
$237,375
1
$50,000
INSPECTION AND TESTING (10%)
LS
$180,000
1
$237,375
1
$180,000
ENGINEERING COSTS (LA OVERMATCH)
UNIT
UNIT COST
Subtotal
$2,049,875
DESIGN
LS
$180,000
QUANTITY
TOTAL
R.O.W. ACQUISITION
AC
$5,000
1
$180,000
R.O.W. ACQUISITION SERVICES
LS
$10,000
2
$10,000
1
$10,000
Subtotal
$200,000
Assumptions: TOTAL
$2,249,875
Improvements on SH 392 include left turn and SB Accel/Decel
Improvements on CR 74 include left turn on EB & wider turning radius
CDOT Maintenance 392 and CR 74
t-atiVT; p " csc, Elqk,th, . ' 1 Te Total Cost 5 Year average Cost per 1 mile stretch
152 FlexPavPatch/MinorRepairs Square Yard 45,370.40 $9,074.08 $346.74
153 RigidPavPatch/MinorRepairs Square Yard 1,720.94 $344.19 $13.15
154 MachinePatchOverlayLeveling US ton 482,440.49 $96,488.10 $3,686.97
156 HandCrackSealingFlexPave US gallon 100,925.03 $20,185.01 $771.30
157 HandCrackSealingRigidPave US gallon 481.15 $96.23 $3.68
158 RotomillingFlexiblePavement Square Yard 5,114.41 $1,022.88 $39.09
160 SealCoatingChipSand Square Yard 93,235.92 $18,647.18 $712.54
162 BladingUnpavedSurfaceShoulder Mile 24,012.67 $4,802.53 $183.51
163 BuildingRestoringUnpavedShldr Linear Feet 30,878.42 $6,175.68 $235.98
164 BaseStabilizationRepair Cubic yard 1,031.68 $206.34 $7.88
202 DrainStructureCleanMtceRepair each 72,469.97 $14,493.99 $553.84
203 CleanDrainStruct-Dirt Removal US ton 108.86 $21.77 $0.83
206 MaintDitchesStreambeds Linear Feet 27,293.50 $5,458.70 $208.59
210 Slope Repair Cubic yard 5,463.67 $1,092.73 $41.76
215 RoadKillCleanup each 234.61 $46.92 $1.79
216 FenceGateCattleguardMaint Linear Feet 11,215.25 $2,243.05 $85.71
218 LitterBarrelTrashCleanup Cubic yard 20,848.60 $4,169.72 $159.33
220 Sweeping - Machine Mile 1,336.06 $267.21 $10.21
222 Sweeping - Hand Hours 706.20 $141.24 $5.40
252 Veg Control - Dry Land Mile 38,773.80 $7,754.76 $296.32
254 VegControlHandWeedingChemical Hours 9,928.23 $1,985.65 $75.87
256 VegControlHerbicidePesticide Acre 2,976.61 $595.32 $22.75
260 TreePlantingRemovalTrimming each 7,281.78 $1,456.36 $55.65
302 Single Post Signs each 59,829.47 $11,965.89 $457.24
304 Del Post Mtce each 108,851.85 $21,770.37 $831.88
306 MetalGuardRailMtce/Repair Linear Feet 4,471.79 $894.36 $34.17
308 PavementStriping-Machine Mile 32,536.77 $6,507.35 $248.66
310 PavementStriping-Hand Square foot 13,924.24 $2,784.85 $106.41
329 CourtesyAssistance Hours 3,106.17 $621.23 $23.74
402 SnowRemovalSand Mile 97,898.02 $19,579.60 $748.17
404 SnowFencelnstallRepair Linear Feet 269.71 $53.94 $2.06
406 SnowRemovalSpecialEquip Hours 813.44 $162.69 $6.22
$9,977.45
Sheri Olk
332 3rd Street P.O. Box 657 Kersey, CO 80644
Office -970-353-1681 Fax -970-353-2197
April 25, 2013
Colorado Department of Transportation
Mr. Johnny Olson, RTD Region 4
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO
Re: Weld County RAMP Application Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Olson:
This letter Is in support of Weld County's RAMP Applications for US 34/County Road 49; SH 392/County
Road 47, and SH 392/County Road 74 intersection improvements.
These projects exemplify cooperation between Weld County, CDOT, and the private sector to improve the
general health, safety, and welfare of the entire region.
In addition, these projects meet the intent of the RAMP program and further the mission of the Colorado
Department of Transportation to provide the best multi -modal transportation system for Colorado that
most effectively moves people, goods and information.
We hope the Transportation Commission sees the intrinsic value these projects provide to the overall
functional integrity of CDOT's highway system.
and f Trustees, Town of KerseyU-AIL
/� �n n ob Kellerhuis, Mayor ,fin L/
n V4 _ Ag-�,c-t-4-0C.P,c� eillit - i/1.,
Christopher Smith, Trustee
Coralie Slusher, Mayor Pro -Tern
Gary Mount
April 25, 2013
TOWN OF HUDSON
557 ASH STREET, P.O. BOX 351, HUDSON, CO 80642-0351
Phone: (303) 536-9311 FAX: (303) 536-4753
www.hudsoncolorado.orq
u dsoncolorado.orq
John Olson
Region 4 Transportation Director
Colorado Department of Transportation
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Weld County RAMP Application
Dear Mr. Olson:
The Town of Hudson actively supports improvements to the regional transportation system, and
intergovernmental projects that are of benefit to the safety and function of the system. This letter
is in support of Weld County's RAMP Applications for US 34/County Road 49; SH 392/County
Road 47, and SH 392/County Road 74 intersection improvements.
Citizens of Hudson and local businesses use CR49 as the primary route to the Greeley area and
are very familiar with the increasing traffic on that road. Similarly, the other locations of
concern in the RAMP application are likewise significant elements of the inter- and intra-county
transportation system. The projects benefit from the intergovernmental cooperation that is so
important in accomplishing such public projects.
Please accept this letter of support for the County's application.
Sincerely,
Neal Pontius
Mayor
TOWN OF KEENESBURG
FOUNDED JULY, 1906
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SINCE JULY, 1919
April 24, 2013
Colorado Department of Transportation
Mr. Johnny Olson, RTD Region 4
1420 2n° Street
Greeley, CO
Re: Weld County RAMP Application Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Olson:
This letter is in support of Weld County's RAMP Applications for US 34/County Road 49; SH 392/County
Road 47, and SH 392/County Road 74 intersection improvements. Weld County has a history of reaching
out to its communities and seeking input for projects, and offering assistance. Currently Weld County
along with the communities of Kersey, Keenesburg, and Hudson are working together on an access
control plan for the busy corridor of Weld County Road 49 between I-76 and State Highway 34. The Town
of Keenesburg is proud to partner with Weld County on this and any future projects.
These projects exemplify cooperation between Weld County, COOT, and the private sector to improve the
general health, safety, and welfare of the entire region.
In addition, these projects meet the intent of the RAMP program and further the mission of the Colorado
Department of Transportation to provide the best multi -modal transportation system for Colorado that
most effectively moves people, goods and information.
We hope the Transportation Commission sees the intrinsic value these projects provide to the overall
functional integrity of CDOT's highway system.
Sincerely,
Danny Kipp, Mayor
140 SOUTH MAIN P.O. BOX 312 KEENESBURG, COLORADO 80643
PHONE 303-732-4281 FAX 303-732-0599
Hello