HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992.02.28 ITD Deinhard Lane Alternate, McCall Feasibility Study---1 .
i
Final Report
Deinhard Lane Alternate, McCall
Feasibility Study
Project No. ST-3270(604), Key No. 5030
Prepared for:
State of Idaho
Transportation Department
P.O Box 7129
Boise, Idaho 83707-1129
February 28, 1992
Prepared by:
el CENTENNIAL
ENGINEERING
INC.
7 40 East 3900 South Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 (801 )268-9805
--r ,
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Table of Contents
Final Report
February 28, 1992
Table of Contents ....................................................................... .
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Need for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
22 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Commercial and Industrial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . 6
3. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Design Speed and Horizontal/Vertical Alignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Stopping Sight Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Roadway Typical Section .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . 8
3.4 Impact of the McCall Airport on the Alternative Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Description of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1 Initial Alignments ........................................................... 10
4.1.1 Northern Route ..................................................... 10
4.1.2 Southern Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O
4.2 Revised Alignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O
4.2.1 Northern Route -A .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . 10
4.2.2 Northern Route - B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Socio-Economic Impacts . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 12
5.1 Land Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.1 Residential Development ............................................. 12
5.12 Commercial/Industrial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
52 Social Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3 Relocation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4 Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5 Recreation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Environmental Concerns ............................................................ 13
6.1 Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
62 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3 Permits ................................................................... 13
6.4 Wetland Impacts ........................................................... 13
6.5 Wildlife Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.6 Floodplain Impact ........................................................... 14
6.7 Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . 14
6.8 . Historic and Archeological Sites .............................................. 14
6.9 Hazardous Waste Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.10 Visual Impacts ............................................................. 14
6.11 Construction Impacts ....................................................... 14
7. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Page 1
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
8. HIAP Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Funding Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Conclusions/Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Future Loop Collector System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2. McCall Alternate Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3. Segments Used in Traffic Projection Analysis .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. 7
Figure 4. Typical Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 5. Alignments Considered for the Deinhard Lane Alternate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Traffic Volume Projections for the Deinhard Lane Alternate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - A with 28 ft Roadway Width, 60 ft Right-of-
Way ............................................................................. 15
Table 3. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - A with 34 ft Roadway Width, 80 ft Right-of-
Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 4. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - B with 28 ft Roadway Width, 60 ft Right-of-
Way ............................................................................. 17
Table 5. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - B with 34 ft Roadway Width, 80 ft Right-of-
Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 6. HIAP Analysis Results . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 19
Page 2
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
1. Introduction
Final Report
February 28, 1992
The city of McCall, Idaho, has experienced considerable residential and recreational growth in recent
years. The transportation facility carrying the majority of traffic associated with this growth is State
Highway 55 (SH-55), a two-lane highway which passes through downtown McCall and serves the
western and southern portions of the city.
The city believes a new road should be constructed in the vicinity of Deinhard Lane and Boydstun Street
which would give relief to SH-55 as it passes through McCall. The city has coordinated with the Idaho
Transportation Department {ITD) to have a feasibility study done for the proposed road. ITD
contracted with Centennial Engineering, Inc. of Salt Lake City, Utah to perform the study. The sole
purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of constructing the facility, referred to in this report
as the Deinhard Lane Alternate.
The study is divided into the following sections: Need for the Project, Design Considerations, Description
of Alternatives, Socio-Economic Impacts, Environmental Concerns, Cost Estimates, Capacity Analysis,
Funding Alternatives, and Conclusions/Recommendations.
2. Need for the Project
The city of McCall has identified the need for a collector road to give relief to (SH-55) as it passes
through McCall. The city has also planned for a collector loop system south and east of McCall. The
Deinhard Lane Alternate would serve as the western portion of this system, as shown in Figure 1. The
ultimate loop road would extend from Lick Creek Road east of the existing golf course, southward to
Deinhard Lane, westerly generally following Deinhard Lane extended to Boydstun Street, and north along
Boydstun Street to SH-55.
ITD is planning to construct a portion of the McCall-New Meadows Highway from the Payette Lakes Ski
Area to SH-55 south of McCall. This new section, called the McCall Alternate Route, is currently
scheduled for development in ITD fiscal year 1996. See Figure 2. The city of McCall feels strongly that
the Deinhard Lane Alternate would not be a duplication of effort with the McCall Alternate Route, since
the McCall Alternate Route will serve intra-state traffic and the Deinhard Lane Alternate will serve the
needs of the local area. The Deinhard Lane Alternate would meet the following goals of the city:
2.1 Safety: Currently, SH-55 is the only major facility which provides adequate access between the
south end and the west end of McCall. That means that all intra-state highway traffic is currently
funneled through town. This through traffic is in direct conflict with the growing recreational vehicular
and pedestrian traffic in the commercial area and along the lake front. Large tractor/trailers have
difficulty negotiating the 90 degree turn in the center of town, causing congestion and safety concerns.
Access to and from SH-55 is mostly unlimited as it passes through town. There are a large number of
residential driveways along SH-55 which create numerous potential safety conflicts. The safety
problems are very evident during the winter and summer peak seasons that occur with the various
seasonal events held in town.
SH-55 has the only bridge crossing of the North Fork of the Payette River. In the case of a failure of the
bridge caused by natural disaster or accident, access would be lost. All of the emergency services for
McCall are located on the east side of the river. Emergency response times to the southwest portion of
McCall are long because of the circuitous route needed to reach that portion of the city.
Page 3
.. ..:··· ...
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I~
/.';.,'<' ,o
Final Report
February 28, 1992
I (
/""'I ,.--._
/ ( '._~
(
t -7 -.:fi ,
" ~ ' .~ Q:·· ~
Page 4
/ '' ' , I
"! r
>.
-0 :::>
U5
~ :a ·u;
"' Q) u....,.
Q) 0
-<D ig 0
~ .....
Q) N
""'"' <( ..:-
~Cl)
"' _J ci
1;>Z
ro-.c: 0
c: ·"' ·a; e
oa..
Q)
5
0 a:
Q)
<ti
E
~ ;;;:
'° (.)
0 :::;:
C\i
Q)
5 rn u::
I
/ ''
"' "' rn
"' a..
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
22 Planning: The existing McCall transportation master plan calls for the loop road system to carry
through traffic around the city and existing SH-55 to carry recreation traffic within the city.
Construction of the Deinhard Alternate will enhance the recreational experience along the lake front
because traffic congestion would be reduced and traffic circulation would be improved.
2.3 Access: Local access to existing and future recreational destinations on the west side of
Payette Lake, to the future park south of Deinhard Lane Alternate, and to the existing and proposed
residential subdivisions along the Payette River south of McCall would be available.
2.4 Commercial and Industrial Development: The Deinhard Lane extension from the north end of the
municipal airport west across the Payette River will directly connect two important
commercial/industrial areas. These are a gravel pit south of the McCall sewage disposal ponds and a
strip of land between Mission Street and the airport. This will be an important link for economic
development in McCall.
Computer modeling was performed by the Idaho Transportation Department to estimate the volume of
traffic that would use the Deinhard Alternate if it was constructed. The existing SH-55 has been broken
into sections for analysis purposes as shown in Figure 3. The average daily traffic (ADT) and design
hourly volumes (DHV) for the existing SH-55 and the Deinhard Lane Alternate are shown in Table 1.
Values are given for the years 1993 and 2013.
Table 1. Traffic Volume Projections for the Deinhard Lane Alternate
T rattic Section A 8 c D E F G
,Milepost Limits: ~rom 140.463 142.796 143.672 144.046 145.697 Mc1;a11 LJeinhard
To 142.796 143.672 144.046 145.697 147.600 Alternate Alternate
Without/With Deinhard Alternate WIO With WIO With WIO With WIO With WIO With
ADT (vehicles per day) 1993 3920 3920 6050 3150 7090 4190 6260 3360 2500 2500 NIA 290C
2013 5510 5510 6430 4370 9650 5790 6710 4650 3530 3530 NIA 4060
DHV (vehicles per hour)l 993 650 850 790 360 710 300 660 450 540 540 NIA 410
2013 1190 1190 1100 520 990 410 1200 620 760 760 NIA 580
Directional Distribution during DHV 60140 60140 60140 60140 60140 NIA 60140
Percent Trucks in DHV 8.6 5.4 4.3 4.8 10.5 NIA 9.E
Percent Trucks in ADT 12.3 7.7 6.2 6.9 15 NIA 13.7
W11hout/W11h Deinhard Alternate
and McCall Alternate WIO With WIO With WIO With WIO With WIO With
ADT (vehicles per day) 1993 3920 3920 6050 3150 7090 4190 6260 3360 2500 2500 1070 1830
2013 5510 5510 8430 4370 9850 5790 8710 4650 3530 3530 1500 256(
DHV (vehicles per hour)1993 850 850 790 380 710 300 860 450 540 540 230 180
2013 1190 1190 1100 520 990 410 1200 620 760 760 320 260
Directional Distribution during DHV 60140 60140 60140 60140 60140 60/40 60/4C
Percent Trucks in DHV 8.6 5.4 4.3 4.8 10.5 9.6 3.<
Percent Trucks in ADT 12.3 7.7 6.2 6.9 15 13.7 4.7
Source: Idaho Transportation Department
As shown in Table 1, the Deinhard Lane Alternate would be expected to reduce average daily traffic
volume by 48% on the south end of McCall, and by 47% on the west end of town in the year 2013.
Page 6
~N
00> a.a>
Q)
a: a:i
iii"' c: u: "' ::> _a
Q) u..
>-'"O ::> en
~
:0 ·;;;
"' Q) u...,,.
Q) C> o; <.O
c: C> _,....
~~
<( ...:-
~"' "' _, ci
"EZ m-.r:: u
c: ·°' ·-0
Q) -Cl 0..
en ·;;;
>-ru c:
<(
c:
.Q u
Q) ·e
0..
.!.! :;:
"' ~
.!:
'"O
Q) en
~
en c
Q)
E
O>
Q)
"' .,.;
Q)
5
O> u:
.. ...
iWJ;
...
...... -..
' ' Z£ \
1 • ..,,:.
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
3. Design Considerations
Final Report
February 28, 1992
The following are the design considerations used in the development of the alternate alignments. ITD and
AASHTO design standards are used as the basis for the design.
3.1 Design Speed and Horizontal/Vertical Alignments. Design speed is the maximum safe speed that
can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design
features of the highway govern. The assumed design speed should be a logical one with respect to the
topography, the adjacent land use, and the functional classification of the highway (AASHTO, 1990).
For the Deinhard Lane Alternate, the following assumptions were made to develop the design speed:
• Mountainous terrain
• Residential and industrial adjacent land uses
• Rural collector street classification
Based on these considerations, a 35 mph design speed was used with an expected 35 mph speed limit
along most of the route. At several locations, physical constraints require a lower design speed on
horizontal and vertical curves, with associated lower advisory speed.
Horizontal and vertical alignment maximums are dictated by the design speed. The area around the
north end of the airport is also of concern, creating vertical curve design speeds of 30 mph and horizontal
curve design speeds of 25 mph.
3.2 Stopping Sight Distances. Stopping sight distances at all intersections appear to be within
acceptable ranges with level grades and open areas at all intersection locations.
3.3 Roadway Typical Section. Two roadway sections were reviewed in the analysis; 28 feet and 34
feet. These typical sections with the amounts of pavement and base material used for cost estimating
purposes are shown in Figure 4. The appropriate width for the roadway is dependent on the design year
volume ADT, the average running speed, and the percentage of trucks. Using Figure 703.1 of the ITD
Design Manual, the recommended minimum roadway width is 26 feet. The heavy recreational use in the
area and the potential use of part or all of the route as a recreation trail make the use of the wider
roadway section more appropriate. In general, a 60 foot right-of-way was used with the 28 foot roadway
width, and an 80 foot right-of-way was used with the 34 foot roadway width. In areas of large cut or fill,
a wider right-of-way will be required.
3.4 Impact of the McCall Airport on the Alternative Alignment. The existing portion of Deinhard
Lane between Thula Street and Mission Street is an obstruction as defined by Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 77 because it penetrates the approach surface for Runway 16. To moderate this
condition, Runway 16 operates with a displaced threshold. Although this condition is allowed, it is not
desirable to the FAA and the need for corrective action exists.
It is important that the construction of the Deinhard Lane Alternate not conflict with the current and
future needs of the airport. Construction of the Deinhard Lane Alternate with alignment modification
around the north end of the runway in order to not penetrate the runway approach surface is feasible
and will likely meet with FAA approval. Detailed alignment locations will be discussed later in this report.
A detailed technical evaluation of the impacts of the McCall Municipal Airport on the Deinhard Lane
Alternate has been prepared by Toothman-Orton Engineering Company and is included in the appendix.
Page 8
\J OJ co Cl) (.!) ' .:';, ' ' .:'_;, '\....-1' ' " / / A'> PIW 4' PIW 12' 12' 5' 60' 28' 2' 12' 4" Bituminous Surface Pavement 4" Base Course---------~ 12" Untreated Base 80' 34' q: 12' 4" Bituminous Surface Pavement 4" Base Course--------~ 12· Untreated Base Note: Pavement and base sections shown are for estimating purposes only. Actual sections to be determined during the design phase. 12' 2' 12' 5' PIW 12' 4' ~/ / / ' PIW 12' 1' ........ ~":-, ~ .../ ' Not to Scale 11 <E" c <t> .t>-~ ""O ff OJ (/) Cl) g_ 0 :::> U> \J CJ .... Cl) 0 -· 1-.::::J Cl) :::T n. OJ za. o, : • OJ :::> (/)Cl) -;-! ):> W;::::;: N ct> -..J .... 0 :::> 1-0.> 0)..-+ 0 <t> .t>-11 -<t> 11 Cl) rr .... c OJ ~g: -<" (/) c 0.. '< OJ 11 < s· NO> _o::> :n _.. <t> (.!) u (.!) 0 N;:::i
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
4. Description of the Alternatives
Final Report
February 28, 1992
Based on the previously discussed design constraints, alternatives were developed meeting the design
standards while minimizing socio-economic and environmental concerns.
4.1 Initial Alignments. A field review meeting was held September 6, 1991 in McCall. The meeting
was attended by consultants; local, county, state and federal officials that would have jurisdiction over
areas of concern relating to the design of the Deinhard Lane Alternate. The complete meeting notes are
included in the appendix. At that meeting two general alignments were discussed, as shown in Figure 5:
4.1.1 Northern Route. This route would begin at the intersection of State Highway 55 (SH-55) and
Boydstun Street, travel south on Boydstun Street to its southern terminus, turn east through the
northern edge of an existing gravel pit and cross the North Fork of the Payette River at the McCall City
sewage lift stations, skirt the north end of the proposed extension to the McCall Municipal Airport, and
proceed along Deinhard Lane to its intersection with SH-55. The length of this route would range from
approximately 2.52 to 2.58 miles.
4.1.2 Southern Route. This route would also begin at the intersection of SH-55 and Boydstun Street,
but would continue south past the existing southern end of Boydstun Street to approximately the
southwest corner of the gravel pit, turn east and cross the North Fork of the Payette River near an old
sheep bridge used only as a livestock river crossing, turn to the north and proceed along Mission Street to
Deinhard Lane, skirt the north end of the proposed extension to the airport, and go along Deinhard Lane
to its intersection with SH-55. The length of this route would range from approximately 3.09 to 3.14
miles.
The route passes through a large wetland area near the river crossing that has been designated as a
mitigation area for a park site in another part of McCall. Although much of the route would be along city
or county owned land, its circuitous nature would significantly detract from its desirability as a bypass
route. The location of the southern route is further removed from existing industrial and residential sites,
also reducing its desirability. For these reasons, it was deemed that this route does not meet the goals of
the city and the route was dropped from further consideration.
4.2 Revised Alignments. Based on information obtained in the meeting and from site investigation,
two alternative alignments were developed along the northern route (see Figure 5). Plan and profile
sheets for these alignments are included at the end of this report.
42.1 Northern Route -A. The Northern Route - A would begin at the intersection of SH-55 and
Boydstun Street, travel south on Boydstun Street to its southern end at the access road to McCall's
sewage disposal ponds, turn east and run along the south side of the McCall sewage treatment ponds,
cross the Payette River at the sewage lift stations, and continue east along a buried sewer line corridor
toward Mission Street. At about 250 feet prior to Mission Street the alignment bends to the northeast
and skirts around the north end of the designated runway object free area, then bears sharply to the
southeast and joins existing Deinhard Lane at Thula Street. It then follows Deinhard Lane to SH-55. The
total length of this route would be approximately 2.58 miles.
Intersection improvements would be made at SH-55 and Boydstun Street, Mission Street and Deinhard
Lane Alternate, and SH-55 and Deinhard Lane. The improvements at the intersections on SH-55 would
include turning lanes for trucks and widening along SH-55 to accommodate exclusive left turn lanes and
an acceleration lane to ensure smooth movement of traffic to and from the bypass. A detailed traffic
Page 10
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
. -···J~ ::-~··. = 1··.!l·~i
'~ ,0 0. .. m
{(t' '\,)
(. "---~
"
' , '
. / ,:·· .
~·:
.;·>;?'_,,, ...
~·~~~ ;~~-
. O((Mile _!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ··-;1'!• ... t
::-. ..-:;, '
/ .............. -...._ I
/ ---I /// __ N ________ _
\
B soJa . _
I \~ ; 8-,; \)034
'---.. I/'-....'--.. I
" BMX ( \
01 8 / :/" ') ',
/// ~ (/' ~·
#MC CALL:
AIRPORT! -r-------·----I I ' . ~1.·
I I .. -t_ ~ ·:. \
I ,_.--''--
1--·" \, . \ •
' .I
J I
/j .-' · .. ,
') , _.
;/
.· ' . ' :o
I
\·
Page 11
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
analysis of the intersections was not performed, but it appears none of the intersections will require
signalization.
The steepest grade on the route would be 5.5%, which would occur on the east slope heading down to the
river. The river would be crossed on a skew by a 300-foot steel bridge (center span of 200 feet). A steel
bridge was chosen because it would not require a river-disturbing center span support, and a reinforced
concrete bridge would require one. Highway construction would require approximately 234,000 cubic
yards of cut and 49,000 cubic yards of fill material using a 28 foot pavement width, and approximately
248,000 cubic yards of cut and 53,000 cubic yards of fill material using a 34 foot pavement width.
The alignment would impact commercial, residential, industrial, and city property. Currently one home
lies within the proposed route, located northwest of Deinhard Lane and Thula Street. Depending on future
residential construction, two other residential structures located at the base of the slope west of the
Payette River would be affected.
4.2.2 Northern Route -B. This route is identical to the Northern Route - A from its beginning point at
SH-55 to about 250 feet west of Mission Street. From that point it continues east another 600 feet, then
bears slightly to the northeast around the runway safety area and back to existing Deinhard Lane just
west of Thula Street. It then follows Deinhard Lane to SH-55. The total length of this route would be
approximately 2.52 miles.
Future expansion plans of the airport include installation of a Localizer to aid in instrument landings. The
installation of a Localizer requires all surface features of a roadway be moved at least 1000 feet to the
north of the runway end or depress the roadway so that vehicles are below the level of the natural
ground as it passes through the Localizer Critical Area. Thus, a box culvert for the roadway would need
to be constructed as part of this route.
All other items pertaining to this route are the same as Northern Route - A with the exception of the
amount of earthwork. The construction of this alignment would require approximately 205,000 cubic
yards of cut and 48,000 cubic yards of fill material using a 28-foot pavement width, and approximately
218,000 cubic yards of cut and 51,000 cubic yards of fill material using a 34-foot pavement width.
5. Socio-Economic Impacts
With the development of any roadway project there are positive and negative impacts created on the
surrounding social and economic environment. While understanding that this feasibility study is preliminary
in nature, we have attempted to identify the potential impacts created by the alternative alignments.
5.1 Land Use Impacts
5.1.1 Residential Development. There is some existing residential development along Boydstun Street
which will be adversely affected by acquisition of additional right-of-way needed for straightening and
widening Boydstun Street. It is felt that the impact will be minimal because there is typically only
development on one side of Boydstun and the design of the improvements should attempt to acquire right-
of-way from the undeveloped side of the street. These residents will also be adversely impacted from
the increased traffic on the street because of more noise and disruption of the mountain solitude
environment.
There are two residential parcels which have been approved by the city in the vicinity of the sewer lift
Page 12
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
stations which would be within the roadway alignment and therefore adversely impacted. There is an
existing home located northwest of the intersection of Deinhard Lane and Thula Street which is within
the roadway alignment for the Northern Route - A which would be adversely affected by its route.
5.12 Commercial/Industrial Development. Directly south of the McCall sewage treatment ponds is a
gravel pit with a total area of about 63 acres. The Northern Route would run along the southern
boundary of the ponds and along a portion of the northern boundary of the gravel pit. The impact on the
large gravel pit operation would be minimal since it is likely an equivalent amount of land could be obtained
from the property owner south of the pit. The construction of Northern Route - B is not expected to
seriously disrupt existing excavating operations.
52 Social Impacts. Positive impacts of the road on social aspects of the area include the generation
of new development with accompanying neighborhood advantages, and quicker emergency response
availability. Although traffic volumes are expected to increase on Boydstun Street, there will be less
through traffic volume on other local residential streets.
5.3 Relocation Impacts. The Northern Route - A would cause the relocation of at least one, and
possibly three, residences. The Northern Route - B could cause the relocation of two residences. This
will certainly be a area of concern to the affected residents. Either route would require the relocation of
the generator station for the sewage treatment lift stations.
5.4 Economic Impacts. The Deinhard Lane Alternate would spur residential and industrial
development in the southwest portion of the city and thereby increase the local tax base for revenues.
The increased tax base will also help pay for support services and infrastructure improvements. Some
loss of business could be expected from the loss of some drive-by through traffic along the business
district in McCall.
5.5 Recreation Impacts. The road will provide for more recreational opportunities because of
increased public access.
6. Environmental Concerns
6.1 Noise Impacts. Current businesses and residents along the proposed route will experience an
increase in traffic noise because of increased traffic.
62 Water Quality. The impact of the road on water quality appears to be minimal at this time.
Care during construction should minimize disruption to the quality of groundwater and river water.
6.3 Permits. Since the Deinhard Lane Alternate is planned to cross the Payette River, a 404 Permit
for bridge construction will need to be obtained, depending on the size of existing wetlands. A water
resource permit will also need to be obtained. Additional permits may be necessary as the project
progresses.
6.4 Wetland Impacts. There are two known wetland areas which may conflict with the alignment.
They are a seasonal wetland near the south end of Boydstun Street and some small wetlands along the
toe of the slope on the west side of the river. These areas will also require Section 404 permits.
Appropriate mitigation for these impacts will be determined later as the project progresses.
6.5 Wildlife Impacts. The impact of the road on wildlife in the area appears to be moderate at this
Page 13
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
time. A principal area of concern will be the river corridor, used considerably by wildlife. Additional
wildlife impacts may be determined later as the project progresses.
6.6 Floodplain Impact. The proposed alignment for the Deinhard Lane Alternate crosses the Payette
River at a location that has minimal floodplain width, according to a 1990 flood insurance study done by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As such, the impact of the highway will be minimal and the
bridge would be several feet above the river' s 100-year flood elevation.
6.7 Threatened or Endangered Species. The area through which the road would pass is home to at
least one threatened or endangered species, that being a nesting eagle sighted south of the alignment near
the river. Additional studies such as biological assessments and reviews by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service would be needed to determine the impact to the eagles and any other possible threatened or
endangered species in the area.
6.8 Historic and Archeological Sites. There are recorded cultural resources in the vicinity and the
probability is high that resources may exist in the project area. A thorough cultural resource
investigation by a professional archeologist would be required during project development.
6.9 Hazardous Waste Sites. Although the existence of hazardous waste sites was not apparent in
the alignment corridors, so little information is known about the possibility of any sites in the area that
any impact by the road cannot be fully determined at this time. Use of best management practices
during construction will be required to prevent possible fuel or other hazardous material spills.
6.10 Visual Impacts. There is potential for visual impacts created by construction of the Deinhard
Lane Alternate. There will be considerable amounts of cuts and fills required near the North Fork of the
Payette River which could have a visual impact. Care in the design of the project and the revegetation
measures used can minimize the impact.
6.11 Construction Impacts. There are expected to be impacts to adjacent residents from the
construction of this project. Residents and workers using Boydstun Street will potentially have detours
and other normal construction impacts. Residents along Boydstun Street and in the nearby Rio Vista
residential area will likely be subjected to construction noise and dust. Proper use of construction traffic
control, dust control, and regulation of hours of operation can minimize these impacts.
7. Cost Estimates
Four cost estimates have beeri prepared for the two alternatives with 28 and 34 foot wide roadways
within 60 and 80 foot right-of-ways, respectively. These are shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. The
estimates have been made using ITD bid prices.
Page 14
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
Table 2. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - A with 28 ft Roadway Width, 60 ft Right-of-Way
CODE BID ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL
201 A CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 1,100.00 11.00 12,100
205 A EXCAVATION CY 3.50 234,000.00 819,000
205 E BORROW CY 7.00 49,000.00 343,000
205 G CLASS C COMPACTION UNIT 245.00 52.00 12,740
205 I WATER FOR DUST ABATEMENT fvG 25.00 100.00 2,500
303 A 2· AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 27,600.00 276,000
303 A 314' AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 10,300.00 103,000
405 AS PLANT MIX PAVEMENT CL I TON 30.00 7,500.00 225,000
604 A 24" IRRIGATION PIPE LF 24.00 400.00 9,600
608 A 24' APRON FOR PIPE EACH 30.00 2.00 60
616 A SIGN TYPE B SF 10.00 32.00 320
616 E BREAKAWAY WOOD SIGN POST TYPED MFBM 0.10 2,600.00 260
629 A MOBILIZATION LS 150,000.00 1.00 150,000
BRIDGE STRUCTURE EACH 630,000.00 1.00 630,000
PAVEMENT STRIPING LF 0.20 66,200.00 13,240
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACRE 23, 125.00 8.00 185,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 100,000.00 1.00 100,000
UTILITY RELOCATION LS 30,000.00 1.00 30,000
SUBTOTAL 2,911,820
25% ENGINEERING AND CONTIGENCY 727,955
TOTAL $3,639,775
Page 15
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
Table 3. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - A with 34 ft Roadway Width, 80 ft Right-of-Way
CODE BID ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL
201 A CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 1,100.00 11.00 12, 100
205 A EXCAVATION CY 3.50 248,000.00 868,000
205 E BORROW CY 7.00 53,000.00 371,000
205 G CLASS C COMPACTION UNIT 245.00 52.00 12,740
205 I WATER FOR DUST ABATEMENT M3 25.00 100.00 2,500
303 A 2' AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 30,600.00 306,000
303 A 314' AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 11,500.00 115,000
405 AS PLANT MIX PAVEMENT CL I TON 30.00 8,700.00 261,000
. 604 A 24' IRRIGATION PIPE LF 24.00 400.00 9,600
608 A 24' APRON FOR PIPE EACH 30.00 2.00 60
616 A SIGN TYPE B SF 10.00 32.00 320
616 E BREAKAWAY WOOD SIGN POST TYPED MFBM 0.10 2,600.00 260
629 A MOBILIZATION LS 150,000.00 1.00 150,000
BRIDGE STRUCTURE EACH 765,000.00 1.00 765,000
PAVEMENT STRIPING LF 0.20 66,200.00 13,240
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACRE 23,839.29 11.20 · \_ i::'.b/,UUU
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 100,000.00 1.00 100,000
UTILITY RELOCATION LS 30,000.00 1.00 30,000
SUBTOTAL 3,283,820
25% ENGINEERING AND CONTIGENCY 820,955
TOTAL $4, 104,775
Page 16
[_,.)
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
Table 4. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - B with 28 ft Roadway Width, 60 ft Right-of-Way
CODE BID ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL
201 A CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 1,100.00 10.00 11,000
205 A EXCAVATION CY 3.50 205,000.00 717,500
205 E BORROW CY 7.00 48,000.00 336,000
205 G CLASS C COMPACTION UNIT 245.00 52.00 12,740
205 I WATER FOR DUST ABATEMENT M3 25.00 100.00 2,500
303 A 2" AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 26,600.00 266,000
303 A 314" AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 10,000.00 100,000
405 AS PLANT MIX PAVEMENT CL I TON 30.00 7,300.00 219,000
604 A 24' IRRIGATION PIPE LF 24.00 400.00 9,600
608 A 24' APRON FOR PIPE EACH 30.00 2.00 60
616 A SIGN TYPE B SF 10.00 32.00 320
616 E BREAKAWAY WOOD SIGN POST TYPED MFBM 0.10 2,600.00 260
629 A MOBILIZATION LS 150,000.00 1.00 150,000
BRIDGE STRUCTURE EACH 630,000.00 1.00 630,000
PAVEMENT STRIPING LF 0.20 64,600.00 12,920
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACRE 12,625.00 8.00 101,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 100,000.00 1.00 100,000
17' X 28' X 150' BOX CULVERT EACH 211,500.00 1.00 211,500
BOX CULVERT DRAINAGE SYSTEM LS 70,000.00 1.00 70,000
UTILITY RELOCATION LS 30,000.00 1.00 30,000
SUBTOTAL 2,980,400
25% ENGINEERING AND CONTIGENCY 745, 100
TOTAL $3,725,500
Page 17
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Final Report
February 28, 1992
Table 5. Cost Estimate for Northern Alignment - B with 34 ft Roadway Width, 80 ft Right-of-Way
CODE BID ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL
201 A CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 1,100.00 10.00 11,000
205 A EXCAVATION CY 3.50 248,000.00 868,000
205 E BORROW CY 7.00 53,000.00 371,000
205 G CLASS C COMPACTION UNIT 245.00 52.00 12,740
205 I WATER FOR DUST ABATEMENT M3 25.00 100.00 2,500
303 A 2" AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 29,500.00 295,000
303 A 3/4" AGGREGATE FOR BASE TON 10.00 11,200.00 112,000
405 AS PLANT MIX PAVEMENT CL I TON 30.00 8,400.00 252,000
604 A 24" IRRIGATION PIPE LF 24.00 400.00 9,600
608 A 24" APRON FOR PIPE EACH 30.00 2.00 60
616 A SIGN TYPE B SF 10.00 32.00 320
616 E BREAKAWAY WOOD SIGN POST TYPE D MFBM 0.10 2,600.00 260
629 A MOBILIZATION LS 150,000.00 1.00 150,000
BRIDGE STRUCTURE EACH 765,000.00 1.00 765,000
PAVEMENT STRIPING LF 0.20 64,600.00 12,920
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACRE 19,890.11 9.10 181,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 100,000.00 1.00 100,000
17' X 34' X 150' BOX CULVERT EACH 238,500.00 1.00 238,500
BOX CUL VERT DRAINAGE SYSTEM LS 70,000.00 1.00 70,000
UTILITY RELOCATION LS 30,000.00 1.00 30,000
SUBTOTAL 3,481,900
25% ENGINEERING AND CONTIGENCY 870,475
TOTAL $4,352,375
8. HIAP Analysis
The HIAP (Highway Investment Analysis Package) model was developed by the Federal Highway
Administration for use in determining the benefits and costs of roadway projects. The model analyzes
the project alternatives for a 20 year period to develop the benefit/cost ratios. The model takes into
account the following factors in its analysis:
Construction Cost
Vehicle travel time (based on roadway lengths and travel speeds)
Vehicle operating cost
Accident rates
Maintenance costs
The HIAP analysis was performed for the Dienhard Lane Alternate with the two alignment options and
with the two roadway width options. Analysis was also performed with just the Deinhard Lane
Alternate in place as well as both the Deinhard Lane Alternate and McCall Alternate bypass in place. A
summary of the results is shown in Table 6 below. The HIAP printout is included in the appendix.
Page 18
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
Table 6. HIAP Analysis Results
Alternative
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route A,
28 foot roadway width
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route A,
34 foot roadway width
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route B,
28 foot roadway width
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route B,
34 foot roadway width
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route A,
28 foot roadway width, with the McCall Alternate
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route A,
34 foot roadway width, with the McCall Alternate
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route B,
28 foot roadway width, with the McCall Alternate
Deinhard Lane Alternate, Northern Alignment, Route B,
34 foot roadway width, with the McCall Alternate
9. Funding Alternatives
Possible funding sources for the Deinhard Lane Alternate include:
Final Report
February 28, 1992
Benefit/Cost Ratio
26.5
23.5
26.7
22.9
17.9
15.9
18.0
15.5
Local Bonding. The City of McCall could consider bonding to acquire the funds to construct the Deinhard
Lane Alternate.
Idaho Transportation Department. Funding may be available through the 1991 Transportation Act.
Funding may be appropriate for the improvements at the intersections with SH-55.
Economic Development Grants. Since the Deinhard Lane Alternate will open the area in the southwest
portion of McCall to new industrial development, economic development grants are a possible funding
source. Federal and state grants may be available.
Federal Aviation Administration. A very promising source of funding is the use of FAA funds to eliminate
the current 'obstruction' of the existing Deinhard Lane alignment.
Page 19
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
1 O. Conclusions/Recommendations
Final Report
February 28, 1992
1. The Deinhard Lane Alternate has a favorable cost/benefit ratio. It would provide secondary
access through McCall, improving traffic circulation and safety.
2. Northern Route - B is the preferred alternative because of its more direct alignment and more
constant design speed.
3. The 34 foot roadway width is preferred because of the access to the industrial areas with
associated high truck travel percentage and the use of the road for recreational purposes.
4. Funding for the construction of the Deinhard Lane Alternate may be available from various
sources, including:
--Local bonding.
--Idaho Transportation Department.
--Economic development grants.
--Federal Aviation Administration.
Page 20
Deinhard Lane Alternate Feasibility Study
Project No.: ST-3270(604)
11. Appendix
1. Meeting Notes, Kickoff Meeting, September 6, 1991
Final Report
February 28, 1992
2. Technical Evaluation Relative to the McCall Municipal Airport, Toothman-Orton Engineering
Company, September, 1991.
3. Letter to Dave Berg, Centennial Engineering, Inc. from Wayne D. Pickerill, P.E./L.S., Idaho
Transportation Department, dated October 30, 1991.
4. Memo to Centennial Engineering, Inc. from Rick Orton dated November 8, 1991
5. Letter to David Berg from William Statham, Toothman-Orton Engineering Company dated
November 25, 1991.
6. Figure 703.1 from the Idaho Transportation Department Design Manual.
7. Traffic volume projections from the Idaho Transportation Department.
8. HIAP analysis summary from the Idaho Transportation Department.
9. Plan and Profile sheets for the Deinhard Lane Alternate alignments (5 sheets).
Page 21
el CENTENNIAL
ENGINEERING
INC
(801) 268-9805
740 EAST 3900 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84107
Date: September 9, 1991
To: All Attendees
From: Dave Berg, P.E.
Project Manager, Centennial Engineering, Inc.
Subject: Meeting Notes
Kickoff Meeting, September 6, 1991, Deinhard Lane Alternative, McCall
In Attendance:
Name
Rick Orton
Dave Berg
Steve Meyer
John Vogt
Wayne Pickerill
Bud Schmidt
Steve Nadeau
Don Anderson
Ervin Ballou
Greg Martinez
Leslie Aukenman
Gene Gibson
Bill Kirk
Roy Jost
Francis Wallace
Larry L. Chalfant
Jeri Williams
General Notes:
Representing
Toothman-Orton Engineering
Centennial Engineering
Centennial Engineering
Idaho Transportation Department
Idaho Transportation Department-Aeronautics
City of McCall
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho Department of Wildlife Resources
Corps of Engineers
Valley County
Idaho Department of Wildlife Resources
McCall Transportation Committee
Idaho Transportation Department-Environmental
City of McCall
City of McCall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Phone
342-5511
386-6036
386-6036
334-8495
334-8783
634-7142
634-8137
327-7848 -_
343-0671
382-4251
334-2266
634-4101
334-8477
634-2445
634-5580
334-1931
Rick Orton and Dave Berg opened the meeting with a discussion of the purpose for this project and a
review of the preliminary alignments developed by Centennial Engineering. It was noted that these
alignments were developed without detailed vertical information for discussion purposes only. Once the
information is obtained from the meeting participants and additional survey data, more detailed
alternatives will be created.
There are two routes that could be considered. A southern route would run from Deinhard Lane to
Mission Road south, crossing the river near the sheep bridge and on to Boydstun. A northern route would
run from the Deinhard Road and onto the west crossing the river and then going around the sewage
treatment plant and on to Boydstun. Issues relating to both routes will be noted and then issues relating
to the specific routes.
OFFICES IN AAVAOA, DENVER. CCLOAACO S~JNGS. PHOENIX. BOISE. OAKLAND ~ lf=llVINE
Need for the project:
The Deinhard Lane route has been incorporated into McCall's transportation plan to create an
alternative to driving through downtown McCall and create a second access across the river. The
proposed future realignment of State Highway 55 will someday route through traffic south of McCall. It is
felt that the Deinhard Lane alignment is needed to provide improved circulation and safety for the
growing residential and recreational community in McCall. Deinhard Lane is proposed to continue to the
east of State Highway 55 and tie into Lick Creek Road, providing east/west access without having to
travel through the center of McCall. The use of streets north or south of Deinhard Lane for this
alignment would prevent the future continuation of a route to the east.
McCall Municipal Airport:
The airport appears to be a major constraint to the development of the Deinhard Lane alignment. The
current proximity of Deinhard Lane with relation to the end of the runway requires a modification to the
current FAA design standards. Proposed extension of the runway and increased airport use will require
relocation of Deinhard Lane. Additional investigation will be undertaken by Centennial to determine where
Deinhard Lane can be relocated within design constraints. Any future Deinhard extension must eliminate
existing conflicts without imposing any new restrictions on the airport planning. A successful FAA
funding may be available for relocation of Deinhard Lane within the airport zone.
Cemetery:
The Cemetery District owns the property between the existing cemetery and Deinhard Lane. There is
ci.;rrently a need to expend the cemetery. Further investigation will have to be made to determine if the
road could pass through the cemetery property.
South Route;
The southern route needs to be evaluated by the City of McCall to determine if it meets their needs as a
part of the circulation system for the city. The advantage of this route is that much of the route _is city
or county owned.
There are several disadvantages to this route. The route is longer and less direct than the northern
route. This impacts on desirability and travel time will have to be evaluated. The south route also
passe~ through a large wetland area near the river crossing that has been designated as a mitigation
area for a park site in another part of McCall. There may be a seasonal wetland area near the
connection to Deinhard Lane.
North Route:
The north route would continue west of the existing Deinhard Lane to the Payette River. This route
follows the same path as existing sewer lines. There are good banks on both sides of the river to allow
for bridge placement without requiring piers in the river. Care will have to be taken during construction to
minimize impacts to the river created by beam placement. Any bridge design should allow for
consolidation of future utility crossings incorporated into the bridge. The generator for the sewer lift
stations could be relocated under the bridge. There appear to be some small wetland areas located at
the toe of the slope on the west side of the river. After crossing the river, the north route climbs along
the sidehill and crosses over into the north edge of the gravel pit. It is not possible to pass north of the
sewage treatment lagoons.
Boydstun Street:
Boydstun Street currently has a narrow right-of-way width near Highway 55. The alignment should be
straightened and the roadway widened.
\ .
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
RELATIVE TO THE
McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Prepared By
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
BOISE, IDAHO
Prepared For
CENTENNIAL ENGINEERING
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SEPTEMBER 1991
/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Introduction
Goals
Method
Asswnptions about Current Conditions
Assumptions about Future Plans
FAA Design Requirements
Current Airport Impacts
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77
Runway Safety Area
Runway Object Free Area
Localizer Critical Area
Short Term Airport Impacts
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77
Runway Safety Area
Runway Object Free Area
Localizer Critical Area
Long Term Airport Impacts
Alignment 1
Alignment 2
Alignment 3
Alignment 4
Recommendations
TITLE
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Diagram 1 -Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77
Table 1 -Roadway Design Constraints
Table 2 -Controlling FAA Design Requirements
Figure 1 -Current Impacts
Figure 2 -Short Term Impacts
Figure 3 -Alignment 1
Figure 4 -Alignment 2
Figure 5 -Alignment 3
Figure 6 Alignment 4
1
6
8
10
14
AFTER PAGE
4
5
10
6
8
10
11
12
13
INTRODUCTION
GOALS
The Idaho Transportation Department is currently studying the
feasibility of an alignment for Deinhard Lane across the Payette
River in McCall, Idaho. The focus of the study is the extension
of Deinhard Lane to the west beyond Mission Street, connecting with
Boydstun Avenue on the west side of McCall. One of the issues
involved in such an alignment is the placement of Deinhard Lane
near the McCall Municipal Airport. The following remarks will
address (1) current airport impacts, (2) short term airport
impacts, (3) long term airport impacts relative to alternative
alignments for Deinhard Lane. The goal of this evaluation is to
identify limitations to the Deinhard alignment which result from
existing and future needs of the McCall Municipal Airport. This
information is intended to aid in selecting an alignment which is
compatible with the Airport.
METHOD
There are a number of key features that interrelate when a roadway
is proposed in the vicinity of an airport. They include (a) the
types of road proposed, (b) the FAA Design Requirements needed to
ensure safety both on and off the airport and (c) the major
improvements anticipated for the airport.
Three generalized roadway types will be considered, including (1)
an "above grade" roadway in which fixed features as well as the
roadbed are at or above the natural grcund surf ace or the ground
surface as graded to conform to FAA Design Requirements, (2) a
"below grade" roadway in which fixed features as well as the
roadbed are below the natural ground surface or the ground surface
as graded to conform to FAA Design Requirements and (3) an
"underpass" in which all fixed features and the roadbed are
contained in a structure that passes underneath the airport
features. An underpass is referred to as a Runway/Taxiway bridge
in FAA terminology.
The FAA Design Requirements which directly apply to this study are
the ( 1) Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 (Part 77) , ( 2) Runway
Safety Area (RSA), (3) Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) and the (4)
Localizer Critical Area (LOC). The size and position of these
areas are determined by the type of use of the airport and the
anticipated developments at the airport. These features are
discussed further below~
Major foreseeable improvements that could effect the alignment of
Deinhard Lane include installation of a Localizer Navigational
Aid and lengthening of the runway. A Localizer is a radio
PAGE 1
Navigational Aid which gives electronic directional guidance to
pilots in order to establish and maintain the aircrafts horizontal
position until visual contact confinns the runway alignment and
location. With installation of a Localizer all surface features of
a bypass must be moved at least 1000 1 to the north of the runway
end. Since the ground surface slopes upward to the north this
will likely affect roadway grading. The rising terrain will also
require significant grading for the LOC antenna. Some interest has
been expressed in adding greater length to the runway to facilitate
loaded takeoffs of USFS Airtankers. Although an extension of the
runway and parallel taxiways is possible to accomplish this need,
it is highly unlikely because of excessive costs and the
complication it would cause to Deinhard Lane. This same goal can
be accomplished by paving the 300' runway safety area beyond the RW
16 end and declaring that the pavement is only available for
takeoffs.
In order to prepare such an evaluation a number of variables must
be assumed constant. The following assumptions clarify the
current conditions and future plans and allow a "foundation" from
which to evaluate the bypass concept. It is important to
understand that if any of the assumptions change, then there will
be changes in the evaluation presented, and revisions will be
necessary. Every effort has been made to base the assumptions upon
data and insights which represent the "community" view as best
understood at this time.
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT CURRENT CONDITIONS
C-1 Construction of a roadway connecting State Highway 55 to
Boydstun Avenue will be completed in the Deinhard Lane "area".
C-2 The McCall Municipal Airport will remain active at the current
location.
C-3 The airport will not change functional roles due to growth and
will continue to operate as a General Utility airport.
C-4 The perf onnance requirements of the current aircraft fleet
using the airport will continue to demand all of the current
runway length.
C-5 The current GA parallel taxiway will not be relocated in order
to meet FAA Design Requirements for runway-taxiway
separations.
C-6 Public concerns relative to Airport safety and noise will be
mitigated by compliance with Federal Aviation Administration
Design Requirements.
PAGE 2
C-7 The United States Forest Service will maintain and actively
use their current Airtanker Base on the Airport.
C-8 The Federal Aviation Administration Design standards will be
observed.
C-9 The Federal Aviation Administration will only participate in
a realignment of the existing road in its present
configuration and will not fund an upgrade of Deinhard Lane.
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT FUTURE PLANS
F-1 Construction of a new or improved road will result in the
elimination of the displaced threshold on RW 16.
F-2 A Deinhard Extension alternative which is based upon short
term airport planning and unduly restricts or "locks in" the
airport is unacceptable. There must be flexibility for future
airport planning and improvements.
F-3 Use of the airport will continue to grow into the future.
Increased use is expected to include more demanding aircraft.
F-4 The Runway will be lengthened to the north an additional 300'
in the future to enhance the operational efficiency of the
current fleet of aircraft, especially the Airtankers.
F-5 The current Runway can not be extended any further to the
south due to existing terrain obstructions, a hill, further to
the south.
F-6 There may be a Localizer installed at the airport in the
future in order to enable greater Instrmnent Approach use of
the airport during reduced weather conditions.
F-7 Commuter Airline service will use the Airport on a regular,
yet limited basis beginning in the near future.
F-8 The Federal Aviation Administration expects that future
improvements will strive to correct existing deficiencies and
not create new design modifications or unsafe conditions.
PAGE 3
FAA DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
There are several FAA Design Requirements that directly relate to
the Deinhard Lane study. The location and profile elevations of a
Deinhard Lane bypass are directly affected by these Requirements.
Please note that the Runway Object Free Area is a new Design
Requirement as a result of changes to the FAA Airport Design Manual
in 1989. Care should be exercised that this change does not
create confusion when reviewing the current Airport Planning
documents which were written prior to the FAA Manual change.
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 (Part 77) -
The Federal Regulation that sets standards for determining
obstructions in navigable airspace. This regulation
establishes a set of imaginary surfaces in the airspace above
and around an airport that no object is permitted to
penetrate. As it relates to this study these include the
approach, primary and transitional surfaces. Part 77 also
establishes a standard clearance height for roadways which is
the amount of clearance required between the surf ace of a road
and a Part 77 imaginary surface. This is 15' for a public
roadway. All fixed features of a roadway must be at a lower
elevation than the Part 77 surfaces and the roadway surface
must be at least 15' below all Part 77 surfaces. Please refer
to Diagram 1 for clarification of this regulation.
Runway Safety Area (RSA) -
A defined ground surf ace -surrounding the runway which is
prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to
airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or
excursion from the runway. This area is to be clear of
objects except for objects mounted on low impact resistant
supports whose location is fixed by function. This area
extends 75' on each side of the runway centerline and 300'
beyond the end of the runway. No part of a roadway may
encroach on this area. A roadway must proceed either around
or under this area.
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) -
A two dimensional ground area surrounding the runway which is
clear of objects except for objects whose location is fixed by
function. This area extends 250 1 on each side of the runway
centerline and 600' beyond the end of the runway. No part of
an above grade roadway may encroach on this area, however a
below grade road may encroach into this area if it is approved
pursuant to an Aeronautical Study performed by the FAA.
PAGE 4
DIAGRAM No.1
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 77
OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE
HORIZONTAL
SCALE
1"=200'
VERTICAL
SCALE
1"=20'
ROAD
SURFACE
IMAGINARY SURFACES
CLEARANCE HEIGHT
300'
RSA
13'-o
STRUCTURE
HEIGHT
UNDERPASS
600'
ROFA
BELOW
GRADE
Localizer Critical Area (LOC) -
A defined ground area which requires clearing to locate and
operate a Localizer. The Localizer installation is often a
component of an Instrument Landing System (ILS), however it
can function as a stand alone Navigational Aid to enhance a
Non Precision Instrument Approach as recommended here in
McCall. At McCall the Localizer antenna should be located on
the extended runway centerline 1000' from the end of the
runway. The critical area extends 200 1 on each side of the
runway centerline and around the antenna for a radius of 250'
excepting the 200 1 area behind the antenna when a directional
antenna is installed. It is possible for the antenna to be
located closer to the runway end if there are compelling
reasons, which does not appear to be the case for McCall. No
part of a surface roadway may encroach on this area, however
a below grade road may encroach into this area as an approach
to an underpass if it is approved pursuant to an Aeronautical
Study performed by the FAA.
Table 1 identifies the roadway design constraints
generalized roadway types resulting from the FAA
Requirements at the McCall Municipal Airport.
PAGE 5
for the
Design
TABLE 1
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
ROADWAY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS DUE TO FAA DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
AT THE McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FAA SURFACE ROUTE SURFACE ROUTE
DESIGN
REQUIREMENT ABOVE GRADE 1 BELOW GRADE 2
FEDERAL Roadway and Roadway and
AVIATION Clearance Height Clearance Height
REGULATION May Not May Not
PART 77 Penetrate 4 Penetrate 4
RUNWAY Not Not
SAFETY Allowable 5 Allowable 6
AREA
RUNWAY Not Aeronautical
OBJECT FREE Allowable 5 Study Determines
AREA 7 Acceptability 8
LOCALIZER Not Aeronautical
CRITICAL Allowable 5 Study Determines
AREA Acceptability 9
TAXIWAY Not Not
SAFETY Allowable 5 Allowable 6
AREA
NOTES:
1: Refers to Alignments nUlllber 3 and 4.
2: Refers to Alignments nUlllber 3 and 4.
3: Refers to Alignments number 1 and 2.
UNDERPASS 3
Roadway and
Clearance Height
May Not
Penetrate 4
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
4: All fixed features of a Deinhard roadway must be at a lower
elevation than the Part 77 surf aces and the roadway surf ace must
be at least 15' below all Part 77 surfaces.
5: No part of a roadway at or above grade may encroach on this area.
6: No part of a below grade roadway may encroach on this area.
7: New Design Requirement as of 1989.
8: A below grade roadway may encroach into this area if it is
approved pursuant to·an Aeronautical Study performed by the FAA.
9: A below grade roadway may encroach into this area as an approach
to an underpass if it is approved pursuant to an Aeronautical
study performed by the FAA.
CURRENT AIRPORT IMPACTS
This section describes the impacts of the "current" Deinhard Lane
upon the Airport at the time of the preparation of this report. It
does not take into account future planned improvements to either
the airport or the road. The evaluation is based upon the current
FAA Design Requirements which went into effect in 1989. Figure 1
shows the relationship between the airport facilities, Deinhard
Lane and the FAA Design Requirements. The heavy lines indicate the
limits of the FAA Design Requirement areas and the elevations of
the Part 77 surfaces. Note that the current end of pavement and
the "runway threshold" are not at the same location, which is the
usual case. This condition is the result of recent USFS
construction which extended non structural pavement 50' beyond the
threshold.
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 -
The "current" Deinhard Lane is an obstruction to the Part 77
approach surface for RW 16. The road clearance height
penetrates the Part 77 approach surface by 17 feet. To
moderate this problem RW 16 operates with a displaced
threshold.
The approved Airport Layout Plan identifies the following
Modification to Design standard: "Deinhard Lane penetrates
the 20:1 Visual Approach Surface for Runway 16 as defined in
FAR Part 77. A displaced threshold of 150' from the current
runway end is required based upon Appendix 9 of Advisory
Circular 150/5300-4b. This displacement is required
temporarily until Deinhard Lane is either closed or realigned
during Phase I Airport Development."
Runway Safety Area -
The "current" Deinhard Lane encroaches upon the Runway Safety
Area for Runway 16. There is approximately 200 feet of Runway
Safety Area rather than the required 300 feet beyond the end
of the Runway.
Runway Object Free Area -
The "current" Deinhard Lane encroaches upon the Runway object
Free Area for RW 16.
Localizer Critical Area -
It is not anticipated that a LOC would be installed under the
current conditions·. If one were, then the "current" Deinhard
Lane would encroach upon the Critical Area, would cause
unacceptable interference with the signal and would not be
allowed by the FAA.
PAGE 6
0
[J ENCROACHMENT PROHIBITED
[2J AERONAUTICAL STUDY REQUIRED
150
McCALL
CITY
C£M£TARY
~ ~
Vi
~ 1'i ~
~
JOO
SCALE: 1 ~ =300'
i.--------i--t:;.n5 t .... 5()~
~
.<?
~-·
[
:
...
600
FLOYD
..
. ·.McBRIDE
'D LAN£
D
--...... ...... ---~ ~ ~ Co " ~ ~ c::i C) c::i
l.c) l.c) l.c) l.c) l.c) l.c) l.c)
I I I I I I I
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
ROADWAY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
RELATIVE TO THE
McCALl.. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FIGURE No.1
CURRENT IMP ACTS
The "current" Deinhard Lane creates such a substantial obstruction
that it must be temporarily closed at times to provide safe
operating conditions for the large airtan.ker aircraft employed by
the United States Forest Service. These large aircraft are
employed during fire fighting operations and need as much runway as
possible when operating. This creates a safety hazard as well as
a Law Enforcement problem.
It is clear that the current alignment and grade of Deinhard Lane
directly affects the McCall Municipal Airport. The road location
in the Runway Safety Area and across the inner Approach Surface
create a safety hazard. This effect is somewhat mitigated by the
displaced threshold; however, the displaced threshold has the
adverse affect of making the usable runway shorter. Operations are
adjusted and controlled to mitigate the impacts of this condition
however. At the present time Deinhard Lane is considered to have
a negative effect upon the airport. Continuance of this condition
is not recommended.
PAGE 7
SHORT TERM AIRPORT IMPACTS
This section describes the impacts of a "relocated" Deinhard Lane
as shown on the current approved Airport Layout Plan. It takes
into account only the improvements shown on the ALP irrespective of
the need to revise the ALP. The evaluation is based upon the
current FAA Design Requirements which went into effect in 1989.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between the airport facilities,
Deinhard Lane and the FAA Design Requirements with a "relocated"
Deinhard Lane. Note that the end of pavement and the runway
threshold are the same. The non structural pavement must be
upgraded as part of the next project, which is assumed here.
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 -
The "relocated" Deinhard Lane will be an obstruction to the
approach surface for Runway 16. The road clearance height
will penetrate the Part 77 approach surface by 6 feet. To
moderate this problem RW 16 will operate with a displaced
threshold.
The approved Airport Layout Plan identifies the following
Modification To Design Standard: "When Deinhard Lane is
realigned as indicated on the Airport Layout Plan this road
penetrates the 20:1 Visual Approach Surface for Runway 16 as
defined in FAR Part 77. A displaced threshold to the end of
the runway pavement is required based upon Appendix 9 of
Advisory Circular 150/5300-4b. This displacement is required
on a permanent basis or until Deinhard Lane is closed."
Runway Safety Area -
The "relocated" Deinhard Lane does not encroach upon the RSA.
Runway Object Free Area -
The "relocated" Deinhard Lane encroaches upon the ROFA for RW
16. However a below grade road may encroach into this area if
it is approved pursuant to an Aeronautical Study performed by
the FAA.
Localizer Critical Area -
It is not anticipated that a LOC would be installed during the
short term. If one were, then the "relocated" Deinhard Lane
would encroach upon the critical Area, would cause
unacceptable interference with the signal and would not be
allowed by the FAA.
PAGE 8
0
[]ENCROACHMENT PROHIBITED
l2J AERONAUTICAL STUDY REQUIRED
150
McCALL
C!TY
CE'METARY
~ ~
It)
~ i:li ~ ...,
300
SCALE: 1"=300'
~
.~
~.
r
...
600
.... c.0 ,i,o · . .,;
Fl.OYO
. . . .....
'. '. McBRIOE'
D
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
~ "t-~ ~ "" ~ O'I
C'.) C'.) C'.) ~
le) le) le) le) le) le) le)
I I I I I I I
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
ROADWAY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
RELATIVE TO THE
McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FIGURE No.2
SHORT TERM IMPACTS
The alignment and grade of the "relocated" Deinhard Lane directly
affects the McCall Municipal Airport. The road location in the
ROFA and across the inner approach surface also create a safety
hazard. This effect is somewhat mitigated by the displaced
threshold, but during the short term Deinhard Lane will continue to
have a negative effect upon the airport. The "relocated" Deinhard
Lane as shown on the approved ALP is not recommended.
PAGE 9
LONG TERM AIRPORT IMPACTS
This section describes the design constraints imposed by the
Airport upon the future location and profile elevations of the
three roadway types and the installation of a Localizer. Table 2
identifies the controlling FAA Design Requirements for the four
alignments discussed. The analysis is based upon the current FAA
Design Requirements. Figures 3 through 6 show the relationship
between the airport facilities, Deinhard Lane and the FAA Design
Requirements for each combination of roadway type and the
Localizer.
ALIGNMENT 1 -Figure 3
Roadway Plan -This layout consists of an underpass roadway
on the current alignment without a Localizer.
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 -The Part 77 surfaces
limit the elevation of the roadway and any structures.
The roadway plus clearance height must avoid penetration
of the transitional surfaces as they approach the
structure. All features of the structure must be lower
than any of the Part 77 elevations.
Runway Safety Area The size of the Runway Safety Area
determines the minimum length of the underpass structure
such that no part of a roadway may encroach on this area.
The bridge structure must be at least 150' long under
this area.
Runway Object Free Area -The below grade portions of the
roadway may encroach upon this area if it is approved
pursuant to an FAA Aeronautical study. If encroachment
is not approved then the structure must be at least 500'
long.
PAGE 10
TABLE 2
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
CONTROLLING FAA DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADWAY ALIGNMENTS
ROADWAY
ALIGNMENT
NUMBER
ALIGNMENT 1
UNDERPASS
ALIGNMENT 2
UNDER + LOC
ALIGNMENT 3
LOOP ROAD
ALIGNMENT 4
LOOP + LOC
KEY :
Height
Width
Distance
* Width
* Distance
Narrow
Short
AT THE McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FAR RUNWAY RUNWAY LOCALIZER
PART SAFETY OBJECT CRITICAL
77 AREA FREE AREA AREA
Height Width * Width -- -
Height Width * Width * Width
Height Width * Width - --Distance * Distance
Height Short Short Width
Narrow * Width Distance
-Determines the final elevation of the roadbed and the
fixed roadway features.
-Determines underpass length or the point of curvature
of the loop road.
-Determines the distance from the end of the runway
that a roadway may be located.
-Determines underpass length or the point of curvature
of the loop road when an Aeronautical Study determines
that the roadway could be a hazard to air navigation.
-Determines the distance from the end of the runway
that a roadway may be located when an Aeronautical Study
determines that the roadway could be a hazard to air
navigation.
-Another FAA Design Requirement controls width.
-Another FAA Design Requirement controls distance.
-Not applicable to this alignment.
1 [J ENCROACHMENT PROHIBITED
[2'J AERONAUTICAL STUDY REQUIRED
5091
FLOYD
5081
:
McCALL 5071
CflY . . .... . . . .
CE:METARY
..
~ e: v.,
~ i:1 !:'.! ~ <;:) -------h ~ "I'-~ I() " ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~-\() \() \() \() \() \() \()
I I I I I I I
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
: ROADWAY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS ... RELATIVE TO THE
0 150 300 600 McCAll. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FIGURE No.3
SCALE: 1 "=300' ALIGNMENT 1
ALIGNMENT 2 -Figure 4
Roadway Plan -This layout consists of an underpass roadway
on the current alignment with installation of a
Localizer.
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 -The Part 77 surfaces
limit the elevation of the roadway and any structures.
The roadway plus clearance height must avoid penetration
of the transitional surfaces as they approach the
structure. All features of the structure must be lower
than any of the Part 77 elevations.
Runway Safety Area -The size of the Runway Safety Area
determines the minimum length of the underpass structure
such that no part of a roadway may encroach on this area.
The structure must be at least 150' long under this area.
Runway Object Free Area -The below grade portions of the
roadway may encroach upon this area if it is approved
pursuant to an FAA Aeronautical Study. If encroachment
is not approved then the structure must be at least 500 1
long.
Localizer Critical Area -The below grade portions of the
roadway may encroach upon this area if it is approved
pursuant to an FAA Aeronautical Study. If an
Aeronautical study indicates that a structure and/or a
roadway cut interferes with the electronic signal the
structure must be at least 400' long unless length is
controlled by the Runway Object Free Area.
PAGE 11
0
[J ENCROACHMENT PROHIBITED
rzj AERONAUTICAL STUDY REQUIRED
150
McCALL
C!TY
CEMUARY
~ ~ v,
~ Vi \g ...
300
SCALE: 1"=300'
~
h ~-·
...
600
..
: ....... --~-" . . . . -:;ux..1---,
:. ... ·... \". . . .
..... ..... ..... .....
p.) ~ ~ <c
C) C) C)
FLOYD
. .
.......
·. '.McBRIDE
D
..... ..... .....
"' ~ 0\
C) c:::i If) If) If) If) If) If) If)
I I I I I I I
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
ROADWAY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
RELATIVE TO THE
McCAll MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FIGURE No.4
ALIGNMENT 2
ALIGNMENT 3 -Figure 5
Roadway Plan -This layout consists of a surface "loop road"
alignment, including both the above grade and the below
grade style, without a Localizer.
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 -The Part 77 surfaces
limit the elevation of the roadway. All fixed features on
the roadway as well as the roadway clearance height must
be at a lower elevation than any of the Part 77 surfaces.
Accomplishing this might entail significant cuts for the
roadway.
Runway Safety Area -No part of a roadway, above grade or
below grade, may encroach on this area. This area
extends 75' on each side of the runway centerline and
300' beyond the end of the runway.
Runway Object Free Area -The Runway Object Free Area may
further determine the location of the roadway. No part
of an above grade roadway may encroach on this area,
however a below grade road may encroach into this area if
it is approved pursuant to an Aeronautical Study
performed by the FAA. If the roadway is not approved by
the FAA it must avoid an area 250' on each side of the
runway centerline and 600' beyond the runway pavement
end.
PAGE 12
0
[J ENCROACHMENT PROHIBITED
0 AERONAUTICAL STUDY REQUIRED
150
McCALL
CITY
C£METARY
~ ~ v.,
~
Vi \g .....
300
SCALE: 1"=300'
<:i
.~
~.
1
...
600
.... :,o.<\Cl .
FLOYD
. . ......... ·
.. . . .
'. '.McBRIDE
. . . .
D
-------~ "t-~ lo "' ~ °' c::i c::i c::i c::i
le) le) le) le) le) le) le)
I I I I I I I
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
ROADWAY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
RELATIVE TO THE
McCALl.. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FIGURE No.5
ALlGNMENT 3
ALIGNMENT 4 -Figure 6
Roadway Plan -This layout consists of a surface "loop road"
alignment, including both the above grade and the below
grade style, with a Localizer.
Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 -The Part 77 surfaces
limit the elevation of the roadway. All fixed features on
the roadway as well as the roadway clearance height must
be at a lower elevation than any of the Part 77 surfaces.
Accomplishing this might entail significant cuts for the
roadway.
Runway Safety Area -No part of a roadway, above grade or
below grade, may encroach on this area. However, this
area is narrower and shorter than the Localizer Critical
Area which controls the roadway location for this
alignment.
Runway Object Free Area -No part of an above grade roadway
may encroach on this area, however a below grade road may
encroach into this area if it is approved pursuant to an
Aeronautical Study performed by the FAA. However, this
area is shorter than the Localizer Critical Area which
controls the roadway location for this aligrunent.
Localizer Critical Area The Localizer Critical Area
determines the location of the roadway. No part of a
surface roadway may encroach into this area. The roadway
must avoid an area 1000' from the end of the runway,
extending 200' on each side of the runway centerline and
around the antenna for a radius of 250' excepting the
200' area behind the antenna when a directional antenna
is installed.
PAGE 13
0
[J ENCROACHMENT PROHIBITED
I?] AERONAUTICAL STUDY REQUIRED
McCALL
CITY
CEMETARY
. .
:,,,,---~-: .. -:;ux.1~
: . \ ...
r--:..~'-...-1
.........................
::::::::::::::::::~:: :::::::::::::::::::::::·
-.:-:·:·:·:.·:::·::::·:·: ·:·:::::·jai-7..
·-·.········ ............. .
·>~·:-:-:::-.:-;-:. ~< ·-:.-~-:~·:-:-:::-:~·~:
< t:.. ·:::.::. <" :. :: ·: ::::: ..
0 ............. Cl)" :. ·: ·: :::::. •.
p:: ·:::.·:. p::· :. ·: ·: :::::. ·.
u·::::·:. ·: :. ·: ·: :::::. ·.
~r::::x:::::::_:::::::::::::::::::
....
FLOYD
..
.. .
·. ·.McBRIDE
D
DEINHARD LANE BYPASS STUDY
150 300 600
SCALE: 1~=300'
ROADWAY DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
RELATIVE TO THE
McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FIGURE No.6
ALlGNMENT 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Deinhard Lane Bypass alternative selected must be based upon
the above design constraints. It is not the purpose of this
evaluation to recommend an alignment. The final selection of an
alternate must be accomplished in concert with local interests
and the Idaho Transportation Department.
We recommend that a nwnber of specific alignments be prepared
using the above and related information. These layouts should
have preliminary costs prepared for them in order to evaluate
economic as well as design parameters. These specific layouts
and cost estimates will focus the review necessary to select an
acceptable alignment. In addition to the current parties
involved in the review process, it is recommended that the McCall
Airport Advisory Board and the McCall Airport Consultant be
involved in the evaluation and selection of the final alignment.
Informal coordination with the Seattle Airports District Office
of the Federal Aviation Administration is also recommended to
secure preliminary comment and evaluation of the design concept.
This can avoid costly delays in the future if there should be
significant concerns voiced by the FAA.
A noteworthy area of concern during the evaluation is a cost
effectiveness comparison between alignment options based upon
"known" improvements at the airport and "potential" improvements.
A case in point is the future installation of a Localizer and the
cost effectiveness of designs required to avoid those impacts and
designs which do not include the Localizer. Also, an evaluation
of the likelihood of such an improvement is an important topic
for discussion based upon the perspective of the local citizens
involved.
PAGE 14
. . -, . :.. --. --. ... -. -. ~ ·.. -.
~-.:;~i-·;~~:-~~:~~-.:.:.~. -~; -: . '.~~~,--~~~~ ~:· .... ;~ ~:~:(! ...... :~;:~~ ~~
•• )..::., • -<"' ... _ •• ---<!.~
il#Jr@Wt¢;, ;lli('jj~ .. t~1
TRANSPORTATION DEPART~1ENT
AERONAUTICS•3483 RICKENBACKER· BOISE, ID· 83705-5018·2081334-8775
October 3 0 , 19 9 1
David W. Berg, P.E.
Vice President
Centennial Engineering, Inc.
740 East 3900 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84107
RE: Deinhard Lane Bypass Study, McCall, Idaho; CEI 1048.00
Dear Mr. Berg:
I have reviewed the DEIN1lARD LANE BYPASS STUDY-TECHNICAL EVALUATION
RELATIVE TO THE MC CALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT document and find its
content to be accurate. I believe the planning process should
accommodate the most restrictive conditions, i.e. inclusion of a
Localizer. As the tourist industry develops and grows in Valley
County the McCall Municipal Airport will play an increasingly more
important role in the economy of the county. Development of
larger or more winter recreation facilities will increase the
importance of instrumentation for low visibility operations at the
airport. This statement can easily be borne out by observing what
has happened at other western winter resorts and the nearby
airports serving them.
Sincerely,
r.-~9Q~
WAYNE D. PICKERILL, P.E./L.S.
Airport Planning and Development Engineer
WDP:pss/docl-3
cc: William P. Statham, Toothman-Orton Engineer
~
illEhIBTE N N I AL· tf9]
I
[).&.VIS C. TOOTHMAN, PE/LS
(Retired)
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS TIMOTHY A. BURGESS. PE
GLENN K. BENNETT, US
RICHARD F. ORTON, JR., PE/LS
President
CHARLES P. SUNDBY, PE
Vice President
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
1802 NORTH 33rd STREET
BOISE. IDAHO 83703
208-342-5511 · FAX 208-342-5514
DAVE BERG
STEVE MEYER
M E M 0
CENTENNIAL ENGINEERING
RICHARD F. ORTON, JR.
McCALL AIRPORT EVALUATION
TOECO NO. 9169-25-100
NOVEMBER 8, 1991
We had a meeting last
Transportation Committee,
individuals.
night with the McCall
Airport Committee, and
JOHN MATZINGER, PE/LS
BARRY S. SEMPLE, PE
[).&.VID G. POWELL PE
KIMBERLY ALLEN, PE
City Council,
miscellaneous
We discussed the conflicting Airport requirements and roadway needs
along the north end of the Municipal Airport. We ask the Committee
and Council to give us some guidance on the implementation of the
criteria and on their desires about how to resolve the conflicts.
After all debate and discussion, the Committee and Council directed
as follows:
Dienhardt Lane should be located north of the runway safety
area. The realignment of Dienhardt should be recessed into
the ground throughout the Object Free Area so as to not impact
upon the Object Free Area and so as to have the minimal impact
on a future ILS. The alignment through the Object Free Area
may need to be covered in the future.
Generally, this guidance would focus on an alignment located
between your current #3 and #4 options as shown on the last sketch
you forwarded to us.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Additionally, after
you have reviewed this copies should be forwarded to the City
Council and Idaho Transportation Department for their files.
BOISE · McCALL, IDAHO
DAVIS C. TOOTHMAN
(Retired)
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS RICHARD F. ORTON, JR., PEILS
PAUL S. KUNZ. PE/LS
TIMOTHY A. BURGESS. PE
CHARLES P. SUNDBY, PE
DAVID G. POWELL PE
GLENN K. BENNETT. LS
November 25, 1991
David W. Berg, P.E.
Off ice Manager
1802 NORTH 33RD STREET
BOISE, IDAHO 83703
TELEPHONE (208) 342-5511
Centennial Engineering Inc.
740 East 3900 south
Salt Lake City, Utah 84107
RE: McCALL MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Dear Dave:
On October 11, 1991 I requested review and comments from the FAA
regarding the Deinhard Lane Bypass Study. Enclosed, for your
files, is the reply from the FAA Regional Office. The comments do
not appear to contradict our approach or the selected alternative.
Don Larson, Community Planner in the Seattle Airports District
Office of the FAA, has indicated that he prefers to make his
comments based upon the final report and the selected alternative.
His preliminnry comments indicated no adverse concerns. Please
send Mr. Larson a copy of the report when complete.
Wayne Pickerill, Airport Development Supervisor for the Idaho
Bureau of Aeronautics, telephoned his comments on the October 29,
1991 and indicated no adverse comments. Mr. Pickerill also
attended the public meeting held on November 7, 1991.
If you have questions, or need further information, please call.
Sincerely;
William P. Statham
TOOTHMAN-ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY
Job No. 91069-20-500 I ;:-l /': ~:~·:-:;··.~ .. : ·--.
· l · ' .~ I/,, i r' '· 1 • ·
f ~ ~j ! ~ l::J L~ LJ i._: ~~: 't; ~. r-~--·-----~-.:
t ru· I ' } J LI ;. . DEC ·-· 2 1991 ; ~ '-" . l J ~--~.,,_/ ;
i
CENTENNIAL ENGINEERING, lf-lC. I
-· .. ~: r--r~TJ78D
. :,,'I
;:o'.J 1 :. 1JJ1 ~:1 ~
U.S. Deporlment
of Trons~rlotion
· . . · .,. Norlhwesl Mountain Region 1r;n1 l.inrl Avrnll". S W
· ·' • • 1 --"· Color.1rio. ld.1ho. Montana Rrnlon. W;i~hinglon 98055 J056
Federal Avfatton
Administration
NOV 0 8 1991
William P. Statham
. --·· -----Ot0gon. Ut;ih, W<:Jshington
Wyoming
Toothrran-orton Engineering Company
1802 North 33rd st
Boise, ID 83703
Dear Bill:
'!his letter is in reply to your letter of october 11, 1991, relating to
the proposed IIS for McCall, Idaho and the Deinhard lane Bypass study.
With regard to your comments on the Wilcox IIS site survey, I agree.
Their study was short sighted; it glossed over the problem areas, the
negative operational irrpacts of a shorter runway, and presented no
alternatives. I personally favor a Localizer/r::ME approach at less than
half the cost of an TIS.
With regard to the Deinhard lane Bypass, you asked two questions.
1) "Are there any other design constraints relative to the
proposed improvements?''
In general, I can only speak with certainty to the instrurnent
proc.edures constraints, as this is my area of specialization. other
types of constraints, such as airport design standards and
electromagnetic constraints, should be referred to specialists in those
respective fields.
The only possible additional constraint that I could foresee, involves
the instrument departure procedure. 'Ihe only instrument departure
procedure currently authorized for the airport uses RWY 16. An
Instrument departure procedure is not ncM approved for RWY 34. The
lack of a published departure procedure does not mean that a pilot is
restricted from making an instrument departure from this runway; it
does, however, put the turden of obstacle clearance on the pilot.
If a RWY 34 IFR departure were to be developed in the future, the
likeliest route would be a climb straight ahead to 400' alx>ve the
airport, followed by a right turn to the MYL NDB or Donnelly VORTAC.
This would r0:1Uire a 40:1 TERPS departure surface (plus/minus 500' wide
at the departure threshold with the outside edges of the area splaying
out at a 15 degree angle from the runway centerline) be kept free from
ol:::structions for a distance of 2NM.
• .
,,
2
'Ihe criteria for IFR Departures is contained in TERPS Olapter 12.
2) "Are there any other Navigational Aids that O)Uld provide a
substantially improved approach to the airport that might be less of a
design constraint than the equiprrent discussed in the rep:Jrt?"
The only other types of approaches currently possible are an MIS
(Microwave I.anding System) and a IDRAN-C. In the future, it niay be
possible to develop a GPS (Globa.l Positioni.rg Satellite) ba.sed
approach; rut no criteria exists to develop or plan for such an
approach.
'Ihe MIS option has high expense ooth for the NAVAIDs and for the
required aircraft avionics. Almost none of the general avfo.tion fleet
is equipped to receive an MIS signal. However, most of Horizon
Airline's fleet is so equipped.
IDRAN-C has problems of its own. Al though the mid continent gap was
closed last Spring, unplanned signal ouLl.ges, the lack of Aviation
Blink (monitori.rg of the signal), lack of a IFR certified receiver, and
rumored high avionics installation costs are still plagui.rg this
approach option. A pure IDRAN-C approach will likely have higher
minimums than a Localizer/r::ME approach at Mccall, simply because the
size of the TERPS protected areas are larger for IDRAN-C than they are
for a Localizer.
If the IDRAN-C problems can be solved, then I personally favor a Hybrid
IDRAN-C/Localizer approach to all mountainous airports. This type of
approach not only has a IDRAN-C ba.sed Initial and Missed Approach
segment; rut, has dual IDRAN-C and Localizer signals in the final
segment. This hybrid approach presents the best of both i.rdividual
options -Positive Course Guidance in the Initial and Missed Approach
Segments which allows reduced terrain separation at the ooundaries of
the protected areas, and Localizer guidance with its smaller protected
area in the Final segment to allow the lowest possible Minimtnns at
mountainous airports.
If I can be of further assistance please call me at (206) 227-2224.
Sincerely, /-; . ., (/
. . . . i (_ .,.,..._JI
~ : .I • ...,,,___ --
/ :-~L-( ·-:--; l'
:/ / Victor J. Zembruski, ANM224
ft.·!' Aviation Safety Inspector
cc: Don Larson, SEA ADJ
Design Year Average Running Volume (ADT) Speed (MPH) . Under Less than 50iMPH 750 Vehicles 50 MPH and Over 750 Under to 50 MPH 2000 Vehicles 50 MPH and Over Over All 2000 Speeds Vehicles Lane Width 9 10 10 11 11 /'.--....... MINIMUM ROADWAY WIDTHS TWO LANE RURAL HIGHWAYS AND LOCAL ROADS Less than 10% Trucks .. Shoulder Width Total Width* 2 22 2 24 2 24 I 3 28 6 34 *Note: The total width may be reduced 2 feet in mountainous terrain. 10% or more Trucks·· Lane Width Shoulder Width 10 2 10 2 1 1 2 12 3 12 6 *'Trucks are defined as heavy vehicl8s, single unit configuration or larger(6 or more tires). lrotal Width· 24 24 26 30 36 •rj f-'· U) c ~ ro -.J 0 w f-'
' •· .. . .
lTD-11!51 9-87 TRRFFIC DRTR REQUEST
p
l
E
PROJECT NO. .C-32 71 {z~) SHEET_/_ OF -2
ORTE 2 /12 /92. --
ROUTE ..:SJ.I.SS: NI LE POST L INI TS /4CJ. 483 TO 14 Z. aoo
LOCATION ;N1ct.Au... ~L~-€.019re tf(o'-'!'!S' (oJ..Jc IU::>~rs)
COUNTY (...).qUJ;}/
IF THE LOCATION CANNOT BE IOENTIFIEO BY MILE POST DESIGNATION, PLEASE ATTACH R NAP.
INTENDED USE OF ORTA: :Dc--:s~A.l :Dc:.s1c.,.J.qn~~
~ IMPORTANT LAND USE OR TRANSPORTATION FACTORS TO CONSIDER JN COMPUTING
E THE TRAFFIC EST I NATE: cw€ Alc;-W 19-L~AJ~~ ;eoc.1r-s;-(~o.uc 12~TI£=")
c
0
11 p
l
E
T
E
NOTE! PROJECTED TRAffIC rs COMPUTED FOR THO YEARS BEYOND CONSTRUCTION. PLUS AH ADDITIONAL THENIY YEARS.
TRAFFIC ESTIMATE JS REQUESTED FOR THE YEARS: 1993AND 201_,2_
REQUESTED BY JoJ-J.J \/oc:;; r TELEPHONE NO. 849S DISTRICT ;-Inc/:;
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF THERE ARE HORE THAN THREE SECTIONS .
TRAFFIC SEC. NO. A_ TRAFFIC SEC. NO. l?> TRAFFIC SEC. NO. c_
HILE POST ,140.4-S3 142.. 7'1 (, 14J.6 72
FROM FROM fR0/1
LIMITS 142.7'7~ 143. lc.72. /44.a4-la
TO TO TO
ROT 19_ w/o uJ w/o w ~10 uJ
ROT 19Q 3'92.o 392.o ~o 4980 7090 t-o20 .
AOT 20 1 3 .SSIO .SSIO 84-30 6130 'i'BSo 83S"O
DHV 19~ c:9Sb 8Sa 790 .SLD 71D 480
DHV 20 .!.3.. //90 /1'90 IJ()O 7,50 990 t:.7D
0 (CIR. CI!TRIBUTION
01.llI 110 CHY) ~/4.a /. 6o/4-a I. ~a/4o /.
T (4 or TRUCKS IH CHY) ~.lo /. $.4-/. -1·3 I.
c ex ar T~UCK~ IN ROT) 12.'3 /. 7.7 /. ~.2. I.
TRUCK DENSITY .Lie:. i.J,..._ H~P.iJ'j .LJ~>-IT -J./t:AV':/... LI& >1 r ->/~vy
REHRRKS:
BA s r s 0 F Es T I t1 ATE : w I nJ .,q .J ~ &.U I ~o ... q= ..t.. 0 "'-' c ,Q.~.:?-E!?.-..} '9 T"G'" IC.a c.rry:=
t'N Pl-4<:..C::
NOTE: ACT AHO CHY AIU: TWO-WAY VOLUMES UNLESS OTHEl!WISE NOTED.
REVIEHEO BY~~~~~~~
p
L
E
fl s
E
•
c
0
11
p
l
E
T
E
.· ..
:
.~t
~;:
··:
.':; ..
•' ..
.J, TD-I I 5 I SI - 8 7 TRAFFIC DRTR REQUEST
p
l
E
A s
E
ll
c
0
N
p
L
E
T
E
I SHEET~ OF ..2..
PROJECT NO. F-32. 71 @~) ORTE Z 12/~2
ROUTE HILE POST LIMITS ______ TO ______ _
COUNTY~~~~~~~~
If THE LOCATION CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED BY MILE POST DESIGNATION, PLEASE ATTACH A NAP·
INTENDED USE OF ORTA:
IMPORTANT LANO USE OR TRANSPORTATION FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN COMPUTING
THE TRAFFIC ESTIMATE=~---------------------
NOTE1 PROJECTED TRAFFIC JS COMPUTED FOR THO YEARS BEYOND CONSTRUCTION. PLUS AN ADDITIONAL THENTI YEARS.
TRAFFIC ESTIMATE IS REQUESTED FOR THE YEARS: 1993 AND 2013
REQUESTED BY TELEPHONE NO. DISTRICT
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF THERE ARE HORE THAN THREE SECTIONS
TRAFFIC SEC. NO . ...d2... TRAFFIC SEC. NO • .t:: TRAFFIC SEC. NO. ,,.c-
HILE POST /#. 0 4.lc. /4S.~97 Lo.JG ,L) L-rS-rvv~ Ts:-
FROM fROM fROrt
LIMITS 14s. 6'17 147. &o /ZouTF
TO TO TO
ADT 19_ u.J/o "-1 w/o '-'.J
ROT 19 q3 ~z~c 5190 2500 .25bo /()70
ADT 20 /~ 8710 72/D 3S3o 3S,30 ISoo
OHV 19 93 8G.o ,30 s4-o 54-o 2.&
OHV 20& 12aa 880 7~a 7~o -320
0 tOI~. Ol~T~I!UTlO~ b:J/4o I. DUlillO DHYl
~/40 I. ~o/4o I.
T rx ar TKUCKS lH CHY) 4.e I. /CJ.S z 'f, b I.
c ex or TKUCKS lH ROT) (:..9 I. /S.o I. ;.S.7 /.
TRUCK DENSITY .t..l~/>IT-H~.Jy .L.J~J-lr-~v'/ LUH1 -He-Av'/
REMARKS: ~ f!.. t:.A c. t;:"~ z/2_1/c;1 Sw.Brn1~1_
BASIS OF ESTIMATE:
N 0 TE : AOT ANO OHV ARE: TWO-WRY voLunf'.3 UNLf:33 OTHHW r 3£ Norm.
REVIEWED BY-~-~~~~
·{ -. ,
. ~-···· ... .. ~-· .. :·: --:
. . ·-...
I
----
•
I I
~:'
I I . ' ~ ~-··
1. -,~ : ,. . . ... l
~. i .. , . l . .
l. ::-· . .. .
if \ , ~
/\ {;'.
I '\ ')
. --....J
<....'
• t: I
'\
I
' r-.
·-' .-·.
\
' ..
.
v
; I ,\:, ) 1 ":" •
· ...... ..;.c:--J :•t\.lO~ ;::.(-~!;
~ -.:. -~ .. }i) .. ,.. .
_.... •• l --.
A
-· , ..... ' ---'~.:,,/
~ _, ,_
/ ,,,--... , "'_:.J
II '.:.:..:;/
. /
I
/
I
)
' I
·'
r
..
. . '
ITD-11!51 1·87 TRRFFIC DRTR REQUEST
p
L
E
PR o J E c T No • --"'-F-_-_3_2....;....7.;....I _._(-=u~) --------/.
SHEET_/_ OF 3
DATE_2~/-~~/_1_2-,,=--~~~-
ROUTE St/ S"S H I LE P 0 ST LI HI TS __ /_4-_CJ_._4_8--"3'--_ TO __ 14_7 ._8_o_o __ _
L 0 CA T I 0 N /v1 c. CA '-L AL 7qrt. NA 'Tl!!!' ~ u ?JS"",.! ( '"TW o R..D u-;-s-..r )
COUNTY r.J,qLL§Y
IF THE LOCATION CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED BY HILE POST DESIGNATION. PLEASE ATTACH A HAP.
INTENDED USE Of DATA: :DcSl~AJ :Oc-si<:,.J,qnoJ
~ . I HP OR TANT LANO USE OR TRANSPORTATION FACTORS TO CONS I DER IN CONPUTI NG
E THE TRAFFIC ESTIMATE: ~o ,.,;e-v..J A<..~A--rt Rpuns-s (..(o.J~ ~ S>-loR.:r-)
. 'II
c
0
M p
L
E
T
E
NOTEt PROJECTED TRAFFIC IS COMPUTED FOR THO YEARS BEYOND CONSTRUCTION, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY YEARS.
TRAFFIC ESTIMATE IS REQUESTED FOR THE YEARS: 19~AND 20.L2_
REQUESTED BY Jo1./...J VoG T TELEPHONE NO. 84-9 S DISTRICT ;-/v()s
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF THERE ARE HORE THAN THREE SECTIONS
TRAFFIC SEC. No.LL TRAFFIC SEC. NO.~ TRAFFIC SEC. NO. c__
MILE POST 14-a.483 142.. 79 ta 14-3. lr,7?_
fR0/1 FROM FROM
LIMITS 14-2. 79 to 143. b 72.. 144. o4(o
TO TO TO
ROT 19_ w/o u..J w/o w w/o w
ROT 19 '13 .392.o 37._2-o ~so .3/Sc ?090 4190
ROT 20Q.. SS/D SS/CJ B4.3o 4370 98.so .$790
OHV 199.L 8so SS"o ?<JO ·.s8o 710 3aa
OHV 20 13 /}t:/D I 19 O 11~0 .:52 CJ . <::;qo 4-tO
0 CDIR. DISTRIBUTION t::,oho I. tr.o /do I. ~14-D I. WlHIO DHV )
T tX Of TRUCKS IH Ot1Vl 8.6 /. 4.4 I. 3.S I.
c ex or TftUCK3 lH ROT) I '2. ~ I. G.3 I. S:o I.
TRUCK DENSITY .L./C >lT-J.k.-;q.vy ~l~H~ -JJ~vy .L.}~).Jr -;.Jq-~J'i..
REMARKS:
BASIS OF ESTINATE: winJ ~.Jz, t...Jin.Lc:>""r .L....o...;c ,.q.._u, ..:s~a,r A~A1'9rc-
Ro1...17"1!:'"'s iv PLA <::G .
NOTE: AOT ANO OHV AR!: TWO-WRY VOLUMES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
REVIEWED BY~~~~~~~
F
L
E
F. s
E
c c ,..
F
L
E
T
E
. . ,
p
l
E
A s
TRRFFIC DRTR REQUEST
SHEET _£of 3
PROJECT NO. F-3271 (2l.) ORTE 2/1:z__/9z..
ROUTE HILE POST LIMITS ______ TO ______ _
l 0 CAT I 0 N .-0 c. CA u., -4~9-TtS IZDyn;;;y
COUNTY~-------
If THE LOCATION CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED BY MILE POST DESIGNATION. PLEASE ATTACH A HAP.
INTENDED USE OF DATA:
IMPORTANT LAND USE OR TRANSPORTATION FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN COMPUTING
E ·THE TRAFFIC ESTIHATE: _____________________ _
•
c
0
H
p
L
E
T
E
NOTEt PROJECTED TRAffJC JS COMPUTED fOR THO YEARS BEYOND CONSTRUCTION. PLUS AN ADO!T!ONAL TWENTY YERRS.
TRAFFIC ESTIMATE. IS REQUESTED FOR THE YEARS: 19~RNO 20~
REQUESTED BY TELEPHONE NO. DISTRICT
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF THERE ARE HORE THAN THREE SECTIONS
TRAFF IC SEC. NO. :J:) TRAFFIC SEC. NO. 15'" TRAFFIC SEC. NO.,c-
HILE POST 144 . t:J 4-lo /4S.lo97 Lo.Jc.. A'-~4n;'
FROM FROM fRCr,
LIMITS 14.s". l:,97 147. Boo Rau.~
TO TO TO
ROT 19_ t....i/o w w!o w
ROT 19 :l2_ ~o 33~o 2.Soo 2Soo /D70
ROT 20& 87 tt:) 4<.so .35'3o 3S3o ·1soo
DHY 19 :tJ. Bt..o 450 si1.-o S4o 2.30
DHY 20 1.2.._ /2oo ,20 7'o 71.o 3~
0 (CIK. OIST~I8UTIOH ~c/4.p I. C'\JlIMO CHY) ~/4...o I. ~/4...D /.
T t~ Of TKUCKS lH CHY) 3.8 /. 10.s /. 9.~ I.
c S.S" I. IS". D /. 13.7 /. (% or T~UCKS IH ROT)
TRUCK DENSITY .L x: 1-lr-;../ fi'1',<J'( LIC ~..,. -;../ €="19 I.IV ""-' c ;.l'r -Jk:-'19-v Y
REMARKS:
BASIS OF EST I NATE:
N 0 TE : ROT AHO CHY AR[ TWO-WAY VOLUMES UHL[:!:S OTHE:RW I 3[ HOT[O.
REVIE~ED BY ______ _
f
l
E
F
~
E
(
c
I"
F
L
E
I
E
,.
{
. .;·
,. . , I
I TD-I IS I SI -8 7 TRAFFIC DRTR REQUEST '
p
L
E
A s
E
•
c
0
M
p
l
E
T
E
PROJECT NO. ,,c: 32..7l(z.t...)
SHEET ~OF 3
ROUTE MILE POST LIMITS ______ TO ______ _
LO CAT I ON N1 c:.~'-L. "9'-~"91S /Zcu..Jn::y
COUNTY _______ _
If THE LOCATION CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED BY NILE POST DESIGNATION. PLEASE ATTACH R NAP.
INTENDED USE OF DATA:
IMPORTANT LAND USE OR TRANSPORTATION FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN COMPUTING
THE TRAFFIC ESTJHATE: ___________________________ _
NOTE: PROJECTEO TRAFFIC IS COMPUTED FOR TWO YEARS BEYOND CONSTRUCTION, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY YEARS.
TRAFFIC ESTIMATE IS REQUESTED FOR THE YEARS: 1993AND 20___!_3_
REQUESTED BY TELEPHONE NO. DISTRICT
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF THERE ARE HORE THAN THREE SECTIONS
TRAFFIC SEC. NQ. ___ TRAFFIC SEC. NO. __
FROM FROM i
LIMITS
fROM
Ro4"rc ___ I
TO ~ TO
ROT 19_
ROT 19 93 /8.30
ROT 20 ~ .2.-:::J-l. 0
OH.V 19 5..3-/Bo
OHV 20 13 2'-c
0 CDJR. DI,TRI!UTIO~ ~/4-a I. OUUllO OHV)
T rx Of TKUCXS IH DHV) 3.3 I.
c tX Of TKUCK' IH ROT) 4,7 I.
TRUCK DENSITY i..J<:µ,-_ ,../cAv'/
REMARKS:
BASIS OF ESTIHATE:
TO
________ /.
_______ /.
______ /.
_______ /.
______ /.
________ /.
N 0 TE : ROT ANO OHV ARE TWO-MAY VOLUME' UNLESS OTHERM I SE: NOTED.
REVfE~ED BY _______ _
·---
.. I
.::
·:
.---
..
-': -.. ·. -
• . '
: . ,: .
~
c
/. . ·.·· ..
; .
I I . ' \
..
' i \ ~ ~--· J---~:
.-· ' ~ l
. :, I .. .. .
: ,.....-.....,_ .
r H i ~ ~
I\ i~:):
I "\
.--....J
~
I
-H-
. !]
....
\ . I•
,
i.·-.. . ' .... ....
~ ....... . c
: ..,.. '. 0 '/ ...
• 'r1 {
~ . \
_,. = . ..,,.. __, ~ ,__ I
•• -\__• _.J
• "·"'= 7 ,. I , -
• ~: r:.__ .... -- -J ;,if • ,--_., • : ·-... ·.
" :
. ,,. -:~~. --,·· 1· .....
d ·J .(; , <-' . ,..u . . I
·, ,,
• I ..,. --• :....---1-· . .,~ . ._," . l :~; . \ ,, ' '' ..
le
I . v
.· --·
I
• I A:,\~~~--,_:--:'I
...... .:.&--' :,t\..L.O• •••t -:>"o
..:. ·: .. ti} ..
.,;. . ~ --.
A
. .
' ~. \ --
/,~
'~
I
.I
I .•
. ,,
I
" ~ • • ~ • • ' a ) '} ) ~ > .. .., ) .. ~ • ~ • ~ PKG NO CONSTR CAPITAL ~VAL/ PERIOD COST" U~ER IUNDISCI 21 2 3b40 JI J 4105 4/ " 37Zb 5/ 5 it352 bl b 3640 71 7 "105 Bl d J12b 9/ 9 4352 HIAP FOR HC CALL DIENHARU ALTERNATIVE ECONUHIC MEASURE REPORT HC CALL ALTERNATE USER PACKAGE SET ID= PSETOOOJ; NUMBER • A~EA & 3; BUDGETING KEYS • O, O, O,O, O, O,O SECTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: SAO 140.5 TO 142.B SBO 142.B TO 143.7 sea 143.7 TO 144.l SDO 144.l TO 145.7 SEO 145.7 TO 147.8 --·-------·----------· SGl DIENHARO ROAD ALTERNATE A28 SG2 OIENHAl<U ROAD ALTERNATE A34 SG3 UIENHARO ROAD ALTERNATE 828 SG4 OIENHARO ROAU ALTERNATE B34 xx xx .. ""'l r-. : ~-'" ~ ~ I '... .. ·. ,.. ·-! ... --·-... --·-···· ., I b---s-nn--r 02 a& J L .. " ._.. • !!:;;_ ··-CENTENNIAL ENGINEERING, INC; - - - - - - - - -BENEFITS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -NET PRES 8/C ~ --WORTH --RAr"iiJI. (Pl<ESENT WORTH IN ~1oooi _______ _ • • • • • • • - - - -Tl HE -- -OPERATING COST - -· - -ACCIDENT - -TOTAL HAIHT TOTAL (HODO) i ". AUTO SU HU AUTO SU HU ' FAT !NJ PO USER ADHIH NEW ROUTE PACKAGE WITHOUT STAIE BYPASS SECTION LIST: SAO SbO SCO SDO SEO SGl 40481 10814 5b36 l9lb9 b720 l099b NEW ROUTE PACKAGE WITHOUT STATE BYPASS SECTION LIST: SAO S&O sea SDO S(O SG2 40776 101:181 5b67 1909b b705 109b5 NEW ROUTE PACKAGE WITHOUT STATE BYPASS SECTION LIST: SAO S80 SCO SDO SEO SG3 41449 1105 7 5760 200'Hl 70£0 11358 NEW ROUTE PACKAGE ~ITHOUT STATE BYPASS SECTIO~ LIST: SAO SBO sea SDO SEO SG4 'tl 737 11138 5806 20030 100b 11329 NEW ROUTE PACKAGE WITH SECTION F IN OPER SECT ION LI ST: SAO SBO sea SDO SEU SGl 31948 8303 290b 12225 3866 411,9 NEW ROUTE PACKAGE WITll SECTION F IN OPER SECTION LIST: SAO SBO SCO SDO SEO SG2 32190 831t) 2937 12124 31!54 "135 ~EM ROUTE PACKAGE WITH SECTION F IN OPER SECTION LIST: SAO SBO sea SDO SEO SG3 32568 81t5l ;!969 1283b 4U't2 1,295 NEW ROUH PACKAGE WI Tit SECT IUN F IN UPER SlCTIUN LIST: SAO SBO SCO SDO SEO SG't 32 795 1!4 78 291!3 12741 it OJ I 4l79 -.2203 1,373 91,0 9b925 -500 9b"23 • : .. 92784 2~.5_J •• • -2203 4373 9't0 97199 -550 96blo8 92543 23.5 -·---·----·------·--------·----·------, • !---2071 41ob4 950 100084 -525 99558 95832 26. 7 ----• ---------·----------, -2071 't464 950 100)66 -575 99611 95459 22.9 • • -1802 )'tbl b99 b5754 -500 65253 61bl3 17.9 •• -1802 3't6l 699 b594l -550.. b5389 61264 15.9 ___ • " --------·------------·-----~ -1712 3516 705 b7b7l -525 b7145 63419 16.0 • • -1112 3518 705 b1Blb -575 b7240 62666 I~>.~----· ~ ; "-"c:'"'"'~"F-~r..-e,!'M'~·"7"~1!'f<"£¥-'~~;w~-.l:'~t~~1.~f'~,1J~'4)'!$''l''J''/?tfe~~~~~~~;~1~J.~~·'\$~~~~1!! t. 'fl'\! ;;;pJ.r,~'1il; ~i@!~~:':•f'~~'~'•>e·~•••J;~·"'1:·-~ ., . .,~ ··t•i·q,m-,'wr;"'''
,.,,. W[SS(JtSMfTH _Hf!..11: __ DD. MCSSCRSMm1 DOI.LY PVCM rOf!RCSll. HAYES J """'"""" TAUS< """"""" TRUST """""". TRUST SUB ~.INC 3 BOYDSTUN l!WfCH[STtR TRUST ~H[ST[lt "''"'' PINE TRAILER COURT """"" "" OON.&lO J. A P.t.TRICM W. .... m w "' IOWlt.[S It. • <C( TAAICllA L _J KIWl(lt """'"" lilNW:tll[NT TAI 5+ """"L -STREET W.lrUCR r. • IW'IWIA lARU:NC -· N 0 T E TM(T[llltt.IH,lClf'CCfWl'H'l',Uf'll.ffU,,"°"-lrfY 80U~~ NfO OWNCIHil-llF'S. APIO S'lltUC'\lltC5, Af!OIH(lllHOlllZOHTH.MD'WI: PIO\.ll'lttl 1ff ntS ORAMNG HA• flll0"' IOUllCCS OF YAR'l'lfG I SOMC nnD Sl.l'\'tY ""5 IU TM£ Nf'OlnMT.:W IS CONSIOC SUFncitNT ,trCCUIUICT 'Cl'll Pl OHl.Y. #ID ""-l INF"OAMATIOM SI Yl:lllf'lrD PftlOll 10 OCSIGN. """"' "'""' """"° D. ""-"""" """ "°""" L • 1 ""8tRTA ~ lOUl5( r. tW«U """'" I ti w II I 55 I 54 I 5J I 52 I 51] I f"OUCH TRUST ...J MllNrfO L HAMEL I c5i 56 50 l!JO.. l I I~ """""" wm r JI --rR"~ESTO • DRIVE 57 I 58 I 59 I 60 I 6• I 62 I 63 8 J: "' r.w1CHES1[111 I I .., TRUST .., "' u ---I sruo.A"r fOSTCJI ~ SlllTH ""' d LEGEND I z ;:;: I ....,._ I w ""'" .... I w z _,.__ l'R£$SUll[ SCW[lt I.JN[ G C/I l.W4CH£$lt.R nitm z w ~ ':' •m "." "." 11 ...l •-~ r~o•r. _. •-• < z z w 50601 E-o z w (.) 5050(__ w I-50401 < z a::: 50301 w I-_J 50201 < w 50101 z < _J 50001 Cl a::: 49901 < I z I -4980
"" IX 5060 5050 504D 5030 5020 5010 5000 4990 4980 ~T rOSTtlt ""'" ""' C/8 MilHCHCSTtR mvsT 79 -I """""""'"' I ·---------78 ci ~ CD 77 ~ __ I ~I 76 I > SECTION 8 ! SECTION 1 7 TERRA GRAND IS 0 0::1 EST. SUB. STA 1o+oo ' I I STA 35+00 BOYDSTUN STREET SECTION 7 I SECTION 18 l"CARL N. l!IOl'DSTUN. [TA(. LEGEND .. .......... WATtlt MAIN PR!'SSURC st'WCR LM ""'""" STMN M * ........... SC"°"[ MAIN OUTFALL GLORIA ONTMROS STA 40+00 N 0 T E THl T[llllWM, ToPOCIW'HT, IJTilftCS,0 PROP(llTY IKUtCWtlCS AHO OWt<ltSHIPS. AND STltUCT1..lltO. N«J THCIR ~RllOHTAt N«J 't'CllTICAL LOCATJOHS, PICTUfC£O IN 0«S DIUWllC HA.VI: BC[N OSlNN[O rllOlil SOll'lt£S CW VAlt'nolO M:l""8UTY. SOW( fl[lO sowYtY HAS ICCN P(ltrOIN(D TM[ .. rORMA.TOI IS a>NSIOCRCO TO BC Of SLllTICICN'I ICCVfUCY JOll ~ ~s OM.l'. »O N..l W(llltM.\nof'I SHOVLO ll nno V[IWl[D ~CW!; IOOCSIClol. 5 / 17 16 I Is I / McCALL NDUSTRIA 3 _J ~ a:: Cltli ::::> Cl z STA 45+0 -3' <XJ 0 0 z w I-::> 0 a:: ~ z ::::> 0 0 9URTOH £. .. BCTl( WAt.K(lt 9 PARK 15 18 19 20 14 13 Q. 0 g BLUE JAY 8 SUBDIVISION 10 llJRlON [ W.ttK[lt. ["IU:W: 7 scnc J WAUC£" 6 i 91; J: Ill "" "" Ill I 50601 u ~ cS z ii: ~ ~ z c:; z ~ ...:I < z z ~ E-< z ~ u 5050~ w I-50401 < z 0:::: . 50301 w ~ 50201 < w 50101 z < .....J 5oool 0 0:::: 49901 < :r: z
6 5 BLUE JAY SUBDIVISION 2 8UlfTON [. WAUCOl.£'TVX 8VA'10N [.. 6: 8[Tl(J. co I ,.... WAl.K[R -1-z1z 212 f;31 f;3 VJ I VJ I I I I ® 0•16" ll•l:oe.10' DCSICH SPECD•l!:i \IPH !LJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \.. ..... ..... '---~""' N 0 T E nee rtRfWM. TOPOCllN"W'f, vnurc:s. F"IOPClfTY 90Ul'OUllC5 ANO OWHCASMP'S, .tHO S'TlrUCTUA[S. NIO Miit HORQOHTAL .\ftl YlATICAI.. LOCATIONS. PICTUJICD IN 'IMS Dfl,l.W'NC 14il'IC 8[[N Oll'TMt['D ntOM SOUACtS Of VNMl'(i. ltCLIAll'l.JTT. SQM( rclO Sl.R\ltT K<liS 9£UI PCRHlf!til(D. 8VRTON [.a: M~llONISCOHSIDClltDTOllCOf 8(Tl[J.W~ surn::ICNt ACCURACT rOfl PVHHIHG PUAPOSES ONLV. NtO AU IHFORMATlOM SM:>l.AD IC '1CLO \l'tlllflCO PRIOll lO DCSICN. ~--~.r-::~?D· CllY OF r.tcOJ.L (S(llf(ll) ..... 8 I "' .., .., "' ~ie ~ 5060 I u ~ cS z C2 ~~ w ~· .. ~ ;ti z G ~.~ z §o= w i~~ ,_;i < 1~ z z w e--z w u 5050~ w I-50401 <( z j I"'") 0:: 50301 w 0 I-z _J 50201 <( w _J w u.... 50101 z 0 <( a:: _J a... 50001 0 <!d 0:: z 49901 <( <i I _J z a... 49801 w 0 ~ ~ SHEHlOfS
!:i I: VI CITY or McCAll (SEW£A) 0-1•15· 11•11029" OCSICH SPc:rD•J5 MPH 5040 5030 5020 5010 4990 BURTON[. • emcJ. wA1..io:c11 DC.SIGH Wt[O•J5 MPH @ 0•16" ll•l.5.!1.10" OCSICH sP[[0-35 WPH 0<v ~<0 q_"'< """""c • KA'llffn'N [llV8[lH MAOSIN 5/91h1 WT. 111'.AUllC( M. HU.COCK 4/tlh1 "'1 .• CTAL 0••"•5' A•1206.2J• OCS!Gfl sPHO-~ WPH STA 95+00 PROPOSED ROUTE RO"W..D [ .• lo;ATHRTN UIZAEl[TH Wril>SIH 5/91 ... INT. 8CATRIC£ M l<ACOCK •/9th1 ltO., £TAI.. MORTWWCS't MOUtl!AJN' l.llSSION l LEGEND ..,... .... """' ..... P'RCSSURE S('W[Jf L.H£ STA 100+00 N 0 T E TW£ TtA'Fl.A#<. 1~. vn.ma.. PA'OP[lflY ~SNIOOWNtltSMIPS.AHDSlRV'.:fVR[<S. AICl lMOA 1-fOAllONTAt. ~ \l'EA'TICAI. LOC.1.1'°"'5· PICJUR'CO IN THl!i [)A.AW:NG M.lV[ 9ClN 09TAIN(O FROM SOU"CC5 Of" VAll'!'IN(; R£L11.811.1Tf souc nun SOJf',l(Y HA.S ercN P£ArOA1o1co n.t: IHfQftNA.ll()PI IS tot610EAEO TO 9C or surncl!:,., .-co..rill.ACT ro11 ~Nr..G ~cs OPltT, NKJ ~l lHl'OINAT~ SttOVl.D 8( fl[lO 'wUtlflCD Pf!IOR 10 OC!.ICH !:i I: ~1!1• u ~ 0 ~ ~-e3 ~i ~ ;~· G h z 15; ~ ~!~ ~ ~~ z z ~ E-z ~ u w ..,_ <! 49901 z ht a::: w 0 49801 ..,_ z _J <! w ....J w l..J._ z 0 <! a:: _J CL 0 ~ a::: <! z <( I __J z CL w ~ ~ ~ SHEET40FS
v !:i :c "' ... i:l . 5010 5000 4990 4980 4970 4960 t ltORTHW(Sl WOUHlAIN MISSION ltONALD C. 6: KATHRYN £llZABCTH li.W)SIN ~/9tr.11 INT. SU.TRICE lol. H£.-COCK 4/91ht INT., CTAt. " z 0 ;::: 0 w (/) '° z 0 ;::: 0 w (/) " ~ ~ tl: '.!i ~ ~ !!; ':3 ~ I ~ e; ~ 8 I TI< T[RRNI(, T~ • .;~ PRCP(1ITI' llOIMOUnES I NtD a-1:"5HIPS, .UCO 5111!UtTIJRl5, AHO THUi HQRllOHfM. HQRIZOH'l'At. ANO V[ltTICAL lOCA.TIOHs.. l'ICIUACO ~ TMS I OM.WING HoWC 8((N Otl'TUICD 'ltOU SOUllCCS Of" VM'l'IMG RCL\l81UT"1. SOM( flUO SUIN£'I' ~ llECN PCRrOllM[tl. n< 1Nr01tlilAT~ IS CON51D(lt(O to ec OI St,#llCl(NJ I ::f:,~o;~:' ,~~~:.=',:LocSIGH. I STA 120+00 I PROPOSED NORTHERN ROUTE ~ A -16"" - - - -_J_ - ----+--, r 1 ... ,.. """ • Cl:-""""' 1 1 I I :-s~ 1~D-lS MPH I I I I (HORII •• VCRT. CONlROllED) I I I 1!,. ~.. I I I 1"•6JIU2" •·6J6.62' I I I O[SIGM SP[[0•3S l.fPH DESIGN sPClC'•JO MF'H I (VERT. COKJROU.[0) r.'l:RT. COHTRQ.1£0) 1 I PRbP<pSED N~E l Bl I ' Sit.LY CW.Cf. i!r OORQTHT NIN °"5~ n~tR McBRIOE-51'• <Ml I .... •<vet 8RYNING ..... ~ (;Ofa!MINIUM$ le ROBIN R. 6' :5 ~::;;_70· MARY D. WAl..lCS ::> OESICN SP[C0•2S WPH I •(HOfftZ. CONTA:OUED) ~ ii<--+------'~ >-l!llj!!I ~1· ~· 2• l l ~ I ,~~\\ c..i R•e.36.62' OCS>CH sPcrO .. JO WPH :s {YtRT. COHTROlLEO) ~ I ""~:;"y ~ c:i z APRON I i2 ~~ w ~~ w z ~!i c:; ~,~ Got n£-DOWN \ G< ~~ ~~,\ \ I z §§; Tt£:-OOWN w i~~ APRON -1 < ~3 z z w 50401 E-z w u 5030~ w I-50201 <( I lf) z 0:: 50101 w 0 I-z _J 5000 I <( w _J w L:;:: 4990 I z 0 <( a:: _J ()_ 49801 0 cll:S 0:: z 49701 <( <! :c _J z ()_ 49601 w 0 DUI 1-tt-n -IC~ SHHT s or s