HomeMy WebLinkAbout20131648.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE RESPONSIBLE ACCELERATION OF MAINTENANCE AND
PARTNERSHIPS (RAMP) APPLICATION FOR THE INTERSECTION OF
STATE HIGHWAY 392 AND COUNTY ROAD 47
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 47, 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 47, 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
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
At
ount ney
Date of signature: 7/
EXCUSED
William F. Garcia, Chair
Sean
P. Conway
ke Freema
Barbara Kirkmeyer
CC ; /Olf)
7-i-oW/$
Pro-Tem
2013-1648
EG0068
-a_-
���
urrverMevr or rw»sroaranov
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 CDOTfor the Pre-Application):4-28
Applying Entity Name(s): Weld County
Contact Name: Elizabeth Relford
Contact Title: Transportation Planner
Application Date: July 1, 2013
Email: erelford@weldgov.com
Phone: 970-304-6496 x3748
PROJECT INFORMATION
(Please provide the same information as in the Pre -Application.)
Project Name: SH 392 & WCR 47 Intersection Improvements
State Highway/Interstate: SH 392 Mileposts (Begin/End):
Project Limits (i.e. from county or cross street, if applicable): WCR 47
Project Description:
Weld County is requesting funding for safety improvements to widen the SH 392 and WCR 47 intersection. This
request is for the addition of travel lanes, auxiliary turn lanes and propert turning radius movements. These
improvements would accommodate the future widening of WCR 47 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. As part of the WCR
49/47 corridor project, WCR 49 will be constructed from US 34 to the north and realign with WCR 47 at WCR 60.5
(SH 263), in accordance with the attached vicinity map. The WCR 49/47 corridor will be the most significant oil &
gas truck route parallel to US 85 and will provide less out of direction travel from the Niobrara natural gas play to
the north, to Wattenberg energy field in the south county. The widening of WCR 49/47 from an existing two lane
aspahlt road to a four lane concrete roadway is needed to handle the heavy truck trafffic anticipated on this
corridor. Some sections of WCR 49 already are experincing in excesss of fifty percent truck traffic.
The purpose of this grant request is so to widen WCR 47 & SH 392 intersection, which will be an intersection that
will receive much more traffic volumes once the WCR 49 extension is in place, can be constructed prior to this
occuring. The intersection improvements will include all turn lanes and auxiliary lanes warranted by the projected
traffic volumes (study done by Atkins in 2012 for the 49 extension project). For the purposes of RAMP, this
intersection project will be known as Phase 2.
This intersection improvement is needed to accommodate future traffic on the CR 49 extension. Weld County
recognizes the importance of this intersection, which is why the County is committed to paying for half of the
needed improvements. RAMP funding for SH 392 will help further the goal of leveraging CDOTfunding to improve
the State Highway system.
Project cost (incl. study and implementation): $3,685,180- RAMP request $1,842,590
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 1 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.
Current turning movements are difficult for truck traffic due to inadequate turning radii.
* Current ADT on SH 392 at this location is approx. 3,200 vehicles per day (VPD) (over 20% trucks)
* Current ADT on WCR 47 at this location is approximately 400 VPD
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).
It is anticipated that this intersection will not be signalized initially. Peak hour turning movements:
* Existing (current) turning movements at this intersetion are below the minimums stated in the State Highway
Access Code to warrant auxiliary lanes.
2
* Projected turning movements would far exceed the minimums and will result in warranted left and right turn
lanes and right turn acceleration lanes for the south leg (WCR 47) and the west leg (SH 392), as well as left turn
lane on the east leg (SH 392).
Describe the mobility/operations improvements of the project. Projected turning movements would result
in warranted left and right turn lanes and right turn acceleration lanes for the south leg (WCR 47) and the west leg
(SH 392), as well as left turn lane on the east leg (SH 392).
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
Not available
Travel time delay
Not available
VMT in congestion
Not available
VHT in congestion
Not available
Number of stops
Not available
Frequency of queues, time of queue
Not available
Queue length
Not available
Duration of queuing
Not available
Location of queues (specify)
Not available
Level of Service (LOS)
Not available
Additional Remarks: See Section 1.2 for Primary Mobilty 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
It is anticipated that heavy
congestion will occur at
this intersection unless all
warranted auxiliary lanes
are in place at the time
other corridor
improvements occur.
A. 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
Congestion will occur at
this intersection unless all
warranted auxiliary lanes
are in place at the time
other corridor
improvements occur.
L 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
Congestion will occur at
this intersection unless all
warranted auxiliary lanes
are in place at the time
other corridor
improvements occur.
// Project will significantly reduce queuing for a limited area
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
4
❑Project will slightly reduce queuing for a limited area
Project will not reduce queuing
❑Unknown
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
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?
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
❑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
//Project will significantly improve LOS for a limited area
❑Project will moderately improve LOS over a
corridor/network
❑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
aI Project addresses a need in an isolated area or where
no other transportation network is available
//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
5
❑Unknown
Signal Warrants
• 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
.v-
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
There are no turn lanes in
place at this time;
however, turn lanes will
be required when other
corridor improvements
occur within 2 to 3 years.
►1Volume 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
❑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 Management
• Are access
management
practices being
implemented
that result in
improved
operations?
Not 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
a/ Right turn lanes are being added
❑Unknown
Overall network
performance
• Does the project
benefit extend
beyond project
limits?
• Does it improve
network
performance?
Not Applicable
►1 Project will significantly improve the performance of a
corridor/network
❑Project will moderately improve the performance of a
corridor/network
I lProject 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
6
1.3 Secondary Mobility Criteria
Quantify or describe additional mobility benefits not addressed above:
2 Safety Benefits
Describe existing safety condition.
Once the traffic volumes at this intersection are comparable to other Weld County Road intersections on SH 392, in
2 to 3 years, we would expect to see a comparable number of accidents (approx. 10 per year)
Describe safety components of the project.
Left and right turn lanes and right turn acceleratoin lanes for the south leg (WCR 47) and the west leg (SH 392), as
well as left turn lane on the east leg (SH 392).
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)
Rear End
PDO*
2
2008 - 2012
Injury
Fatal
Broadside
PDO
2
2008 - 2012
Injury
Fatal
Fixed Object
PDO
2
2008 - 2012
7
Injury
Fatal
Off Road
PDO
Three
2008 - 2012
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 CDOT/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. *PDO (Property Damage Only).
Additional Remarks: See section 2.2 for Primary Safety Criteria
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?
❑Frequency
performance
//
❑Frequency
❑Unknown
Not Applicable
above expected norms, per safety
function (SPF) for the type of facility
Frequency at expected norms, per SPF
below expected norms, per SPF
Although the frequency is at
expected norms currently, it is
anticipated that the frequency
will increase to above expected
norms within 2 to 3 years.
Crash pattern
• Is there an
existing crash
pattern?
a
❑
❑Unknown
Not Applicable
There is a clear crash pattern
Due to the lack of turn lanes,
there is a clear pattern of rear
end and broadside accidents.
Severity of crashes
• How severe
are the
crashes?
❑Majority
❑Majority
❑Majority
//Majority
Not Applicable
of the crashes result in fatality
of the crashes result in serious injury
of the crashes result in minor injury
of the crashes result in property damage
Unknown
8
Safety Criteria
Choose from the list
Describe project impacts
Crash frequency
• Does the
project
mitigate crash
frequency?
Not Applicable
❑Project will significantly reduce crash frequency
// Project will moderately reduce crash frequency
❑Project will slightly reduce crash frequency
❑Project will not reduce crash frequency
❑Unknown
Crash pattern
• Does the
project address
the crash
pattern?
Not Applicable
The addtion of auxiliary lanes
will allow vehicles that are
slowing for turns to get out of
through traffic.
@ 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
/Project will moderately reduce severity of crashes
Project will slightly reduce severity of crashes
❑Project will not reduce severity of crashes
❑Unknown
2.3 Secondary Safety Criteria
Quantify or describe other safety benefits not addressed above:
The anticipated severity of crashes at this intersection could be higher due to the high percentage of large trucks.
The installation of auxiliary lanes will help greatly.
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.
The largest asset in this project is pavement. The exsting two lane asphalt paved State Highway that is in poor
condtion with a less than zero useful life.
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
10
Good/Fair condition
Remaining service/useful life
Stock of asset (amount)
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 exsting two lane asphalt paved State Highway that is in poor condition 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.
Impact(s) of the project:
The overall SF area of aspahlt pavement would be approximately doubled and additional signing and striping would
be required.
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: There is not a transit related component with this project.
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.
There is not a transit related component with this project.
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 industry, which has large operations underway currently. The impacts are positve and negative, there are
jobs availble due to this and the State of Colorado benifits from this local production of fuel. However, the current
Weld County & State Highway roadways are inadequate to handle the volumes and the loads from the oil and gas
trucks. This project, being a key part of the 49/47 corridor project, will benefit residents who use the roadways and
encourage the oil and gas industries to continue to provide funding for the corridor 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 an engineering consulting firm specializing in this type of project and the design
will be paid for by Weld County. The CDOT process will be followed throughout the design and construction of this
project. The only CDOT responsibility would be oversight of any CDOT funding and construction costs
reimbursement.
15
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 throughout the project.
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 Design
300,000
300,000
Weld County match
1,542,590
1,542,590
RAMP funding
1,842,590
1,842,590
Total proposed project cost
300,000
3,385,180
3,685,180
For in -kind funding (Design, R.O.W. and materials), please describe and estimate the value.
Weld County will pay for all the Design and Right -of -Way costs.
Is the project scalable: /1 YES ❑ NO
If YES, please describe scaled down project: The preferred scenario is to construct this project in the same fiscal
year. However, it RAMP funding is partially awarded, the project could be scaled to receive RAMP funding in two
different fiscal years.
16
Provide scaled drawdown schedule
Funding Sources
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
TOTAL
RAMP reimbursement
921,295
921,295
RAMP reimbursement
921,295
921,295
Weld County match
300,000
771,295
771,295
$1,842,59
0
Total scaled project cost
300,000
1,692,590
1,692,5
90
3,685,180
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:
17
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:
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 Op.Engin.
Larry.Haas@state.co.us
Karen Schneiders
Transportation
Planner
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 47 Intersection Improvement Project. In
order to maximize leveraging RAMP funding, Weld County will match this request at fifty percent
(50%). By doing so, this project will further the goals of RAMP which are to leverage funds to
address critical needs to the State Highway System. The total project cost for this application is
$3,685,180. Weld County's RAMP request is for $1,842,590 with the County matching the
remaining $1,842,590.
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.
Very truly yours,
BOAaQP,i%
Douglas Rademacher, Pro Tern
N7.111MM[RS
William F. Garcia, Chair
(mat LLi. ./w,.„,_
Mike Freeman
cc: Monica Mika
Elizabeth Relford
Sept. Coway-y
1 24.010.
Barbara Kirkmeyer
SH 392 AND WCR 47 INTERSECTION
RAMP PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
SH 14
co
co
D
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT LOCATION
SH 392
US 34 BUS
GREELEY
US 34
��JUCR 60.5
SH 26?
(J
WCR 49 EXTENSION
•
rn
eC
0
US 3
WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE
Project Name
WCR 47/SH 392
Project Limits
INTERSECTION
DATE
RAMP REQUESTED AMOUNT (50%)
22 -Apr -13
$1,842,590
WELD COUNTY MATCH (50%)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$1,842,590
$3,685,180
Design
2013
ROW
2014
Const.
2015
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
UNIT
UNIT COST
QUANTITY
TOTAL
CLEARING, GRUBBING, & REMOVALS
LS
$85,000
1
$85,000
EXCAVATION
CY
$5
13,000
$65,000
DRAINAGE & IRRIG. ITEMS
LS
$75,000
1
$75,000
EMBANKMENT
CY
$10
17,600
$176,000
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (6")
TON
$15
18,000
$270,000
HOT MIX ASPHALT (9")
TON
$65
7,500
$487,500
CONCRETE PAVEMENT (11")
SY
$42
24,780
$1,040,760
SIGNING AND STRIPING
LS
$25,000
1
$25,000
MOBILIZATION AND FIELD OFFICE
LS
$100,000
1
$100,000
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
LS
$25,000
1
$25,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
$50,000
1
$50,000
CONSTR. INSPECTION &TESTING
LS
$210,000
1
$210,000
UTILITY RELOCATIONS
LS
$150,000
1
$150,000
Subtotal
$2,759,260
CONTINGENCY (15%)
$400,920
Subtotal
$3,160,180
R.O.W. AND UTILITY COSTS
UNIT
UNIT COST
QUANTITY
TOTAL
R.O.W. ACQUISITION
AC
$20,000
10
$200,000
R.O.W. ACQUISITION SERVICES
EA
$5,000
10
$50,000
Subtotal
$250,000
GRANT COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL
$3,410,180
LA OVERMATCH
UNIT
UNIT COST
QUANTITY
TOTAL
DESIGN
LS
$275,000
1
$275,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$3,685,180
WCR 47 const. extends 2064' south of CL of SH 392
WCR 47 ROW area = 165,120sf 3.79ac (south)
WCR 47 const. extends 1365' north of CL of SH 392
WCR 47 ROW area = 109,200sf 2.51ac (north)
SH 392 const. extends 1350' east & west of CL of WCR 47
SH 392 ROW area = 162,000sf 3.72ac
CDOT Maintenance 392 and CR 47
Agtjy_
152 FlexPavPatch/MinorRepairs
153 RigidPavPatch/MinorRepairs
154 MachinePatchOverlayLeveling
156 HandCrackSealingFlexPave
157 HandCrackSealingRigidPave
158 RotomillingFlexiblePavement
160 SealCoatingChipSand
162 BladingUnpavedSurfaceShoulder
163 BuildingRestoringUnpavedShldr
164 BaseStabilizationRepair
202 DrainStructureCleanMtceRepair
203 CleanDrainStruct-Dirt Removal
206 MaintDitchesStreambeds
210 Slope Repair
215 RoadKillCleanup
216 FenceGateCattleguardMaint
218 LitterBarrelTrashCleanup
220 Sweeping - Machine
222 Sweeping - Hand
252 Veg Control - Dry Land
254 VegControlHandWeedingChemical
256 VegControlHerbicidePesticide
260 TreePlantingRemovalTrimming
302 Single Post Signs
304 Del Post Mtce
306 MetalGuardRailMtce/Repair
308 PavementStriping-Machine
310 PavementStriping-Hand
329 CourtesyAssistance
402 SnowRemovalSand
404 SnowFencelnstallRepair
406 SnowRemovalSpecialEquip
r�Type _peS�n
Mire Total Cost 5 Year average Cost per 1 mile stretch
Square Yard 45,370.40 $9,074.08 $346.74
Square Yard 1,720.94 $344.19 $13.15
US ton 482,440.49 $96,488.10 $3,686.97
US gallon 100,925.03 $20,185.01 $771.30
US gallon 481.15 $96.23 $3.68
Square Yard 5,114.41 $1,022.88 $39.09
Square Yard 93,235.92 $18,647.18 $712.54
Mile 24,012.67 $4,802.53 $183.51
Linear Feet 30,878.42 $6,175.68 $235.98
Cubic yard 1,031.68 $206.34 $7.88
each 72,469.97 $14,493.99 $553.84
US ton 108.86 $21.77 $0.83
Linear Feet 27,293.50 $5,458.70 $208.59
Cubic yard 5,463.67 $1,092.73 $41.76
each 234.61 $46.92 $1.79
Linear Feet 11,215.25 $2,243.05 $85.71
Cubic yard 20,848.60 $4,169.72 $159.33
Mile 1,336.06 $267.21 $10.21
Hours 706.20 $141.24 $5.40
Mile 38,773.80 $7,754.76 $296.32
Hours 9,928.23 $1,985.65 $75.87
Acre 2,976.61 $595.32 $22.75
each 7,281.78 $1,456.36 $55.65
each 59,829.47 $11,965.89 $457.24
each 108,851.85 $21,770.37 $831.88
Linear Feet 4,471.79 $894.36 $34.17
Mile 32,536.77 $6,507.35 $248.66
Square foot 13,924.24 $2,784.85 $106.41
Hours 3,106.17 $621.23 $23.74
Mile 97,898.02 $19,579.60 $748.17
Linear Feet 269.71 $53.94 $2.06
Hours 813.44 $162.69 $6.22
$9,977.45
t
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 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. 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 1-76 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, 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.
Sincerely,
Danny Kipp, Mayor
140 SOUTH MAIN P.O. BOX 312 KEENESBURG, COLORADO 80643
PHONE 303-732-4281 FAX 303-732-0599
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. h u dsoncolorado. orq
John Olson
Region 4 Transportation Director
Colorado Department of Transportation
1420 2"d 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
erse
ra4.1ft.i9P
April 25, 2013
Colorado Department of Transportation
Mr. Johnny Olson, RID Region 4
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO
332 3`d Street P.O. Box 657 Kersey, CO 80644
Office -970-353-1681 Fax -970-353-2197
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 Kersey
Utdui
ob Kellerhuis, Mayor BB
Coralie Slusher, Mayor Pro -Tern
Christopher Smith, Trustee
Gary Mount
Sheri Olk
Jeff
z""
Hello