HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2007 0117 CC REG ITEM 09HITEM 9-
L
No Written Report
on
Consider Proposed Letter to Ventura County
Transportation Commission Pertaining to
Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement
for State Route 118 1 mprovement
000041L
DRAFT ITEM 9.1-1.
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
January 11, 2007
John Flynn, Chair
Ventura County Transportation Commission
950 County Square Drive, Suite 207
Ventura, CA 93003
Dear Mr. Flynn:
The city of Moorpark supports the improvement of State Route 118 (SR 118) from its
city limits to Saticoy. To this end, Moorpark has undertaken a number of projects that
will result in six (6) travel lanes from State Route 23 (SR 23) freeway to approximately
Tierra Rejada Road and four (4) travel lanes from Tierra Rejada Road to the west city
limits.
We understand that to continue with the needed safety improvements on SR 118 west
of Moorpark, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed.
Caltrans has stated that such an EIS is estimated to take 48 to 60 months to prepare
and process through required public hearings and cost in excess of $5 million. At the
present time, Caltrans' budgeted projects do not include funding for the EIS.
The Moorpark City Council believes that initiation of the process to improve SR 118 is
imperative. We support all efforts of the Ventura County Transportation Commission to
fund the needed EIS. Your consideration of this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Patrick Hunter
Mayor
SK:db
c: The Honorable City Council
Steven Kueny, City Manager
M: \CITYMGR \VCTC Ltr - Mpk supports improv to SR 118 - 0110 2007.doc
PUBtLIC WOM<-,'S AGENCY
�
ourrty of ventura
Representing Ex- officio:
tr =nb.ra County Mood Con`rol District
Ventura County Waterworks Districts
No. 1, o, 1', and 19
sake Snei wood Community Services District
_c Ca,-,yon Groundwater Management Agency
February 10, 1997
Ken Gilbert
Director of Public Works
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
FEE 12 W7
Director
+of moogxrk >ai . Gouiet
. V E
7 ,
1 Lr'`
Deputy Directors
'v`„f!iam 2. Br;P
'! raosoona?icr,
John C Craw!e,
Robert E. it ,nn. Jr
Engir.� �nnq Sardic?s
Paul W'. Ruf "I
Central Services
A'3 s., y
SUBJECT: REALIGNMENT - HITCH BOULEVARD/ GRIMES CANYON
ROAD AT STATE ROUTE 118
Dear Ken:
Attached for your information is a copy of the feasibility analysis for realignment of Hitch
Boulevard/ Grimes Canyon Road at State Route 118. It should be emphasized that this
is a feasibility analysis only, and that detail design may reveal additional considerations,
which could significantly affect the project feasibility or cost.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please call me at (805)
654 -2077.
Very truly yo s,
V
i
Wm. Butch ritt
Deputy Director of Public Works
Transportation Department
WBa.a4o:sa
Attachment
C'. Arthur E. Goulet
800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura. CA 93009 -1600
FAX ;805; 664 -3352
HITCH BOULEVARD
GRIMES CANYON ROAD
AT
STATE HIGHWAY 118
ROAD REALIGNMENT
AND
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
(Project Number: 50077)
County of Ventura
Public Works Agency
Transportation Department
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, California 93009
August 1996
Pt,)TBt.,IC WORKS AGENCY
MANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUMMARY:,
The Transportation Department has evaluated the road realignment and intersection improvements
of Hitch Boulevard and Grimes Canyon Road at State Route 118. We evaluated the five alternative
alignments summarized below:
Alternative A - Realise Hitch Boulevard .
Alternative A would realign Hitch Boulevard between the existing intersection of Grimes Canyon
Road at State Route 118 and Hitch Boulevard bridge crossing of the Arroyo Las Posas. The total
project cost estimate using local design standards is $811,000 including engineering and design, right-
of-way acquisition, corstruction and construction admi n�stration. Amunfing Calt_rans pays fc 50x':
M the traffic signal costs, the local share would be $761,000. This is the recommended alignmert
should the proposed project be pursued without federal funding. The Assessors' roll shows that
James Birkenshaw et al owns the land. Since Hitch Boulevard is not on the federal aid designated
system, this alternative would not be eligible for federal funding.
Alternative B - Realign Hitch Boulevard and Grimes Canyon Road
Alternative B would realign Grimes Canyon Road and Hitch Boulevard with the realignment
intersecting State Route 118 at the quarter -point along State Route 118 between Grimes Canyon
Road and Hitch Boulevard. The realignment connects to the existing Grimes Canyon Road and latch
Boulevard. The total project cost estimate for this alternative (using federal design standards) would
be $1,255,000. The additional costs for this alternative are due to the reconstruction of three culvert
crossings and the new railroad crossing including the relocation of the existing railroad crossing guard
gates. This alterative alignment is feasible only if the SPT Co Railroad and the California Public
Utilities Commission approve a new at -grade crossing and the abandonment of the existing at -grade
crossing. The Assessors' roll shows that the Mormon Church and James Birkenshaw et al own the
land this alternative alignment crosses.
Alternative-BI - Realign Hitch Boulevard and Grimes Canyon Road
Alternative B i is a variation of Alternative B above that would realign Grimes Canyon Road and
Hitch Boulevard with the realignment intersecting State Route 118 at the midpoint along State Route
118 between Grimes Canyon Road and Hitch Boulevard. The total project cost estimate for this
alternative (using federal design standards) would be $1,265,000. The additional costs for this
alternative are due to the slightly greater length of the roadway.
Alternative B2 - Reali n Hitch Boulevard and Grimes Canyon Road
Alternative B2 is another variation of Alternative B that would realign Grimes Canyon Road and
Hitch Boulevard with the realignment intersecting State Route 118 at the three quarter -point along
State Route 118 between Grimes Canyon Road and Hitch Boulevard. The total project cost estimate
for this alternative (using federal design standards) would be $1,755,000. The additional costs for
this alternative are due to the purchase and demolition of two structures on the James Birkenshaw
Property.
Alternative C - Realign Grimes Capon Road
Alternative C would realign Grimes Canyon Road between the existing intersection of Hitch
Boulevard at State Route 118 and connecting to the existing Grimes Canyon Road. The total project
cost estimate for this alternative (using federal standards) would be $1,130,000. The additional costs
for this alternative are due to the reconstruction of three culvert crossings, the reconstruction of a
driveway at 5440 Grimes Canyon Road, and the new railroad crossing including the relocation of the
existing railroad crossing guard gates. Assuming federal funds are used, the federal share would be
$904,000, the state share would be $10,000 and local share would be $216,000. This alignment is
2
t fr�'_.r, ii't c'.e�al fe nds ca:, be u a R ealigning G.irmes fl_m on l sad is feasible only it' the Sf'_1
Co Railroad and California Public Utilities C'omunission apps ove an additional at- grade crossing and
the abandonment of the existing at -grade crossing. Gaining approval of a new railroad at- grade
crossing would be a difficult and time - consuming process. However, if time and federal funding are
available, the impact on the Road Fund would warrant the additional effort. The Assessors' role
shows that the Mormon Church and John and Mary Walls own the land.
BACKGROUND:
We used Ventura County Road Standard Plate B -7B (rural collector) for the Hitch Boulevard
realignment. Meeting the minimum curve radius of 550 feet is feasible. Plate B -7B shows a design
speed of 40 mph for a rural collector.
Grimes Canyon Road is classified as a rural collector on the Regional Road Network of the General
Plan and as a major collector on the Federal Highway System. Constructing Grimes Canyon Road
to federal standards would be necessary (i.e., 40 -foot paved width). Hitch Boulevard is classified as
a rural community minor road on the Regional Road Network of the General Plan and is not included
on the Federal Highway System. Since Hitch Boulevard is not on the Federal Highway System, it
would not be eligible for federal funding unless we can tie it in as a safety improvement to State
Route 118, To realize the anticipated safety benefits to State Route 118, the realignment of Hitch
Boulevard under alternatives B, B 1 and B2 would be necessary.
Traffic counts from 1995 show the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Hitch Boulevard was 2,300
vehicles per day with a PM peak hour traffic of 230 vehicles per hour. Grimes Canyon Road has a
1995 ADT of 1,600 vehicles per day with a PM peak of 160 vehicles per hour. This will increase
with development of the Country Club Estates project in Moorpark. The Regional Road Network
projects Grimes Canyon Road to have an ADT of 2,000 vehicles per day in the year 2010. The 2010
Regional Road Network does not show Hitch Boulevard. Plate B -7B shows a design capacity of
4,000 vehicles per day for a rural collector. Actual capacity would be much higher. Therefore,
capacity of the two lane roadways should not be a constraint.
If Hitch Boulevard or Grimes Canyon Road is realigned to form a four -way intersection, signalization
of the intersection would be warranted. Signalization would require cooperation with Caltrans. It
is assumed that Caltrans would pay for 50% of the signalization costs including the costs of design
and administration. Caltrans has not been contacted regarding this project.
Contact has not been initiated with the property owners with whom a major issue will be providing
access between the resulting split parcels or compensation for severance of their parcels.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) if federal funding is not used, Alterative A (the realignment. of Hitch Boulevard) is
recommended for further study. The total project cost estimate is $811,000 assuming County
design standards apply. If federal funds are not available, the entire cost would be State and
local share. Assuming Caltrans pays for 50% of the signalization cost, the local share would
b-- $761,00 10. 11he cost i reakdUoin betixecn j*t;risd".=�t:o s Is'.
Federal share $ 0
State share $ 50,000
Local share $761,000
Total project cost estimate $811,900
b) If federal funding is used, Alternative C (the realignment of Grimes Canyon Road) is
recommended for further study. The total project cost estimate is $1,130,000 assuming
federal design standards apply. Assuming the federal share of the total project cost is 80 %,
the State and local share would be $226,000. The cost breakdown between jurisdictions is:
Federal share $ 904,000
State share $ 10,000
Local share 1 216.000
Total project cost estimate $L130,00
Additional issues that need to be resolved include:
• Taking of agricultural land for the road purposes.
• Coordination with the Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and Flood
Control District.
• Getting Caltrans concurrence for construction in their right -of -way.
• Caltrans funding agreement for the traffic signal.
• Meeting with the property owners and right -of -way acquisition.
• Agreement with SPT Co Railroad to construct a new railroad crossing at Grimes
Canyon Road, if Alternative C is pursued.
• Source(s) of local funding for the project.
wBB/RBB/DRF
HITCH-MENU 07:s&\02-10-97
ll
/
^
8�
Ld
a_ LLJ
rr
gelb-
I
. 6 0'
4101
PLATE B -7
REVISION; - --
- 10'
r-FOG SEAL COAT
\.�
211— 596 L 2% SLOPE 2% SLOPE 5% 2-1
AC. PMB SS
EXTEND PMB a SS -PRIME COAT
UNDER SHOULDER
DESIGN CRITERIA B_7 A B -7 B
RURAL COLLECTOR
TRAFFIC INDEX 7.0 6.5
ADT IN 20 YEARS, MAX .8000 4000
DESIGN SPEED(MPH) 50 40
CURVE RADIUS, MIN(FT) PER PLATE D -2 550
GRADIENT, MIN /MAX( %)
(SEE PLATE B -!b) 1.0 /10.0 1.0112.0
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE(FT) 440 300
SUPERELEVATION. MAX 0.11 NONE
ADOPTED BY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS- iiC
APP /ED- /t /,J
/DIR.PUB.WKS.
RECOMMENDED:
2IZ2 P_CC 5134 Expire,- 12/31 /88
COUNTY . OF VENTURA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
ROAD STANDARDS
RURAL ROADS
WITHOUT CURBS
1
60'
46'
40'
T 3' 8' i i2' i�` 8' 3'
T
MIN. f
M! N.
40' PAVEMENT
4 4' AT LEFT TURN LANE
SO' R/W MIN.
LEFT TURN LANES AT'
ALL INTERSECTIONS
2 LANES
OVER 5000 A.D.T.
APQROVI!or
COUNTY OF VENTURA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
2010
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
ROAD STANDARDS—
Los Angeles Ave. (S.P. 118)
Grimes Canyon Rd./ Hitch Blvd.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
this review is based on the methodology presented in the Manual
3P Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1978, as amended by
:he Federal Highway Administration. Please refer to part 4C of
:hat manual.
the intersection under study has the following characteristics:
Vhe 85th percentile speed on the
;xisting traffic control is . .
)aily traffic volume of [23,921]
ionday, April 22, 1996.
stimated annual traffic volume
INTERSECTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
main street is [ 60 ] MPH.
SIDE STREET STOP.
was counted on
is [8,731,166] vehicles.
'he installation of a traffic signal may be necessary to control
to intersection with large volumes of conflicting traffic. The
•equired traffic volumes must be present for at least 8 hours of
in average weekday. The minimum volumes vary according to the
Lumber of lanes on the intersecting streets, the speed of traffic
►n the main street, and the community size.
cumber of hours required traffic present = 4
Tarrant 1 is NOT SATISFIED.
. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
in major streets with high traffic volume, it may be necessary to
.se traffic signal control to provide an adequate number of gaps
.n traffic to allow vehicles to enter from a side street. The
.pplication of this warrant is identical to that of warrant 1,
.hove.
'umber of hours required traffic present = 13
`arrant 2 is SATISFIED.
. CROSSING PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
his warrant is similar to warrant 2, but is intended to identify
ovations where additional gaps are needed to provide safe pedes-
rian crossing of a major street. A signal installed solely for
edestrians should use a fully actuated controller and, if in a
ignal system, be coordinated with that system. A signal in-
talled only under this warrant shall include pedestrian signals.
hen installed at a midblock location, additional restrictions
apply (See section 4C -5).
umber of hours required traffic present = 0
arrant 3 is NOT APPLICABLE.
4 . SCHOO< r' CROSSING
A- established school crossing may require signal protection if
a� anginearing study reveals that there is less than one gap per
minute during the period of crossing usage. The restrictions on
signals installed under this warrant are similar to those of
warrant 3.
WAP.RANT 4 IS NOT APPLICABLE.
a. SIGNAL PROGRESSION
A traffic signal may occasionally be used to maintain vehicle
grouping in a coordinated system. Such a signal should not be
within 1,000 FT of adjacent signalized intersections in the
system.
Warrant 5 is NOT APPLICABLE.
G. ACCIDENT PREVENTION
Many traffic signals are installed on the premise of reducing
accidents; however, it must be recognized that signals may
actually increase some types of accidents. The result is often
contrary to the intended goal. Four conditions must be met
before a signal is installed solely to reduce accidents:
(1) There has been five or more accidents of types
preventable by traffic signals in the last 12
months;
(2) at least one volume requirement of warrant 8
must be satisfied;
(3) traffic progression would not be seriously
disrupted, and
(4) less restrictive solutions have been tried and
enforced with unsatisfactory results.
A signal installed solely under this warrant should be traffic
actuated.
Total number of accidents = 0
Number of preventable accidents = 0
Accident rate is 0 per million vehicles
Number of warrant 8 volume requirements met 1
Parts 1 and 2 are NOT SATISFIED.
7. TRH EI'C SYSTEM OPERATIOU
T- ffic signal control may be used to encourage concentration
a�_. organization of vehicles on the major street network. Such
a signal may be installed at the intersection of two major
routes as defined by section 4C -9 of the MUTCD, with a total
volume of 800 vehicles during the typical peak weekday hour, or
for five (5) weekend hours.
;arrant 7 is NOT APPLICABLE.
8. COMBINA'T'ION OF WARRANTS
in exceptional cases, signal control may be justified where no
single warrant is satisfied, but where at least two of warrants
1, 2, or 3 are met when the required volumes are reduced to 80%
Df normal. Adequate trial of other measures which cause less
lelay and inconvenience must be tried and enforced first,
number of warrants satisfied at the 80% level = 1
lolume requirements for warrant 8 are NOT SATISFIED.
a. FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
Vhis warrant was approved as an amendment to the MUTCD on
)ecember 31, 1984. This warrant is similar to warrant 1, except
:hat the required traffic volumes must be present for at least
eour hours of an average weekday. The traffic volumes required
i based on curves (Figures 4 -3 & 4 -4) shown in the MUTCD.
Aarrant 9 is SATISFIED.
_0. PEAK HOUR DELAY
'his warrant was approved as an amendment to the MUTCD on
)ecember 31, 1984. This warrant is intended for application
;here traffic conditions will cause undue delay to traffic
?ntering or crossing the main street. The peak hour delay
;arrant is satisfied when the following conditions exist for
)ne hour (any four consecutive 15- minute periods) of an average
lay:
(1) The total delay by the traffic on a side street
controlled by a stop sign equals or exceeds four
vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach;
(2) the volume on the-side street equ
100 VPH for one moving lane of
150 VPH for two moving lanes;
(3) the total traffic volume serviced
equals or exceeds 800 VPH for an
with four (or more) approaches or
three approaches.
sls or exceeds
traffic and
during 1 hour
intersection
650 VPH for
!arrant - 10
Part 1 - Delay to be determined by traffic engineer.
P,Art 2 SATISFIED
Part _1 SATISFJE-�
11. PEA,K HOUR GOLTU iE
T' ' s ;warrant was approved as an amendment to the MUTLD on
D•_ .ember 31, 1984. This warrant applies to traffic entering
fron the minor street which encounters undue delay crossing the
main street. This warrant is satisfied when the main street
and side street traffic volumes satisfy the curves (Figures 4 -5
and 4°-6) shown in the MbicD.
Warrant 11 IS SATISFIED.
TABLE I
I'WENTY-FOUR HOUR VEHICULAR 'TRAFFIC EVALUATION
WARRANTS 1, 2 AND
8
HOUR
MAIN ST,
SIDE ST.
WARRANT
WARRANT
WARRANT
8
OF
DAY
--
VOLUME
VOLUME
1
2
PART 1
PART 2
-2
r
157
3
_-
_- __-__.,�___-�,_
®__-
1
AM
96
3
2
ABM
101
2
3
AM
120
8
4
AM
208
15
5
AM
667
47
MAIN
MAIN
MAIN
BOTH
6
AM
1500
124
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
7
AM
1638
152
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
8
AM
1281
109
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
9
AM
1059
83
MAIN
BOTH
MAIN
BOTH
10
AM
1043
62
MAIN
BOTH
MAIN
BOTH
11
AM
1179
75
MAIN
BOTH
MAIN
BOTH
12
PM
1114
77
MAIN
BOTH
MAIN
BOTH
1
PM
1166
77
MAIN
BOTH
MAIN
BOTH
2
PM
1244
80
MAIN
BOTH
MAIN
BOTH
3
PM
1562
91
MAIN
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
4
PM
1764
94
MAIN
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
5
PM
1889
135
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
6
PM
1314
70
MAIN
BOTH
MAIN
BOTH
7
PM
804
52
MAIN
MAIN
MAIN
BOTH
3
PM
491
35
MAIN
MAIN
MAIN
9
PM
500
32
MAIN
MAIN
MAIN
10
PM
330
18
MAIN
11
PM
187
6
REQUIRED
VOLUMES:
MAIN STREET
350
525
280
420
SIDE STREET
105
53
84
42
NOTE: SIDE STREET
VOLUMES SHOWN
ARE FOR EACH HOUR'S
PEAT{ APPROACH.
L, A'; .3 a 1 e A v,_. ( _. , R . 118 )
Grimes L:3:°1`r'on did Hitch h c`31-/d ,
COUNTS TAKEN ON Monday, April 22, 1996.
** ** MAIN STREET * * **
?
* ***
SIDE STREET
* * **
INTER -
HOUR �
PEAK
BIAS
TOTAL
PEAK
PEAK
�
SECTION
OF
De�4
r- �
TTOTAL
VOLUME DIRECTN
------ -------
PRCNT
_��
�
VOLUME
DIRECTN
VOLUME
VOLUME
12
AM
157 west
-_
, - -� --
-------
EVEN
- .__,:
163
1
AM
96 west
69
6
EVEN
3
102
2
AM
101 west
52
2
north
2
103
3
AM
120 west
54
8
north
8
128
4
AM
208 east
53
23
north
15
231
5
AM
667 east
57
91
south
47
758
6
AM
1500 east
55
236
south
124
1736
7
AM
1638 east
55
278
north
152
1916
8
AM
1281 west
50
187
north
109
1458
9
AM
1059 west
53
151
north
83
1210
10
AM
1043 west
53
113
north
62
1156
11
AM
1179 west
55
126
north
75
1305
12
PM
1114 west
59
126
north
77
1240
1
PM
1166 west
54
133
north
77
1299
2
PM
1244 west
57
159
north
80
1403
3
PM
1562 west
55
168
south
91
1730
4
PM
1764 west
55
173
south
94
1937
5
PM
1889 west
54
193
north
135
2082
6
PM
1314 west
52
118
north
70
1432
PM
804 west
58
82
north
52
886
8
PM
491 west
56
54
north
35
545
9
PM
500 west
56
40
north
32
540
10
PM
330 west
57
26
north
18
356
11
PM
187 west
59
8
north
6
195
TOTAL INTERSECTION VOLUME IS
23,921
MAIN
STREET
TOTAL VOLUME IS
21,414
eastBOUND APPROACH IS
10,097 (
47
$)
westBOUND APPROACH IS
11,317 (
53
�)
SIDE
STREET
TOTAL VOLUME IS
2,507
southBOUND APPROACH IS
1,101 (
44
%)
northBOUND APPROACH IS
1,406 (
56
�)
REPORT PRODUCED WEDNESDAY,
APRIL 241
1996.
COUNTS TAKEN ON Monday, April 22, 1996.
-TUP
('O�'NT)'TR,,,-kNSI'OR-UA-'I10ti DFPARTNIE j
A 1A A NCE D P LANNLNG S E CTI ON
PRELUNIT-NARY ENGfNEER#S ESTIMATE
SUNTINIARA'SHEEN' tt 0
PROTEC-r-, Ahernafive A - Re&hfign Hitch Boulevard PROJECT No- 5-00-77 SHEET. -1 of I
REACH.- 'aSR 118 CAI,CULATED BY- FUten DATE; :vn
LOCATION: UnhwomorakdArea of Moornark C-lHrFCKFD HY• R�,. 4- n A rvr,-
I
A-
CONSTRUCTION: -
I I
1. Mobilization@ 5%
1
---
- - --
25,000
$25,000
0wo
2. Clear and Grub (1828 ft x 60 ft)
109,680
SF
0
0
05
5
6,000
00
3. Remove/Dispose existing Hitch Blvd (I 200ft x20ft)
24,W)
SF
0
5 0
50
12,000
00
4. 0V0rexc8vatiow`RwMqwtion (1828ft x 40P. x 4ft)
10,832
CY
7
00
76,OW
00
5. Asphaltic Concrete, Base Course, and Sub-Base.
58,4%
SF
3
W
175,OW
00
6. Drainage
ge
I's
12,000
00
00
12,000
00
7. Utility Adjustment
I
L'S
5,000
00
5,000
00
& Striping, Signing and Pavement Marking
I
LS
5,000
- 00
5,0001
00
9. Traffic Control and Safety
I
LS
5'000
00
500
I
W
10- Traffic Signal
I
LS
80,000
00
80,000
00
11. Miscellaneous Items
I
I's
15,000
0()
15,(Xx)
Lo
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
00
B.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
1. Land Acquisition 0828 ft x 60 ft)
2.51
AC
00
$75,000
00
2. R/W Administration
-
I
LS
F30,000
5,000
00
5�000
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY:
202
C.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT @ 50N
1
LS
30,000 i
00
D.
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES 15%
1
LS
80,000
00
IN —000
E.
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN AND INSp@100/,
1
—
LS
-------------
55,000
00
U:0=02
22
F.
CONTINGENCIES @ 25%
1
LS
150,000
00
150,000 i 0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
J TRAN
I "SPORTA'"FiON DEPARI'.M.LN'f
NDVANCED SEC PI—AXNENG ION
L 'T
PRELMMARY ENGWEER'S ESTIMATE
SVININURY SHEET •
PROJFC1: ut�ert PROJECT NO:
IW77 - SHEET. -I of I
REACH: Ifth Blvd &Gd=LQaLPd g5E 119 CALCULATED BY:
LOCATION. rea of mark CHECKED BY:
fk!M— DATE.- p. 5101/96
R.—,wt- V% a mnL.
. . . . . . . . . .
---------
---
AL
1. Mobilization @ 5%
1
LS
25,000
00
$25,000
60
2. Clear and Grub (2485 ft x 60 ft)
149,100
SF
0
05
7,000
00
3. Re►nove/Dispose existing roadway (2070ft x20ft)
41,400
SF
0
50
21,000
(,0
4- OverM&vation/Rwompaction (248511 x 40ft x Oft)
14,726
CY
7
00
103,000
00
5. Asphaltic Concrete, Base Course, and Sub-Base.
79,520
SF
3
00
.239,000 -
00
6. Drainage (including culverts)
I
LS
25,000
00
25,000
5,000
06,
i 00
7. Utility Adjustment
I
LS
5,000
00
8. Striping, Signing and Pavement Marking
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
Oo
9. Traffic Control and Safety
I
LIS
5,000
0wo
5,000
00
10. Traffic Signal
LS
80,000
00
80,000
00
11. New RR Crossing, Inserts, Relocate Guard Crates
I
LS
50,000
00
50,0()0
0()
12. Miscellaneous Items
I
i's
15,000
00
15,000
QO
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
--
1580.000
00
B.
RIGHT -OF -WAY
1. Land Acquisition (2485 ft x 60 ft)
3.42
AC
30,000
00
$103,000
00
2. R/W Administration
I
LS
5,000
00
5.000
QQ
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY:
C.
ENVIRONMENTAI, CONSU[,T.kW Ca, 5%
1
LS
30,000
oo
30 V
()0
D.
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES @ 15%
1
LS
80,000
00
80.000
�U
E.
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN AND fNSp 10%
1
LS
55,000
00
00
F.
CONTMENCIES @ 25%
1
LS
150,000
00
150
Q-0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
3 0-00
29
t RA t'OUNTIr -TRk-N-SPORTATION DFPA-1tTATF-i-,-1
ADVANCED PLAN'-NING SEC'TIO'N
PRE 1, ]-.NMN-.ARY ENGFNE-URS ESTMIAT F
SUNTALARY SHEET
PRWECT-, Altemativr D1 --E�eajfgnment --- PROJECT NO: 50077 SIIEET.
REACH: Witch Blvd &G i �f
11.
!.Q!Rd (RSR 118 CALCULATED BY:
LOCATION: Uniucarnoraicd Arcs gf Moorpark CHECKED BY;
0aiM- DATE: ft !01 J96
Brownie nATV. nalft I MI-1
6- Drainage (including culverts)
I
I's
25,000
00
25,000
-
00
A.
CONSTRUCTION
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
00
1. Mobilization @ 50/.
I
LS
25,000
DO
S25,000
00
00
2. Clear and Grub (2525 ft x 60 ft)
151,500
SF
0
05
8,000
00
00
3. RernovmOjspose existing roadway (2170ft x20ft)
43,400
SF
0
50
22,000
�
1 00
T-
00
4, OvefexcavatiOn/Recompaction (2525ft x 408 x 411)
14,962
CY
7
00
105,000
00
00
5. Asphaltic concrete, Base Course, and Sub-Base.
80,800
SF
3
00
242,000
00
6- Drainage (including culverts)
I
I's
25,000
00
25,000
-
00
Utility Adjustment
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
00
8- Striping, Signing and Pavement Marking
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
00
9. Traffic Control and Safety
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
00
10. Traffic Signal
I
LS
80,000
oo
80,000
T-
00
11. New RR Crossing, Inserts, Relocate Guard Cates
I
LS
50,000
00
50,000
00
12. Miscellaneous Items
I
LS
15,000
oo
15,000
00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
587 000
00
R
RIGHT-OF-WAY
1. Land Acquisition (2525 ft x 60 ft)
3.48
AC
-----------
30,000
00
$104,000
00
2. R/W Administration
I
LS
5,000
00
5.000
00
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY:
109.000
C.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Ca 5%
1
LS
30,000
D.
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES@ 15%
1
LS
80,000
00
$80.000
00
E.
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN AND INsp loo
1
LS
55,000
00
"00 0
F.
CONTINGENCIES Ca, 25%
1
LS
150,000
00
$150,000
00
t
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
I
O1
QQ
COUNTN'TRANSPORTATION DEPNIRTNIFNI
ADVANCED PLA-N-*fING SECTIWj
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S ESTI.M-A,rF,
S t IMAUR V SKEET
PRWEC-r: PROJECT NO: 5"77
-__ SHE FT: -1- of I
REACH: Ffitcb-Blvd &Grimes QMR rx9RI18 CALCULATED BY: Flaten DATE- ."M1,196
LOCATION. UllinMorated A MoorDark CHRMY-D BY,
A.
.
. . . . . . . . . .
I. Mobilization @ 5%
1
LS
00
$25,000
cA)
2. Clear and Grub (2485 ft x 60 ft)
149,100
SF
0
05
7,000
cx)
3. Remove/Dispose existing roadway (2070 11 x20ft)
41,400
SF
0
50
21,000
i (jo
4. ()vmxcavation/Racompaction (2495 ft x 40ft x 4ft)
14,726
C y
7
00
103,000
(N,)
5. Asphaltic Concrete, Base Course, and Sub-Base,
79,520
SF
3
00
239,000
25,000
00
(10
6. Drainage (including culverts)
I
LS
25,000
00
7 Utility Adjustment
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
5,000
0U
C'�)
8. Striping, Signing and Pavement Marking
I
LS
5,000
00
9. Traffic Control and Safety
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
00
I - 0. -- Traffic Signal
I
LS
80,000
00
80,000
00
I I . New RR Crossing, Inserts, Relocate Guard Gates
I
LS
50,0()0
00 .
50,000
-
100
12. Miscellaneous Items
I
LS
15,000
00
I 5_0 X01
LO
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
580 000
B.
RIGHT -0F -WAY
$103,000
5,000
W
00
1. Land Acquisition (2485 ft x 60 ft)
3.42
AC
30,000
oo
2. R/W Administration
I
LS
5,000
00
3. . Purchase and Demolish Structures
2
EA
200,000
oo
400,000
TOTAL RIGHT-O&WAY:
0
00
C.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT @ 5%
1
LS
30,000
oo
31000
LID
D.
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES @ 15%
1
LS
00
j80 000
Go
F.
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN AND INSP @ 10%
I
I's
55,000
00
$55,000
00
F.
CONTINGENCIES @ 25%
1
LS
150,000
00
11,403."
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
VENTURA COUNTN" TRANSPORTATION DEPARI
"kDVANCED PLANNING SECTION
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE,
SU.MNLA.RY SHEET
FRS CT. Alternative C - Realign Grimej C" Rd PROJECT LINO: SIUFT
REACH., Hitch Blvd K Grimes
CALCULATED BY:
LOCATION., UjdncpM=ted Area "00rDsrk C1iECK�D BY
OIL"
Flaten DATE: 07f-22*6
R 1. T% • MID. -
CQMJ&V��
A.
1. Mobilization @ 5%
1
LS 25,000.
00
$25,000
W
2. Clear and Grub (1957 ft x 60 ft)
117,420
SF 0
j 05
6,000
00
3. Remove/Dispose existing Grimes Rd (1300 ft x 20 ft)
26,000
SF
0
50
13,000
CIO
4. ()verexcavatiOn/Rmanpaction (1957 ft x 40 ft x 4 ft)
--
11,597
Cy
7
00
81,000
w
5, Asphaltic COncrde, B&w Course, and Sub-Base.
62,624
SF
3
00
188,000
00
6. Dminage (including culverts)
I
LS
25,000
00
25,000
00
7. Reconstruct Driveway and Relocate Gate
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
00
& Utility Adjustment
I
LS
5,000
1 00
5,000
N
9. Striping, Signing and Pavement Marking
I
LS
5,000
00
5,000
00
10. Traffic Control and Safety
I
IS
5,000
00
5000
00
11. Traffic Signal
I
LS
80,000
00
80,000
Oo
12. New RR Crossing, Inserts, Relocate Guard Gates
I
LS
50,000
00
50,000
00
13. Miscellaneous Items
I
LS
15,000
0()
15,000
00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT:
00
B.
RIGHT-O&WAY
I. Land Acquisition (1957 ft x 60 ft)
2.70
AC
30,000
00
$81,000
00
2. R/W Administration
LS
5,000
00
5&9
9-0
TOTAL RIGHT-O&WAY:
sk -000
00
C.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT @ 5%
1
LS
30,000
00
j&;w)
0()
D:
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERIVICES (a-.) 15%
1
LS
80,000
00
u-0 -(3w I
2)-
E.
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN AND INSP Ca, 10%
1
LS
55,000
00
55,000
00
F.
CONTINGENCIES @ 25%
1
LS
150,000
00
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
m(no-
Transport-aticif 17)epa —nerl-t
PROJECT NAME:
SPEC. NO.: PRO.!. NO,', .5-0 e-- TAKES
REMARKS:_...,
Vx
17 PM 25
C)
1 LS 18
13 R S 18
,v
pRo
-D
I R5 53
PUBI IC WC RK�-, AGE
ransportatlol-I
P8,C)JECT NAME, D,4TE:-
SPEC. NO.: PROIJI NO.:—
RRAARKS:
L-
6.- me's 01n. P-,J. z-6,oj,,l,t7q cLc'-oss
UbL 1 1 4 IV' rA'rl..6 AGLJ�'141-'f
TE:
P R 0 J E C T NAME; .411 DA
�
SPEC. NO.: _PROD. NO.: .5,00-27 TAKEN BY:
REMARKS: --
rJ /6a c%
!11�
17
i
PUB LIII WORKS AGEN(7-Y
Transportation Department
PROJECT NAME
SATE:
SPEC. NO.: NO.: C / 7
TAKEN BY:
REMARKS:
He
MEMO
To: ob Brownie, Principal Engineer
From: .Butch Britt
Subject: Grimes Canyon Road - Hitch Boulevard
Date: March 27, 1996
AEG asked us to conduct a preliminary analysis of realignment of Grimes Canyon Road/SRI 18
and Hitch Boulevard/SR 118 intersections from two three -way intersections to one four -way
intersection. I recognize that your staff is pretty well committed, but please put this one in the
hopper.
I would appreciate a schedule as to when you estimate a preliminary • or feasibility analysis can be
done and we could brief AEG. In the interest of time and conservation of resources, don't get into
too much detail at this time. Report should contain, preliminary route analysis, grades, alignment,
obvious drainage considerations, known environmental or other restrictions, traffic counts,
whether the realigned intersection would warrant signalization, preliminary cost analysis, and
potential funding sources. I think we can use TUVIF funds for our share of signalizaion costs and
intersection improvements. Assume Caltrans will participate 50% in the cost of signaiization (if
warranted), and intersection improvements; roadway realignment will be 100 % County finded.
k � � KG
Cc; b