HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 21-12 Adopting SH55 and Deinhard/Boydstun Study City of McCall
RESOLUTION 21-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MCCALL, IDAHO, ADOPTING THE SH55 AND
DEINHARD/BOYDSTUN CORRIDOR EXCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, PROVIDING FOR
RELATED MATTERS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the McCall Area Comprehensive Plan (2018) includes a goal to "Celebrate the culture
of McCall and creativity of residents through public art"; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2019, City Council authorized resolution 19-20 Authorizing the
Execution of a Cooperative Agreement with ITD for participating in a corridor feasibility study to
identify and quantify the cost of improving SH5 5 and Deinhard Ln corridors to meet the standards
of the agency taking responsibility for the route in an exchange; and
WHEREAS, On December 18, 2020 City Council was presented with the draft report by Horrocks
Engineers, City Staff and Representatives of ITD District 3; and
WHEREAS, the fmal SH55 and Deinhard/Boydstun Corridor Exchange Feasibility Study was
presented to City Council on March 11, 2021; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of McCall,
Valley County, Idaho that:
Section 1: The SH55 and Deinhard/Boydstun Corridor Exchange Feasibility Study is adopted, and a
copy of the Study is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 2: This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the McCall City Council of the City of McCall, Idaho, on March 11,
2021. i
` OV Mc �C,,��APPROVED:
* Z: Y 5 Robert S. Giles, Mayor
ATTEST: ftet
;° *�:
By
Bessiefo Wag er, ity C s�nD►��������
EXHIBIT A
Corridor Study Report
Final Draft (Pending approval by the City of McCall and ITD)
Prepared for
The City.of McCall
with support from
The Idaho Transportation Department
�DAHp
� z
Cityof McCall 2`�A
9TATlON O�Q
SH 55 & Deinhard/Boydstun Corridor Exchange
Feasibility
Valley County, Idaho
March, 2021
Prepared by:
�ONA L
E N SE'FN61
15544
Z 03/02/2021
sT�pgTE of
h'ER M.
Chris Melander, P.E.
Project Engineer
HORROCKS
u-u
E N G I N E E R S
HORROCKS
_-u-11
E N G I N E E R S
Table of Contents
CorridorStudy Report.................................................................................................................1
ProjectDescription .....................................................................................................................1
1 - Multimodal Facilities..............................................................................................................1
Approach 1
Summary S
Estimateof Improvement Costs........................................................................................................................................6
2 - Drainage................................................................................................................................6
Approach 6
Summary 7
Estimateof Improvement Costs........................................................................................................................................8
3 - Utilities...................................................................................................................................9
Approach 9
Summary 9
Estimateof Improvement Costs......................................................................................................................................11
4 - Roadway Geometry.............................................................................................................11
Approach 11
Estimate of Improvement Costs......................................................................................................................................19
5 - Pavement Condition ............................................................................................................20
Approach 20
Estimateof Improvement Costs......................................................................................................................................21
6 - Intersections........................................................................................................................22
Approach 22
Estimateof Impromment Costs......................................................................................................................................23
7 - Miscellaneous......................................................................................................................23
Approach 23
Estimateof Improvement Costs......................................................................................................................................23
8 - ROW Conflict Identification..................................................................................................24
Approach 24
CostEstimate Summary................................................................................................................................................32
OverallCost Summary...................................................................:..........................................33
NextSteps................................................................................................................................34
SH SS&Deinhnrzl/Boydrtun CoriidorEschnuge Feasibility i
HORROCKS
-u-ii-
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix A— Curb Ramp Inspection Form No. 0288...............................................................35
Appendix B — Multimodal Inventory ..........................................................................................36
Appendix C — Multimodal Improvement Costs..........................................................................37
Appendix D — Drainage Improvement Costs and Calculations ..................................................38
Appendix E — Deinhard Curve Flattening..................................................................................39
Appendix F— Developer Intersection Design............................................................................40
Appendix G — ITD Intersection Design .....................................................................................41
SH 55 dam'Deiuha1d/Boydst11n ConidorExchange Feasibility ii
HORROCKS
®ii-u-
E N G I N E E R S
Project Description
State Highway 55 is the principal north-south corridor connecting Boise and Lewiston and points north.
Through downtown McCall, SH 55 functions as the City's "plain Street". Over the last 20 years, the Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT) through downtown McCall has increased from 8,800 to 11,000 vehicles per
day. This growth has placed increasing pressure on the route's function as an efficient state highway. An
alternate route (Deinhard/Boydstun) exists outside the downtown core that has potential to resolve these
issues. A mutually beneficial corridor exchange between the City of McCall and the Idaho Transportation
Department is being sought as a solution to this problem. The purpose of this Corridor Exchange Feasibility
Study Report is to summarize the cost of improving each corridor to meet the desired standards of the agency
taking responsibility for the route in an exchange. A description of the two routes in question is as follows:
State Highway 55 (SH 55):
Beginning at the intersection of 3`d St and Deinhard lane (SH 55 MP 143.03) the alignment bears north along
3`d St until the intersection with Lake St (SH 55 MP 143.97). At the intersection with Lake St. the alignment
bears west and follows Lake St, ending at the intersection with Boydstun St. (MP 145.40).
Deinhard/Boydstun:
Beginning at the intersection of 3`d St and Deinhard lane(MP 101.72) the alignment bears west along Deinhard
Ln until Deinhard Becomes Boydstun and bears north. The alignment continues until the intersection with
Lake St. (MP 114.88),where the alignment ends.
The following report sections summarize the data gathering and cost estimating work completed to date,
including estimated cost ranges for improvements. These sections are organized by improvement type; 1)
Multimodal Facilities, 2) Drainage, 3) Utilities, 4) Roadway Geometry, 5) Pavement Condition, 6)
Intersections, and 7) Miscellaneous Improvements.
1 - Multimodal Facilities
Approach
From the City of McCall's perspective,multimodal connectivity is an important consideration in the adoption
of the SH 55 corridor. A review of all pedestrian facilities on SH 55 included information provided by ITD,
supplemented with aerial mapping, and a field review of the corridors. This information has been organized
in CAD files along with an inventory spreadsheet used to determine the quantities and costs reported below.
Noncompliant facilities have been identified with general recommendations for modification or replacement.
All costs provided here are preliminary,planning level estimates.
Appendix A, included with this report, is the form that ITD used to inspect 5 key criteria on the SH 55
pedestrian ramps. Appendix B summarizes the information obtained from ITD and adds the locations for
future pedestrian facilities,tallying the quantities for all potential pedestrian improvements. Finally,Appendix
C breaks down the multiunodal facility improvements by construction bid item and provides a cost range
based on ITD and City of McCall bid histories.
Throughout the downtown core of McCall (Colorado to 1" Street) the sidewalk and pedestrian ramps are
continuous and nearly all compliant with current accessibility standards. Outside of this area pedestrian and
SH 55 dam'Deinhard/Boydstun Conidor Exchange Feasihilio 1
t K1 �� ^R•' i fir !"�'�. t
�.,• p ',fit M'� k � ��?� - t � "ra,�r- •`4 -+. -,
" 1 -�Y� r ii R' �7 .Y`..:R�� • ��� '� ilk ¢ 1;� � '. P 1�
�" ; ` f �� ,fl r•L•+'* �-£k �Fy a }r.T � i}�s:1t'' s rli►� } ♦..y �4 S t. �. s �� _.
'�. r h. ~t d.T' . `� � �_y(�';yPY+, t• � ./yu�+' k`+��;�� +re
\ ���� ,,� _'� .• IN fl�$-'!C1••� #1..+:��. �- �,t *,',��'F1�•� `e�J"r ,e 'ss �-.
IN i
EE
Y a; � 1`}war 11�.d {�\�-/"`�✓ p 1J},, �'T "'/ �,• ��,p•/
JP
`/ !• -1 '�f�'- ., '- �„ �. r .+ °may:4y
.a. l•h YY t. ,,-��a
4 ,j+_4 -'"'''..,L iA�.."1-e�Yf� �!•-f•' :� iit,. ^ .�/ 5<'. ,
71
'�1'.�- .�J i. -��i��'��. Y_t: .«it is•�'F.�:.�� ..C``;A,.-.z__.t.
•• • • • • • • • • •
a
/Sy } • • • • rr 'y'1 t
1— T'� ,,,��,� ��` 'l�r.a • • • � 1 r� it
t' i(`' 'v' ,.s,,tl.,l Ty r.F i • • . '_:':.7y... f,' /, ,vJww 1 .
MAA
rT, R '
17
•�- � ins -.; r
FZt ,
1 . '
HORROCKS
s 11-11 e
E N G I N E E R S
Albertsons on E Lake St to Mission St(South Side):
• Pedestrian ramps
• 8' sidewalk
• Curb and gutter
• 5'bike lanes
tea.=•���, 'f�`l �
Mill
•A j
,y ,7a �
SH-551E.Lake St.
' Legend: a
t • Pedestrian
Ramp
—
8.0'Sidewalk t
5.0'Bikelane it
y , a;,• ^ !—Curb&Gutter 1
y *}`�f. �• 11 If1�: f S U. e•1 �.�..
Mission St to State St. (South Side):
• Pedestrian ramps
• 6' separated pedestrian pathway
• 6.5' swale buffer
• 5'bike lanes
,e 1.
Ly ,. Legend:
• Pedestrian
°�..: Ramp
{' � c —6.0'Pathway
—5.0'Bikelane
} —Swale Buffer
•r —Curb&Gutter
SH-55/W.Lake St. a
m
0
i
SH 55 Denrhardl El gdstrm Cori-idol-Exchange Feasibility 3
HORROCKS
-iirn
E N G I N E E R S
As part of St. Luke's Hospital construction of the new Medical Center, they have agreed to construct a
separated pathway along the city property frontage from State St to the driveway of the Historical Museum.
State St to Lardo Bridge (South Side):
• Pedestrian ramps
• 8' sidewalk
• Curb and gutter
• 5'bike lane
From Vt Street to Lardo Bridge on the North side of Lake St, curb and gutter with a 5' bike lane is
recommended within the improvements to manage storm water runoff. See the Drainage section for storm
drain improvements.
Lardo Bridge
In
- J � Payollo Lako
--
e st.
Legend:
•Padostrian *�- a; -�l .
� Ramp r
—B.B'Sidewalk 4 4�"
—5.g'Bkotane o
Curb 6 Gutter
-
West of Lardo Bridge to Warren Wagon Road (Both sides of roadway):
SH 55&Dearha1-d1 Boydsttm Corridor Exchange Feasibilio 4
HORROCKS
-iuii®
E N G I N E E R S
• Pedestrian ramps
• 8' sidewalk
• Curb and gutter
• 5'bike lanes
f
PaycUn
k
SN Syw�0
Legend: ;.
•PedesUian - Lakosidd Airo. :N �.
vaamo
B.0'Sidmvalk
5.0'&keL— _
Curb&GLMer -"�•�,q:�
G Padnvay
It
From Warren Wagon Road to Boydstun Road the section transitions from sidewalk to a 10' separated
pedestrian pathway section on the north side of Lake St.
Within the Deinhard/Boydstun corridor there is only one pedestrian ramp at the intersection of Deinhard Ln
and Tula St and this ramp complies with ADA standards. For bicycles there are striped bike lanes in the
shoulder on both sides of the Deinhard/Boydstun corridor.
Summary
The solution to bring each ramp into compliance is different in each case ranging from a relatively simple
retrofit with a detectible warning surface, to complete reconstruction with grade adjustment along the gutter
profile in either direction. The list below describes the majority of compliance issues encountered and the
recommended solution:
• Excessive grades along the gutter flowline at the ramp, flare slope,and gutter counter slope should be
resolved by full ramp reconstruction
• Inadequate landing space can be corrected by replacing the old landing with a new one meeting the
dimensional requirements
• Missing, damaged or non-compliant detectible warning surfaces should be installed or replaced with
new compliant products
• In some cases,a partial reconstruction of one, or both,of the flared ramp sections is enough to bring
a ramp into compliance without the reconstruction of the gutter profile.
In Appendix B, ADA Inventory, the following quantities have been estimated for each ramp to cover the
needed improvements:
• Removal of concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter
• Placing of new concrete sidewalk,asphalt pathway and aggregate for base
SH 55&Deinbard/BgdVan CorridorEYcbange Feasibility 5
HORROCKS
®u-ll-
E N G I N E E R S
• Placing of perpendicular, parallel or combination curb ramps and adjacent curb and gutter .
Appendix C estimates the cost of bringing the Yd St/Lake and Deinhard Ln/Boydstun St corridor into
compliance with the current ADA standards and the City of McCall Transportation Master Plan for
multimodal facilities.
Estimate of Improvement Costs
The existing sidewalk and single ramp on Deinhard Ln appear to be in good condition and further
improvements are not desired by ITD, should they take ownership. The Deinhard/Boydstun corridor has
existing bike lanes on both sides of the road, and the current Master Transportation Plan for the City of
McCall has not identified the need for further multimodal improvements within the corridor. Given this
information,multimodal improvement costs along Deinhard/Boydstun are not anticipated.
Improvement cost include price comparison between ITD average bid price values and the City of McCall
average bid prices for each item of work. The following is a range of the cost to improve the corridors to
update multimodal facilities (rounded up to the nearest$10,000).
SH 55: $8,300,000 - $8,830,000
The curb and gutter associated with sidewalk improvements are included in the cost of multimodal
facilities and estimated between $400—470K
Deinhard/Boydstun: $0
2 - Drainage
Approach
This section focuses on the drainage networks within the two corridors, excluding any facilities extending
beyond the right-of-way for the corridors.
To complete the assessment, data was collected in two phases. The first phase consisted of a "desktop"
review of Google Street View, OpenRoads Designer (ORD), McCall Master Transportation Plan, and the
Public Works GIS storm water mapping. The GIS mapping provided locations of existing pipe, manholes,
inlet, and culvert placements. Quantities for inlets, manhole, pipes, and culverts where measured and
identified for replacement in MicroStation. The second phase verified any details that were unclear in the
mapping during an in-person field visit on May 19`h and 20`h 2020. The completed Drainage inventory list
identifies pipe replacements along Deinhard to Boydstun and 3 d St. to Lake St. organized by bid item callouts.
(See Appendix D).
The City of McCall has provided GIS mapping of the existing storm water pipe networks, including inlets,
manholes, pipes, and gravity mains. The City's mapping has been augmented with Horrocks Engineers
mapping of storm water improvements of the downtown core reconstruction.
The runoff from the downtown core area flows north,toward Art Roberts Park into an existing hydrodynamic
treatment chamber before discharging into Payette Lake. While the Vortech system located here is designed
to achieve approximately 80% of the total suspended solid before discharge there are still occurrences where
turbid water is discharged into Payette Lake, which may be due in part to the fact that the existing Vortech
system is undersized for the flows it is handling.A terraced storm water infiltration gallery system is proposed
SHSS&DeinhardlBoydrtun Conidor Exchange Feasibility 6
HORROCKS
-u-ii-
E N G I N E E R S
to work sequentially after the existing hydrodynamic system to further improve runoff quality prior to
discharge. This system would be constructed beneath the Art Roberts Park on the north side of Lake St and
Ind St.
There are seven other locations where the runoff from SH 55 is discharged directly into Payette Lake without
treatment. Because these direct discharge locations pose a significant risk to ITD and the city in the event of
a hazardous material spill in the roadway treatment of stormwater has been identified as a priority. These
discharge locations described as follows:
• SH 55 in front of Albertsons — 12" PVC pipe running along the lot line between 141 E Lake St on
the West and 143 and 147 E Lake St on the east. Drainage Basin includes Lake St runoff and runoff
from the Albertson parking lot
• The intersection of Lake St and Mission St—20"PVC pipe running beneath the Crystal Beach Condo
Association development. Drainage basin include storm water runoff from an 8"PVC pipe from the
Forest Service,Lake St street runoff,and runoff from side ditches from Park St.
• The intersection of Lake St and State St— 18" CMP pipe running along the lot line between 201 ``U
Lake St on the West and 125 Lake St on the east. Drainage basin includes Lake St runoff, St. Luke's
Hospital storm water held within a retention pond located on the southeast corner of State St and
Lake St.
• The intersection of Lake St and Mather Rd— 18" C1NIP pipe running beneath the roadway of Mather
Rd to the west. Drainage basin includes Lake St runoff catch by existing side ditched located along
the south side of Lake St and from Forest St to Lake St.
• Lake St in front Shore Lodge—15"PVC pipe beneath Shore Lodge development parking lot. Runoff
from Lake St is captured into the existing storm drain network.
• Lake St and Legacy Park— 12" PVC pipe beneath Legacy Park and East of Lago Chapala Mexican
Restaurant. Drainage basin includes part of the section between the 90 degree turn to Railroad Ave
and part of Legacy Park.
• The intersection of Lake St and Pine St — storm water pipes from the south connect to a manhole
running beneath Legacy Park northwest of intersection of Lake St and Pine St. to a 18"SDR pipe,the
pipe splits into 5 12" CMP pipes discharging into the Payette Lake. Drainage basin includes runoff
from Smok'n Spirits at Railroad Ave leading up towards Railroad Ave to Pine St and part of Legacy
Park.
Access restrictions to private property allowed only four of the seven discharge points to be evaluated during
the field visit, namely: the intersection of Lake St and Mather Rd. Lake St in front Shore Lodge,Lake St and
Legacy Park, and the intersection of Lake St and Pine St. Existing pipes are in good condition, there appears
to be no sign of sediment build up at point of discharge. At these seven untreated discharge locations an
infiltration gallery like the one proposed at Art Roberts is not practical due to space restrictions. Treating
stormwater within the available ROW will require more compact treatment solutions. The recommended
treatment strategy at these locations is described below.
Summary
The water quality threshold used for sizing the pretreatment and the primary systems is based on the City of
McCall Resolution No. 16-10,which requires that new treatment systems are sized for treating the first flush
of a 2-year (0.81" of rainfall) 95`h percentile storm based on McCall's historical data. This was decided after
SH 55 dam'Deihha1-d1Bgdrtun Conido•ExchnngeFeafibi§i , 7
HORROCKS
u-u
E N G I N E E R S
evaluating two other criteria, the FH`VA Urban Drainage Design Manual which has been adopted by ITD
and the Idaho Department of Environmental Standards for storm-water runoff. Both standards require that
the first flush of a 2-year event be treated. The DEQ requirements for water quality of urban runoff from
new and stabilized development sites, requires 80% suspended solids must be removal prior to the point of
discharge. The ITD Roadway Design Manual Section 645-Storm Sewers design procedures are outlined in
FH%VA publication"Urban Drainage Manual".
Each untreated discharge point should be proceeded by a bypass structure and two treatment steps to achieve
a TSS removal of greater than 80%.These treatment steps consist of,pretreatment and primary treatment. A
bypass structure such as a manhole should be placed first in the treatment system. The bypass should be
designed such that 80% of all storms are routed to the pretreatment system such as a hydrodynamic treatment
chamber (Vortech Filter) or a sediment and oil chamber before entering the primary pretreatment stage of
the system.Primary treatment such as a Jelly Fish Filter should be designed to filter fine particles of 25 microns
before discharge. The remaining 20% of storms characterized as high intensity and long duration will be
bypassed directly to the Lake. The bypass is just in place for very long duration storms so that the pipes,inlets
and streets do not become surcharged. After the first flush, the runoff contamination is reduced significantly.
Following the bypass manhole comes the pretreatment stage. The goal of pretreatment is to collect as much
sediment as possible prior to primary treatment to extend the life of the filtration media in the primary
treatment stage. Sand/grease traps and hydrodynamic separators are two examples of pretreatment that could
be used. Additionally, any new inlets that are installed should be specified to include a sump to help reduce
the amount of sediment that snakes its way to the treatment system.
Since space requirements are lunited, the option of an infiltration gallery or seepage bed is not practical. The
final step of primary treatment should be accomplished by a filter mechanism capable of removing trash, oil,
debris, TSS, fine silt-sized particles, and a high percentage of particulate-bound pollutants; including
phosphorus, nitrogen, metals and hydrocarbons. An example of primary treatment is the Jellyfish Filter with
a removal efficiency of 85% of total suspended solids. Most systems with a relatively small footprint rely on
removable media filters that must be replaced periodically to maintain stormwater quality.
No direct discharge points into surface water were found along the Deinhard/Boydstun corridor leading into
the Payette River., thus treatment improvements are not anticipated on this route. Runoff from the roadway
will continue to flow into roadside ditches and infiltrate or evaporate prior to reaching a water body.
Estimate of Improvement Costs
Below is a summary of the costs to replace the existing storm drain network on SH 55 and
Deinhard/Boydstun, and add stormwater quality treatment prior to discharging flows into Payette Lake. As
noted above,drainage improvements to the Deinhard/Boydstun corridor are not anticipated other than minor
adjustments at the intersections with SH 55. These costs are being considered incidental to the respective
intersections. Costs have been presented as a range of values (rounded up to the nearest $10,000) based on
two separate sources for construction bid data. Additional detail on the quantities,calculations and unit prices
used can be found in Appendix D -Drainage Improvement Costs and Calculations
SH 55: $4,120,000 - 4,700,000
Deinhard/Boydstun: $0
SH 55 dam'Dein1jard1Boydrtun Coriidor Exchange Feasibilidy 8
HORROCKS
u-u-
E N G I N E E R S
3 - Utilities
Approach
Both public and private utilities are located within the two corridors (3`d St/Lake St&Deinhard Ln/Boydstun
St) being considered in this study. The private utility companies include Idaho Power, Sparklight and
ZiplyFiber who currently operate within the City or State right-of-way by permit with the respective agency.
In the event that existing utilities are in conflict with proposed roadway improvements, the utility owner is
responsible for the cost to relocate their facilities. In certain circumstances there may be opportunities for
the City or State to enter into a cooperative agreement with a utility company to achieve an enhanced
relocation greater than the minimum required by permit. Such is the case with Idaho Power,who has been
in preliminary discussions with the City of McCall on the potential for a cooperative agreement for relocation,
which is described in greater detail in the summary below.
The public utilities occupying space within these corridors include the Payette Lakes Recreational Water and
Sewer District, who operate and manage wastewater services in the City of McCall, and the City of McCall
who operate and manage the treatment and distribution of drinking water throughout the city. Impacts to
water and wastewater facilities are only expected where improvements to the drainage system are in conflict.
Payette Lake Water and Sewer District
Per a telephone conversation with Dale Caza at the Payette Lake Water and Sewer District, the sewer main
along Lake Street is very deep, making conflicts with drainage improvements unlikely in this area. This
situation also exists along 3`d Street. The Sewer District acknowledged that much of the system is composed
of aging clay tile and concrete pipe with damage from intruding tree roots. Further inquiry was made to the
Sewer District on plans for future replacement, and a response was provided via email on 11/10/2020.
Because sewer lines range from 5.5'-9.5'in depth, conflict drainage improvements are very unlikely. Mr. Caza
also mentioned that the sewer district will be starting a new sewer master plan in 2022 for the entire system
for the prioritization of repairs and replacements.
The following summary addresses only the potential utility relocations and the cost of enhanced relocation
beyond the minimum obligation required by private and public utility companies. The only private utility for
whom this applies, is Idaho Power. The other private utility owners are telecommunication companies who
currently hang their lines on the same existing utility poles used by the overhead power. If Idaho Power were
to bury all of their lines along 3`d and Lake streets, their lines could be placed adjacent to their facilities before
trenches are backfilled. The estimated cost for potential City of McCall water relocations in conflict with
drainage improvements has also been estimated.
Summary
City of McCall Water
A review of potential conflicts with City of McCall water facilities identified 97 potential adjustments for
relocation. Of these 97 potential conflicts 58 are estimated to be for the mainline and 39 for service
connections. Representative estimates for each type of adjustment were developed based on recent bids for
projects in the McCall downtown core. Until additional depth information and storm drain design is available,
this estimate serves as a conservative estimate,and this cost is likely to only go down from here. The estimate
for all potential water line relocations is $710,000.
SH 55 er Deinbaicl/Boydrtim ConzdarExchnrge Feafibility 9
HORROCKS
®u,u®
E N G I N E E R S
Payette Lake Water and Sewer District
Based on conversations with the Payette Lake Water and Sever District there are no anticipated conflicts with
the proposed roadway improvements.
Idaho Power
Idaho Power delivers high voltage electricity via a transmission line crossing the Payette National Forest from
the West. This line is the primary means of power delivery to the remote mountain community. A substation
located southeast of the intersection of Lake St & Boydstun St receives and steps this high voltage power
down for distribution via a network of transmission and service lines throughout the city. Although there are
many interconnections throughout the City within this distribution system, for the purposes of this report,
we are primarily concerned with the distribution facilities adjacent to the project corridors. The information
collected to describe this network came from maps provided by Idaho Power,which were verified on the site
visit conducted May 19t'2020. The following table briefly summarizes the system characteristics and identifies
conflicts with the potential roadway improvements.
Segment Begin Location Segment End Location Configuration Potential
Conflict
3,d&Deinhard Intersection(Sta.0+00 Rt.) Marketplace at McCall(Sta.3+60 Rt) Overhead Multimodal
Improvements
Distribution Line Crosses 3,d St.
Marketplace at McCall(Sta.3+60 Lt.) 3,d&Colorado Intersection(Sta.30+00 Lt.) Overhead None
Yd&Colorado Intersection(Sta.30+00 Lt.) 3,d&Ice Cream Alley(Sta.48+20) Buried None
3m&Ice Cream Alley(Sta.48+20) 11t&Ice Cream Alley(Sta.57+00 Lt) Buried None
Distribution Line Crosses Lake St.
15t&Lake(Sta.57+00 Rt.) Mission&Lake(Sta.71+00 Rt.) Buried None
i\lission&Lake(Sta.71+00 Rt.) Lardo Bridge(Sta. 103+40 Rt.) Overhead Multimodal
Improvements
Distribution Line Crosses Lake St.
ltimodal
Lardo Bridge(Sta. 103+40 Lt.) Idaho Power Substation(117+50 Lt.) Overhead M Improvements
e
ments
Idaho Power Substation (117+50 Lt.) Boydstun St(125+00 Lt.) Overhead 1\'Iultimodal
Improvements
Table 3.1-Idaho Power Disthibntion along 3rd&Lake
As shown in the table above, Idaho Power's facilities within the downtown core (Colorado to Mission) have
already been converted from overhead to underground, removing potential conflicts with roadway and
pedestrian improvements. The remaining sections from Deinhard to Colorado and Mission to Boydstun have
numerous conflicts with existing power poles adjacent to the roadway. The majority of these conflicts would
occur with the sidewalk and pathway features planned in the City of McCall's Master Transportation Plan.
Per an email from the McCall Public Works director on 12/7/2020, Idaho Power estimated the cost of
undergrounding the current overhead power at the locations described in Table 3.1 at$1,000,000.
SHSS ems'Deinba1d1Boydstun Conidor Exchange Feasibility 10
HORROCKS
®u-li-
E N G I N E E R S
Estimate of Improvement Costs
The City of McCall has already engaged Idaho Power in discussions to move the remaining overhead lines
underground and has received a cost estimate from Idaho Power for McCall's portion of this relocation in a
cooperative agreement. This cost and the estimated cost for water distribution relocation are shown below.
Since there are no anticipated utility conflicts on the Deinhard/Boydstun corridor there will be no associated
cost.
SH 55:
Water Relocations - $710,000
Sewer Relocations - $0 (no anticipated conflicts with sewer facilities)
Power Relocations - $1,000,000
Deinhard/Boydstun: $0 (no utility relocations required)
4 - Roadway Geometry
The roadway geometric characteristics have been evaluated for existing SH 55 from Deinhard Ln. to Boydstun
St. (Principal Arterial) and existing Deinhard Ln./ Boydstun St. from North 3 d St. to East Lake St (Minor
Arterial).This section compares AASHTO's "Controlling Criteria" for the existing roadway features on both
routes consisting of: 1)Design Speed, 2)Lane Ul'idth, 3)Shoulder 1Vidth 4)Bridge Irid(h 5)Hori�zontalAbgnment, 6)
Sttper Elevation, 7) Vertical Alignment, 8) Grade 9) Stopping Sigbt Distance 10) Cross Slope, 11) Vertical Clearance 12)
Lateral Offset to Obstruction, 13)Structural Capacity.
Approach
Design Speed
For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the posted speed limit will not change for either
corridor and therefore can be a surrogate for the roadway's design speed. The SH 55 route is posted at 25
mph for most of the specified route at 94% of the route length. Deinhard Ln/ Boydstun St. is posted at 35
mph for most of its specified route at 81% of the route length(Per ITD IPLAN Roadway Characteristic GIS,
and Google Street View dated 10/2018). The consideration of increasing the speed limit on
Deinhard/Boydstun route to 45 mph was made;however, there are several deficiencies in the horizontal and
vertical alignment that preclude this being a recommendation. There are several horizontal curves that lack
the required minimum radius for a 45 mph design speed including: the S-curve near the airport, the 3
horizontal curves on both sides of the Deinhard Ln.Bridge,and the major right angle curve by the wastewater
treatment plant.There are also several vertical curves that do not meet the required curve length and K-value
for a 45 mph design speed including: the sag curve entering the east side of the Deinhard Ln. Bridge, the sag
curve at the intersection of Boydstun St. and Pinedale St., and the sag curve just south of the intersection of
Boydstun St. and Lakeside Ave.
SH 55 dam'Deinbad1 Boydsum Conidor E.abange Feasibility 91
HORROCKS
t1-11-
E N G I N E E R S
a
1
SH-55 r
0
� 3
�'
C.
C -
ri
I 1•
# � y
Deinhard Ln.
Speed Limit
25 mph
a
35 mph
Figure 4.1 Posted Roadixy Speed Limit Comparison
Lane Width
Both SH 55 and Deinhard Ln/ Boydstun St. have a measured lane width of 12 feet with the exception of SH
55 from Colorado to First St. which has a lane width of 11' (Per ITD IPLAN Roadway Characteristic GIS,
and measurements collected in the field).
Route Lane Width
SH 55 Varies 11-12'
Deinhard Ln/Boydstun St 12'
Figmr 4.1 Posted Roadway Speed Limit Comparison
Shoulder Width
Overall,the entirety of the Deinhard Ln/Boydstun St route has wider shoulders with shoulder widths varying
from T-5'.Deinhard Ln/Boydstun St also has a dedicated bike lane in each direction of travel included within
the roadway shoulder. For the Deinhard Ln. Bridge, there are shoulders present on both sides of the bridge
with widths approximately 6' wide on the north side and 5.5' wide on the south side. The bridge has an
unprotected bike lane within the shoulder on the north side of the bridge and a protected multi-use bike lane
on the south side of the bridge. For SH 55,most of the route has shoulder widths varying from 2'-3'with a
dedicated bike line existing only through downtown McCall (Per ITD IPLAN Roadway Characteristic GIS,
and Google Street View dated 10/2018).
SHSS&Deiuhmd/Boydstuu CoriidorExchange Feasibilio 12
HORROCKS
u1u
E N G I N E E R S
W SH-55
r
C
C/,
r,
Shoulder Width
Deinhard
21 - 31
rr
1 k�
-Bike Lane .". }
Figure 4.2 Roadway Shotdder JVidth Comparison
Bridge Width
Both corridors have a bridge over the Payette River. In general, both bridges have almost identical deck
widths,where the width curb to curb and width out to out vary within a one foot of each other. However,the
approach roadway width varies considerably between the two bridges with the Deinhard Ln / Boydstun St
route at a wider approach width of 48'and the SH 55 route approach width of 34' (Per ITD Bridge Inspection
Reports (Deinhard Bridge 2018,Lardo Bridge 2019).
Route Bridge Key Width Curb Width Out Approach
No. to Curb to Out Roadway Width
SH 55 14881 36.0' 54.0' 34'
Deinhard Ln/Boydstun St 20073 35.4' 53.1' 48'
Table 4.1:Roadway Bridge IYidth Comparison
Horizontal Alignment
Both routes have relatively few horizontal curves with the majority of their alignments composed of straight
bearings. For this assessment, the existing horizontal curve radii were measured and then compared to the
required curve radii set by the 2018 AASHTO Green book. For SH 55, using a design speed of V=25 mph
and a max superelevation of e=6%,there is one unsatisfactory horizontal curve located in downtown McCall.
This curve had a measured radius of 50' with a recommended radius value of 134'. For Deinhard Ln/
Boydstun St, using a design speed of V=35 mph and a max superelevation of e=6%, a reverse curve was
found to have two unsatisfactory horizontal curves located near the airport. These curves had measured radii
of 250' and 275'with a recommended radius value of 340'.
SH 55&Deinhard1 Boydshm Corridor Exchange Feasibility 13
HORROCKS
11,11
E N G I N E E R S
Existing Proposed Minimum
Route Deficient Horizontal Curve Design Design Required Existing
Curve No. Location Speed Speed Radius Radius
SH 55 1 Downtown 25 mph 25 mph 134' 50'
Deinhard/Boydstun 2 Airport 30 mph 35 mph 340' 275'
Deinhard/Boydstun 3 Airport 30 mph 35 mph 340' 250'
Table 4.2:Unsatisfactoo'Hod..Zoutal Curve Comparison
ITD has conducted their own investigation of curve flattening between the City of McCall fire station and
north end of the airport runway. In notes and figures prepared by Dan Block on 4/10/2019 (see Appendix
E), ITD recommends additional curve flattening of 400' radius for a 30 mph design speed and 550' for a 35
mph design speed. To provide additional room for the of tracking of a WB-67 design vehicle they also
recommend widening the 12' travel lanes to 15' through the curves. A cost estimate for curve flattening has
been prepared based on the work of Dan Block for the ITD intersection improvements just to the east of this
location. The estimated cost of realignment and widening comes to $1,319,000. The.cost estimate summary
can also be found in Appendix E.
66 101-
P Ke: SH=55, Unsatisfactory `
Horizontal Curve:No.-1
y. oWntoWn r �i,�- :r� Q�; 4 U -,i
�, t cCall
Figure 4.3:SH-35 Unsatufactory Hoitioutal Curve
SHSS&Deiuba1-d1Boydrtem CorridorExcbaregeFeasibility 14
HORROCKS
®n-n-
E N G I N E E R S
Deinhard,.Unsatisfactory
Horizontal.Curve No. 3
Ark
Deinhard Ln."
o.
R,
Deinhard'UnsatiMactory
City of McCall Horizontal Curve'No. 2.
h Airport
Figure 4.4:Deinhard Ln Unsatisfactory Hwi�,:ontal Curves
Superelevation
Using the topographic 2-foot contour lines provided from the City of McCall's GIS website, an existing
surface for both routes was created from which superelevation rates could be roughly estimated for each
horizontal curve. After reviewing each curve's superelevation rate, it was determined that none of the
horizontal curves have a superelevation that exceeds the maximum 6% for slow speed curves set in ITDs
Road Design Manual. However,a supplemental topographic survey will be needed to accurately measure and
document the superelevation along each route.
Vertical Alignment
Overall, both roadways are comprised of several large and small vertical curves. After reviewing each
alignment's vertical geometry report and using the AASHTO Green Book's design controls for crest and sag
vertical curves,it could be determined which vertical curves meet the AASHTO standards for minimum curve
lengths and K-values. Reviewing the vertical geometry report for Deinhard Ln/Boydstun St and SH 55
revealed that both routes have no deficiencies in their vertical alignment with regard to curve length or
minimum K-values.
SH 55 dam'Deinhard)Boydstun Corridor Exchange Feasihiho 15
HORROCKS
®u-ii
E N G I N E E R S
s
l �
SH-55
Cn r'
Percent Grade
0%-2.5% DeiOard Ln:
- 2.5% 5°/
Figa e'4.5:Percent Grade Conpmison
Grade
Both roadways have a relatively flat grades for most of their route length.Most of the SH 55 route has a grade
under 2.5%with approximately 4.5% of the route with grades exceeding 5%. Compared to SH 55,Deinhard
Ln/ Boydstun St is considerably steeper over greater distances. Over 25% of this route length has grades
exceeding 5% which are located near the Deinhard Ln. Bridge. No grades on either route exceed the
AASHTO recommended maximum grade of 7%.
Stopping Sight Distance
Stopping sight distance (SSD) is directly related to the grade and design speed of a roadway. After reviewing
the vertical curves along both routes, it is observed that all vertical curves on each alignment meet SSD
requirements for the current design speeds.
Cross Slope
Even though the existing surface generated from the contour lines provided from the City's GIS revealed
both routes to have a crown for the roadway's typical section accompanied with super elevated cross slopes
for each horizontal curve, a topographic survey for both roadways will be needed to accurately measure and
document the cross slope along each route.
SH 55&Deinhard1Boydstun Conidol'Excbange Feasibility 16
HORROCKS
®iuii-
E N G I N E E R S
Horizontal/Vertical Clearance
There are no existing overhead structures above the roadway for both routes. However, compared to SH 55,
Deinhard Ln/ Boydstun St is situated at the edge of city limits, resulting in significantly fewer overhead
power/telecommunication crossings along its route.More information on utility pole crossings can be found
in the Utilities Assessment section.Lateral Offset to Obstruction
For this assessment, each route's clear zones were calculated to determine what the recommended lateral
offset to an obstruction should be.There are five sections of roadway that do not have an adequate clear zone
based on its existing geometric features and side slopes. Deinhard Ln/ Boydstun St has more roadway
segments that need widening improvements to provide an adequate clear zone, but SH 55 has a larger total
length of clear zone improvements to be completed.
Also, the majority of utility pole conflicts on the Deinhard Ln/ Boydstun St route occur within the
North/South segment of Boydstun St. This section of roadway has approximately 13 overhead utility poles
within or near the recommended clear limit.
Min.
Existing Required
Clear Constraint Clear Clear Recommended Length
Zone Side of on Clear Zone Zone Clear Zone of
Section Route Location Roadway Zone Width Width Width Segment
Deinhard/ Airport S- Foreslope
1 Boydstun Curve Left too steep 9' 14' 16' 900'
East of
Deinhard/ Deinhard Backslope
2 Boydstun Ln Bridge Right too steep 10' 14' 16' 800'
West of
Deinhard/ Deinhard Backslope
3 Boydstun Ln Bridge Right too steep 13' 14' 16' 1000'
Deinhard/ Boydstun Backslope
4 Boydstun St. Curve Right too steep 13' 14' 16' 700'
West of Light& Foreslope
5 SH 55 Downtown Right width 10' 14' 16' 5500'
Table 4A Clear Zone lVidening Roadxg Segments
SH 55 dam'Deinhardl/Boydstan Corridor Exchange Feasibility 17
VIVO
At
`fa
_art-�`'�iry
�,I; '�(. yt;'y.11s`t"����-i.LS.: �Ij�.'� 'ry" t.{.'SI�Cr� 'µ�,.".L..i:R y ,y�•i• ,Y} � ,
JrA
ar7Fj-
+; � _ t''�/�+`r' �'RI ��,-i�, 's� y{ w �e� I•r.Y.y1 .a".wn i3,a ;.
FAW
- y�..� ".���. � � rR't� ,t *rr.t�till � � • �R ��/
� �• it .y_-�. �.�.
• a ` . -:eta ._ • f' A
• r'r r r
HORROCKS
®Il,u®
E N G I N E E R S
Structural Capacity
For both routes there is an existing reinforced concrete t�vo-lane bridge that crosses the North Fork Payette
River. In general,Bridge #20073 on Deinhard Ln is structurally inferior compared to Bridge# 14881 on SH
55. Bridge #20073 (Lardo Bridge) has an inventory rating of 34 tons and does not meet the AASHTO's
required Design Structural Loading Capacity rating for a HL-93 design vehicle of 36 tons.The Deinhard Ln.
Bridge also has a lower sufficiency rating of 92.9 compared to the SH 55 bridge with a rating of 97.6. For
immediate bridge maintenance concerns, the ITD Bridge Inspection Report for the Deinhard Ln. Bridge
recommends a regular cleaning to the bridge seal. This action item is considered a low priority compared to
the several moderate priority items for the Lardo Bridge including:bridge deck repair,bridge rail and sidewalk
repair, deck surface epoxy overlay,and approach slab epoxy overlay.
SH 55,Lake Street Deinhard Ln
(Lando Bridge) (Deinhard Bridge)
Bridge Key No. 14881 20073
Year Built 2014 2005
Drawing No. 17265 15790
AADT (2018) 6500 3300
AADT (2040) 10420 4970
Percent Commercial (2018) 6% 12%
Length (FT.) 157 279
Inventory Rating Factor (RF) 1.16 1.19
Operating Rating(Required 36 Tons) 73 Tons 102 Tons
Design Vehicle HL-93 HL-93
Sufficiency Rating 97.6 92.9
Deck Rating 6 7
Super-Structure Rating 8 8
Sub-Structure Rating 8 8
Current Maintenance Priority Moderate Low
Table 4.5.Budge Structinal Capacity Compatison
Estimate of Improvement Costs
From a geometric standpoint the 3`d and Lake corridor should suit the needs of the City of McCall without
alteration. Based on the summary of geometric criteria above, there are two conditions that ITD may want
to improve prior to adopting the Deinhard/Boydstun corridor.
The first geometric deficiency is for the horizontal reverse curves located near the north end of the McCall
airport. To be sufficient for 35-mph design speed the horizontal curve radii should be increased to 340'.
SH 55 dam'Delnbatd/Boydstim ConidorExcba ge Feasibilidy 19
HORROCKS
u-ii-
E N G I N E E R S
However, doing so will conflict with the vertical clearance restrictions of the runway safety area.
Conversations are underway with the City of McCall Airport and the FAA to explore the possibility of shifting
the entire runway to the south in order to remove this conflict. Assuming that the City and the FAA can
reach an agreement to shift the runway and resolve ROW, the cost of flattening these curves to achieve a 35
mph design speed is estimated at$1,319,000.
The second recommended geometric improvement relates to the roadside design. As detailed in the section
"Lateral Offset to Obstruction"there are a number of roadside areas that could be enhanced for safety. These
improvements are relatively minor and for the purposes of cost estimating can be ignored, but should be
considered if ITD adopts the corridor. Once topographic mapping of the corridor is obtained these areas
should be reevaluated to ensure that slope improvements do not encroach on private property.
SH 55: $0
Deinhard/Boydstun: $1,319,000
5 - Pavement Condition
Approach
The City and State both have pavement rehabilitation plans for their respective roadways. The costs for
pavement condition improvements were obtained from ITD and the City of McCall for the corridors which
they currently own and maintain. The table below summarizes the pavement preservation/rehabilitation
projects that are planned in the next five years.
Project Name Project Type Project Project Project
Length Cost Year
(Mile)
SH 55 Deinhard to Resurfacing/Rehabilitation 2.64 $1,300,000 2025
Zachary Road
Deinhard/Boydstun Deinhard/ Resurfacing/Rehabilitation 2.56 1,000,000 TBD
St. Boydstun
Pavement
Rehabilitation
Table 5.1:Pavement Rehabilitation Cost Estimate;
Cost breakdowns and additional detail from ITD and the City of McCall are provided in the figures below:
SH SS&Deinbard1 Boydstrm Conidor Exchange Feasibility 20
HORROCKS
®lirp
E N G I N E E R S
key#: - Route Project Name'; Program Year- Projec)Status Mode - District :'MPO Td
20724 _—II SH 55 ��DEINHARD LN TO ZACHARY RD.MCCALL _I 2025 I Development Scenario 3 li None '
General Budget i Work Aulh Obligation i History Documents
( 'Project] Locations Scope j Milestone&Tags
I
d 'key# 20724 District• ,, , District 3 Budget -
Agreement Sponsor• STATE OF IDAHO(ITD) Phase j Scheduled Obligated 1 Expen
A020 724 V — —-
Federal Aid# { ( ) -
i Contract Year 12025 J {�PE 150,000.00 I I
VJAz- !P183100
- : -- ------ CE 106,120.80
-} ..- Prior Program Year'., 2025
Major Program•, Federal-Aid,State Highway System ., N 1,208.00 -
Work Class ".RESRFIRESTO&REHAB I '-' O
1 06
- --—- PSS Sponsor -'Caleb Lekey -- {
GroupQd Project' @)Yes O No -- — Total 1,317,328.80
•• PSS Owner g I
.I BJI Induect�' *Yes o No., -• .Aaron Bau esv -- - -
I PSS Manager,, I Christopher Johnston
FHWA Oversight• Delegated .. —
_. _._ -- -- Nm Statu6
I- - Development PrOgraflls
{ Contract TYPe I Design-Bid-Build .. ' _ _.�'_ _
Program Name Active I Eligible Source
OTIRemarks_ -----------
Figure 5.1:ITD Project Budgeting for SH 55 Pavement Rehabilitation
1.From 3rd St(Hwy 55)&Deinna"rd intersedon
° heading west to just west of the McCall Fire
sj Station the asphalt neeio,reglaced,(Blue)
raur;r.0 2.From just west of the McCall Fire Station.to,just' '
v -east of thelMission St intersection'-crack seal
and a 6hiprt abk rn'6 4W,(Orange);
�= 3.From tfie east side,of;thpMission,St&Detnhard.
intersection heading,west to the west side ot_W:
q• 'a„'- ".Vt ,Tley-Rd.the asphalt needs'replaced.(Blue}', ,
ac L 4.From.the west Side ofthe W.Valley Rd
• °"".' M-•-1htefrsection to Val.Lake St(Hwy 55) crack seal
and-a,chip,seat is needed:(Orange)
r' 26,200,SY Chip Seal-@$3S0)SY,
0.' 27,000 SY Rotomill&O_verlay.,@$26.00W
25%for engineering,etc.
Total estirnated Cost of$1.0 Million
Crack Sbal and Chipseal
replace pavement '=
r, -
Figum 5.2:City of illcCall Estimate for Deinhard B D dstun Pavement Rebabilitation
Estimate of Improvement Costs
SH 55: $1,300,000
Deinhard/Boydstun: $1,000,000
SH SS&Deirthard/Boydttun Corridor'Exchange Feasibility 21
HORROCKS
®u-ii-
E N G I N E E R S
6 - Intersections
Approach
It is anticipated that the intersections of Deinhard Ln/3`d St and Boydstun St/Lake St will require
improvements to manage a shift in the SH 55 corridor alignment and the projected increase in traffic volumes.
Independent designs and cost estimates are currently being advanced by ITD D3 and private development to
address these future traffic demand predictions. From a technical memorandum dated 11/2/2018 (Appendix
E) a private developer has characterized these improvements as follows:
Boydstun St/ SH 55
• All the improvements appear to be able to stay within the existing ITD Hight-of-way.
• There is no need to realign Boydstun Street for the intersection improvements.
• At the developer's request, a signal was included. To improve the signal function, a westbound left
turn lane was added for vehicles turning onto Boydstun Street.
o The additional lane width is also needed for west leg of the intersection due to tracking of the
trailer from northbound Boydstun Street onto westbound SH 55.
• The shift taper for the west leg was extended into the intersection to provide additional separation
from the golf tunnel. Due to the horizontal distance, and clear zone considerations, guardrail is
recommended on both sides of the roadway.
• It does not appear that these improvements would impact any existing utilities.
Deinhard Lane / SH 55
• Improvements require the west leg of the intersection(Deinhard Lane) to expand south onto the City
of McCall Airport property. An additional easement or right-of-way would be needed (8 feet x 300
feet= 0.055 acres).
• The southwest corner will need to be rebuilt, which will also require the existing signal pole and
monument to be relocated.
• The existing Deinhard Lane, lane widths on the west leg of the intersection are very narrow
(approximately 11-foot lanes). Wider lanes are required for the left turn of a WB-67 with the
subsequent trailer tracking. This requires improvements to be pushed south (to avoid impacts to the
northwest corner).
• Restriping SH 55 to lengthen the northbound left turn lane can be accommodated with minimal
impact.
• It does not appear that these improvements would impact any existing utilities.
• The existing intersection geometrics are less than ideal with a lane shift between the east/west leg of
Deinhard Lane. Ideally the City of McCall and/or ITD would work with development to improve
this intersection.
The developer updated their cost estimate and figures for these improvements on June 7`h 2019 (Appendix
E). Their estimates are summarized together with ITD's own design estimates at the end of this section.
At the intersection of Boydstun and SH 55, ITD has proposed a roundabout concept. The accompanying
construction estimate prepared by Dan Block on 2/19/2019 (Appendix F)makes the following assumptions:
• HMA Pavement
SH 55&Deinbatd/Boydstun Corridor Excbange Feasibility 22
HORROCKS
®u,u-
E N G I N E E R S
• Stiff leg widening of existing underpass structure for expansion to the south only
• Retaining wall is needed on the north end of the intersection to support roadway embankment
• No Sidewalk
At the intersection of Deinhard Ln and SH 55, ITD has proposed a free right from Deinhard to SH 55 SB.
The accompanying construction estimate prepared by Dan Block on 2/19/2019 (Appendix F) makes the
following assumptions:
• Cost estimate for the SW Free-Right Leg of expanding the SH 55 /Deinhard intersection.
o This cost only includes the SW portion of the intersection.
o Mill/Inlay costs are shown for the west leg of Deinhard and the south leg of SH 55.
Per the City of McCall Master Transportation Plan a center turn lane on SH 55 is desired from Deinhard to
Colorado and at two minor intersections with State and Gamble. Planning level costs have been developed
for this widening and are included in the summary below.
Estimate of Improvement Costs
SH 55/Deinhard
• Privately Developed Turn Lane Improvements - $504K (June 2019)
• ITD Developed Turn Lane Improvements (Free Right Portion Only) - $910K (February 2019)
SH 55/Boydstun
• Privately Developed Turn Lane Improvements - $686K (June 2019)
• ITD Developed Roundabout (No Sidewalk) - $1.714 Million (February 2019)
SH 55 Center turn lane widening
• Widening for addition of center turn lane from Deinhard to Colorado and two minor intersections at
State and Gamble - $1,605,000
7 - Miscellaneous
Approach
Minor costs including signing,striping and barrier have been estimated for each corridor. These costs amount
to approximately $30K on the 3 d and Lake corridor and range from $70-90K on the Deinhard Boydstun
corridor.
Estimate of Improvement Costs
SH 55: $30,000
Deinhard/Boydstun: $70,000 - $90,000
SH SS dam'Deinhard/Boydstun Corfidor•Excbnuge Feasibiklly 23
HORROCKS
®u-u-
E N G I N E E R S
8 - ROW Conflict Identification
Approach
To better understand the potential conflicts arising from roadway improvements, a 3D model of the 3rd and
Lake corridor was constructed and overlain with the base map data compiled earlier in the project. The
cross sections developed from this model made it clear that the precision of the GIS surface, coupled with
the uncertainty of the center of the roadway without a topographic survey left too much error to quantify
potential ROW takes with any certainty. As a result, the actual ROW acquisition will vary with refined
mapping topographic survey and ROW mapping. The table below compares the desired roadway section
width to the current ROW available for each distinct section of the SH 55 corridor.
SH 55 dam'Deinba1-d1 Boydstarr Co nidor Excbange Feasibility 24
HORROCKS
ulii-
E N G I N E E R S
Desired
Roadway Right of
Section Highway
Corridor Segment Width, ft Width, ft ROW Needs
Deinhard to Floyd Street 66' 66' Minor easements may be required
Floyd St. to Stibnite St. 72' 80' Retaining wall required to star within ROW
Stibnite St. to Colorado St. 72' 80' No additional ROW anticipated
1st Street to Mission St. 55' 48' T+ needed for sidewalk and center turn lane
widening
Mission St to State St. 60' 48' Widen to south on government frontage
with easement. No ROW acquisition
anticipated
State St. to Gamble Rd. 53' 51, Minor easements may be required
Gamble Rd.To blather 44' 50' Minor easements may be required
Rd.
---Properties 1*40.30 Vi - 1
1_ / I
1 1
1. -6047
504rr 5N6.
1 -5045
so" /
I
1 1
1 -%12
1 1
-1 1
i
1 1
I
.t 1
I
.I
1 1
i
1 : 5036
I
1 1
I< -5034
1 -5033
1[ W32
I
Figure 8.1:Representative Cross Section betiveen Deinbard to Flyd St
SH55 dam'Deinhai-d1Boydrttra CoriidorExcbangeFeasibility 25
HORROCKS
1 0,1
saved sced
SCb.. SC6J
Slii• Sti�2
e� gi:tQ
t
5A` j �5+Sri
945P i 1E58
SCl`'i7 �'ti7
S45' S;,4 t
Z':5U
sra 5ra�
"lL17 ra 7
y@t• S%aS
t. ';s. � A�^i .� � ` n .,vTCT ♦ a�C .fib .1 ^_ � a Hi k?' 'v .!Q
Repmentafive Crorii i
I- :g
HORROCKS
uln
E N G I N E E R S
E �e�,=r Plapertlzs , I� .Q i 19*DD.OD_ fy I>�
I'
f; 1 1 1
4!
1 , l i
174
�. 1
1 1 t /
I.I 1.7
1i I
CI
1.1 1./
i , 1
ll, , 1
56
15054 —5054
1 e7t t 1
I,
1
1
l.:
�i
d
Figure 3.3:Representative Cross Section between Floyd St and Stibnite St(2 of 2)
SH 55 dam'Deinbard/Boydstun Cot fidor Excbange Feasibility 27
HORROCKS
u-u
E N G I N E E R S
Ve.v Properties �d 1
051,
. . , .
-------------
�,
-5042
5040- . ,
, .
50
503-41
..
Figni-e 8.4:Reprerentatim Gv;r Section between Stihnite St and Colorado St
SH 55 dam'Deinha d/Boydrtun CaiidorExchange Feasibility 28
HORROCKS
u,11
E N G I N E E R S
Vi2_,9 Properties -5021,1
e
ii ei
e -wig
—501
e -5013,
I 0 e
SOW -SODS
ee e0
ee. to
ie 5GD5
,, ee
.e0 ee
Figure 8S:Reprefentative Cro i Section betueen lit St and Ali;;ion St
SH 33&Deinhai-d1 Boyd-lvn Corvidor Exchange Feasibilto 29
HORROCKS
ulu
E N G I N E E R S
Vevr Propetai� I� �4 Q� 72.00.00 ___� P i��
1 ,
1 ,
1 r
1 r
1 � ,
/ 1
/ I
1 t
II 11
11. 14'
11 tt
rl rl,
rl 1
11 11
11 /t
111 ,
Figure 3.6:Repre;entatim Cro;r Section behveen A(i;uon St and State St
SH 55 dam'Deinhard1Boydstun C017idor•Excbange Feasibility 30
HORROCKS
plp
E N G I N E E R S
Yew Properties I-4 -<i 40.00.QO
1 -5017,
1 -5016
/ 4
1 -5014
/ 1
1 -5012
1 -5011
1 1 1
1
!
11' 11.:
11
/1 lli
11 11
11 11
/1 11
11 tl
11 11
!11 1!/
Figure 8.7:Bepreserrtatme Cross Section Getmeen State St and Gamble Rd
SH 55&Deinhnrrl/Boydrteru Corridor Exchmrge Feasibility 31
HORROCKS
®ulii
E N G I N E E R S
-Vim Properties 1-4 -4 98+00.00
1 ,
1 -5014
1 -5013
1 -M12
soil. -5011i
11 / .
11• 11 t
bl
41:
1.1 !1
1-1. 5006
41
1 1 .1.1-
1-/
SM2. 1 1
1.1.1.
11/
7] -4998
IV 4
Figure 8.8:Representative Crory Section bethveen Gamble Rd and Afaher Rd
Cost Estimate Summary
It should be noted that the cut limits and resulting ROW encroachment shown in Figure 8.3 could be
significantly reduced or eliminated by constructing a soil nail retaining wall. The cost for such a wall is
estimated at$200,000.
The cost of ROW acquisition to make room for new sidewalk and street improvements along SH 55 is
estimated at$294,000. This assumes property values property values of$35/SF between First Street and
Warren Wagon Road.
Combining the cost of the soil nail wall and the cost of ROW acquisition the total become $494,000.
SH 55: $494,000
Deinhard/Boydstun: ITD has expressed the desire to flatten the horizontal curves on Deinhard
Ln. north of the McCall airport runway. Although an estimate of construction costs has been
figured for this realignment, the cost of ROW acquisition is currently unknown because it is not
clear whether it will be available to purchase from the airport in the future. This unknown cost for
ROW acquisition should be weighed into the assessment of overall project viability.
SH 55&Deinbar-d1 Boydstun Corridor Exchange Feasibility 32
HORROCKS
®u-u-
E N G I N E E R S
Overall Cost Summary
The table below summarizes the combined cost estimates for each category investigated on the two
corridors. The costs in the table below have been color coded to show Desired Improvements vs Corridor
Needs.
SH 55 Deinhard Ln/Boydstun St
Improvement High High
Category Low Estimate Estimate Low Estimate Estimate Remarks
Multimodal improvements are
not anticipated for
Deinhard/Boydstun.The curb
and gutter associated with
sidewalk improvements is
included in the cost of
multimodal facilities and is
1-Multimodal estimated between$400—
Facilities $8,300,000 $8,830,000 $0 $0 470K**
Drainage improvements not
anticipated for
2-Drainage $4,120,000 $4,700,000 $0 $0 Deinhard/Boydstun
3-Utilities $1,710,000 $1,710,000 $0 $0 McCall water and Idaho Power
4-Geometry $0 $0 $1,319,000 $1,319,000
Costs information supplied by
5-Pavement $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 ITD and City of McCall
Costs for major intersections
divided evenly between both
corridors*. Center lane
6-Intersections $2,200,000 $2,917,000 $595,000 $1,312,000 widening included on SH 55.
7-Miscellaneous $30,000 $30,000 $70,000 $90,000
ROW Cost ROW Cost ROW needed from airport but
8-ROW $494,000 $494,000 unknown unknown may not be available
Total $18,154,000 $19,981,000 $2,984,000 $3,721,000
Subtotal less
Desired
Improvements $4,024,000 $4,741,000 $1,665,000 $2,402,000
Curb and gutter
costs from line 1 $400,000** $470,000** $0 $0
j Total $4,424,000 $5,211,000 $1,665,000 $2,402,000
*A portion of the intersection costs may be paid for by private development.
**Curb and gutter are an essential part of drainage infrastructure improvements and will likely be required,
regardless if sidewalks are constructed.
SH 55&Deiuhard1 Boydsh1n Corridor•Excbange Feasibility 33
HORROCKS
u�n-
E N G I N E E R S
Next Steps
With the completion of the draft report, ITD and the City of McCall held a meeting in early December 2020
to plan the next steps to present the information to the McCall City Council at a workshop on Friday
December 18"',2020. At that workshop the draft report was well received and minor revisions were requested
by ITD and the City of McCall. These revisions are included in this Final Report. From here,the two owners
will continue to work towards and agreement.
SH 55 dam'Deinhard1Boydstiw Corridor Exchange Feasibility 34
HORROCKS
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix A— Curb Ramp Inspection Form No. 0288
SH 55 dam'Deinhad l Boydstim Corridor Exchange Feasibility 35
Curb Ramp Inspection ITD 0288 (Rev.10-19)
(& itd.idaho.gov
Key Number Ramp ID Number or Specify New Date Inspected Inspected By(Print&Signature)
District City County Highway Milepost
RAMP/SIDEWALK STATUS
(All measurements must be within minimum/maximum indicated to be compliant. Do no leave blanks.)
Compliant Not Compliant: Provide Technical Infeasibility Reason & Explanation:
Ramp Location Location in Intersection Curb Ramp Type Adjacent Sidewalk Information
El Perpendicular(1 Area) 4' Minimum Width El Yes [—I No
❑ Corner ❑ N [:1E [:1 NW El NE Cross Slope 2% maximum ❑ Yes ❑ No
Parallel (2 Areas) If less than 5'Wide is a passing space provided at 200ft
❑ Mid-block El S El W El SW ❑ SE ❑❑ Combination (3 Areas) p g p
Intervals ❑ Yes ❑ No
Describe Ramp Location(details to help locate it,such as"facing Main Street next to the Shell station")
Ramp Details Ramped Area 1 Ramped Area 2 Ramped Area 3
Ramp Width (48"minimum) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
Running Slope(8.3% maximum) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
Cross Slope (2% maximum) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
Flare Slope A(10% maximum) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
Flare Slope B(10% maximum) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
Refer to the Smart Level Measurement Locations detailed on Page 2
Turning Space Width (48"minimum) Length (48"minimum) Cross Slope(2% maximum-both directions)
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No
Detectable Warning Surface
Detectable Warning Surface Length Detectable Warning Surface Spans Width of Truncated Dome Spacing Between 1.6"-
(24"minimum) Curb Cut 2.4"
❑ Yes ❑ No El Yes El No El Yes El No
Within 5'of the Curb Line/Grade Break Color Contrast(e.g., Light on Dark or Dark on Light)
El Yes El No El Yes El No
Transition Details
Lip Present(>1/inch) Gutter Flowline Slope at Ramp(2%maximum) Gutter Counter Slope(5% maximum)
❑Yes ❑ No El Yes ❑ No El ❑ No
Pedestrian Crossing Details
If Ped Signal is Present is Pushbutton within 10"of clear space Crosswalk Clear Space
Pushbutton Height within 15"to 48"
❑Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑Yes
❑ No
Comments:
Page 1 of 2
Smart Level Measurement Locations: (For detailed information on design parameters, please reference ITD's
standard drawings online at: https://apps.itd.idaho.goy/Apes/StandardDrawings/614-3 0615a.pdf
Measure slopes at locations marked with smart level below4
Perpendicular Curb Ramp-1 Ramped Area
1 (Turning Space) 1
1 1
1 1
1 ® 1
1 T 1
1 �5 1
1 1
1 Detectable Warning
\Flare
1 E
JV'
ao
/Fla0000000000 0
IGutter Counter Slope
Ramp Transition location-no lip Gutter Flowline 71
>1/4"should be present I dear Spac
Parallel Curb Ramp-2 Ramped Areas Combination Curb Ramp-3 Ramped Areas
Ram
Ramp (Turning p
Ramp Ramp Space)
—� (Turning
Space)
0000000 04.000000
0000000 VFlareo00 oo Flare
Ramp
Area
Perpendicular Curb Ramp—Other Considerations
R305.2.1 Perpendicular Curb Ramps.On perpendicular curb ramps,
detectable warning surfaces shall be placed as follows:
Bothailsoll4bota g-1,
daaA ma kas uan 15 m l5A y
bomeawawu ��Where ifie;ends.of_the_botCo'm'grade-break are'iiF rf o1•it of the,back:of ,
curb A stable warnino'syrfacesstiall be-�faced.at tfie_back ofxurlri
2...-Where the ends of the bottom grade break are behind the back of curb
f -I and the distance from either end of the bottom grade brake to the back
Omw.eau mes otto
b,,,,0 6,b,,,,a of curb is 1.5 m(5.0 ft)or less,detectable warniri surfaces shall be
T �,�'w,150q\ placed on the ramp run within one dome spacing of the bottom grade
1:: break
� 1 :•::
.:.:.:::::::.:.:.:.:.::. Ter'the3at] fttheahnCtamaz�tadeebreak�ne�tiehirid°ehe Liaekfo
�ctEthgtdistarrce�fcomseitlsetaeecid�o-NlT6 Fsotton7+grade;b[ake,toytk P bA-k�y
@fscurb•is:more:thaml:5'M"'(5 0 ft-);detectable warningsurfaces shall:bn
�ta'ced'o'n=the=lowei'`la ndinq ai;'theiback:Qf�cu[bv
Page 2 of 2
HORROCKS
—u�u—
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix B — Multimodal Inventory
SH 55 DeinhardlBoydshm Con-idorExcbmrge Feasibiliy 36
Slid= ii
inn #� Rim 11111111
inn al ® II
Inn.�s.E II
I®n:�}a it In II
®®. nw OEM==II
®nt.jj ; n®® II
M , OWN NOW111111111
- nn j-► II
rpugg
nn s�nn ®®II
• ®®: F � ®nn nn® ®II
nn 3 � nl®nn n0® nlI
• ® ��RI nl In II
��9 A ®nnnn nn II
®® f .Inn nnn II
1 .
i
® b II
® II
s III
HORROCKS
11-11-
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix C — Multimodal Improvement Costs
SHSS dam'DeinhadlBoydstaa Co✓—idorExchangeFeasibility 37
Dixf Sir—"to BOYtlsNnl"`_: Values from[TO Bid Avg.Sheet Avg.Values from WWI Bidders
.-... .. _ .. .. ._.. _ .. _ .. Estiinat _• ... .. _
ITO Bid Item McCall Bid Item - ITEM' DESCRIPTION -UNIT Estimate Quantity Unit Price Amount.. Remarks UNIT Quantity Unit Price Amount - Remarks
Mabilieatlan(25%of construction Items) l5 1 $1,062.000.00 l5 $1,130,000.00 Percentage based on discussion with Nathan StewaN,1211212020
Pedestrian Ughting LS 1 $3,156,000.00 $3,156,000.00 LS 1 $3.156,000.00 $3,156,000.00 Assumes512,000/20'decorative pole spaced at 80'intervals on both sides of the road
Removal of Obstructions EA 20$ 2,000.00 $40,000.00 EA 20 $2,000.00 $40.000.00
203-060A 20144.1,02 Removal of Concrete Sidewalk SY 380 $16.00 $6,080.00 ITO Avg Unit Price 2013-2020 Spreadsheet SY $17.75 $6,745.00 Sunroc Bid Phase lB
203-07041 201.4.I.E.1 Removal of Curb&Gutter FT 356 $7.51 $2,675.17 Estimatar.Bid History Regession 203 070A FT $6.00 $2,136.00 Granite Bid Phase 1B
303-021A 802.4.1.8.1 3/4"AGGR TYA FOR BASE TON 346 $42.65 $14,755.45 Estimator Price TON $44.00 $15,224.00 Granite Bid Phase Ill
613.010A 810AAA.3 BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK(obsolete see notes) SY 1711 $19.71 $33,728.28 Estimator Price SY $34.00 $58,17400 Granite Bid Phase lB
Comet,Sealant SY 11681 $5.00 $58,402.78 SY $5.00 $58,402.78 Discussion with Nathan Stewart,12/12/2020
614-0]SA 706.4.1.E.1 Sidewalk SY 6618 $50.06 $34I,307.08 Estlmamr.REF Pr ice 614.O15A2016 SV $55.00 $374,990.00 Sunroc Bid Phase l8
614-025A 70fi.4.1.H.1 Curb Ramp Perpendicular 5V 1300 $141.39 $183,807.00 ESllmdtor:REF Price fil4-025A 2016 EA 105 $3,150.00 $330,750.00 Sunroc Bid Phase l8
614-025B 706A.I.H.3 Curb Ramp Parallel SY 20 $81.94 $1,638.80 Estimator Price EA 1 $3,150.00 $3,150.00 Sumo:Bid Phase lB
614-025C 706A.1.HA Curb Ramp Combination SY 65 5341.39 59,190.35 Estimator Price EA 1 $3,000400 $30000.00 Based on Granite Bid Phase lB
615492A 706.4.1A.7 Curb&Gutter Ty FT I5649 $398,42354 ESHmator:REF Price 61SA92A 2016 FT $30.00 $469,470.00 Sunroc Bid Phase I
Construction Cost SubtOWIS 55,30B4O10.44 $5,698,041.]B
Planning Lend Construction Cuntingency(SON) $1.327,002.61 $1,412,0104"
Total Construction Cos- $6,635,013.05 $7,060,052.22
..I,.and Contra...Engineering Con"(2596J $1,658,753.26 $1,765,013.06
Total Casts $8,293,766.31 $8,825,065.29
HORROCKS
u,11
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix D — Drainage Improvement Costs and Calculations
SH 55&Deiuhai-d1Boydstitn ConidorExchauge Feasibility 38
1M$$(3id5heef tro Boydifun) '^^` ":� ITO Bid Avg.Sheet Values Avg.value Isom McCall Bidden
,TO Bid Item McCall Bid Item Item Des[ription- Estimate Quantity'"'Unk"•"1$6
ice" "Amount ' - 'Remarks Unit 'Estimate Quantity •Unit Price Amount- Pemarks
203-035A 201.4.1.G.1 Rem of Can Cuk(Monollthir) 99 FA 18 $148,121.82 Estlmalar:2016 Avg.unit pd,e report FT 11997 537.)5 $283,946.75 Granite Bid Phase 2B
203,B90A 201.4.1— Rem v11n1et 39 FA ) $14,674.36 Estimator:2016 A—unit price report EA $1,OOOAO SA674.36 Sunroc Bid Phase lB
203.095A 201.4.1.F.1 Rem ofAl-h.l. 48 EA 3 530,275.G4 Estimator,2016 Avg.unit p—eport EA SLMOAO 548,OWOO Sunrac Bid Phase 19
602-200A 601.4.1.A.01.12A PfpeCI,,n 441 FT $32,979.72 Estimator:Bitl History Regreastian(Dut of Range) FT $32.45 $14,310.45 ACHD Bid Average 2015-2018
605d15A 1.4.1A.S.B B'Stormse—Pie 154 FT5 $3,08.511 Estimator:Bitl Hi.. Regression FT $44.00 $6,776.00 Sunrac Bitl Phase lB
605_ 601.4.1.A.05.IDA 10'sh—I SewerPipe 19 FT2 $568.56 Estimator:Bitl Hhh, Regression FT $79.% $1,518,86 ACHD Bitl Average 2015-2018
605-OISA 60IA.IAS.SZB 12'StvrmSrwerPipe SSO FT $20,996.9)Eslimalor:Bid Hsto Regression FT 563.0D $34,650.00 Sunroc Bid Phase l9
605-010A 6UJA.I.AS.1S 2,,-thrntSewerPipe 3160 FTO $235.890.00 Estimator:Bid Histg Average FT SlOS.00 5331,800.00 Sunroc Bid Phase lB
6054J35A 601.4.1.A.OS.IU 18'SlarmIIPipr6767 FTD $349,143.43 Estimator:Bid HistorRegression R $61.96 $419.283.32 ACHD Bid Average 2015.2U38
60S— 601,4.1.A.0S.24A 24'Srorm Sewer Pl a 143 FT7 $8.933.61 Estimator:Bid Hi Average Fi 5115+56 516,525.08 ACHD Bid Average 2015-2018
605.OSSA 60I.41A.05.308 30'SI,mSewer Pl a 97 R $72.05 $6.988.52 Estimator:Bid Hiltp Average FT 5109.06 $10,578.82 ACHD Bid Avenge 2015-2018
605.200A 601A.1.A.51 Storm Sewfte(Diameter Nat SeNPrd) 2921 £T $16.76 $48,967.M Estimator:Bid Hi-I,Regresstion I Out of Range) Fi $61.96R27
85.1618'Slorm Wale,bid price used
605iS0A 602.A1A1 Manhok 86 EA $4,640.00 5399.040.DO Estimator:Ref P,I,e 6054SOA 2016 EA $2.566.7540.50 ACHD Bid Avmage2 015-2 018 51—Drain Ty Standard Con,reteCatch
6BtVN 602.C.11A CMh Bodo Ty 38 EA $2.463.75 $93.622.50 Es0mator.Ref Price 60S520A 2026 FA 51,70DOU00.00 Sunroc Bid Phase I
6U5.605A 602.4.1J.1 JNJ rT 109 FA $2,4W.00 5261.600.00 Estimator:Bid History Average FA $1.700.OD00.00 Sunroreld PhaseM
608-205A SP 07075 MetetSAfetyApmn IPOWIlef) 22 FA $640.91 514,100.02 Estimator:History Bid Average WS-205A EA 5958.3383.26ACHD Bid Average 2015 201B(Pipe Aprpn Repair)
608-VIN! SP 07075 Metal Sefe Apron(bm Drainage 2 FA $1,047.W $2.095.79 Estimator:Bid History Average FA $958.33916.66 ACHD Bid Average 2015-2018(Pipe Apron Repair)
5911415A 601A.IASF 14'SP Mo.Srwer Pipe 238 FT 511.21 $2.667.12 Estimator:Bid No—Regression FT $105.009W.0015'Storm Water bid rice used Sunroc Bid Phase 19
S911ASB 601.4.IA5.16 M'SPStarm Se rPlpe 123 FT 542.29 $5.202.86 Estimator:Bid History Regresstion(Out of Range) FT $%.GO0)0.00 Sunroc Bid Phase lB
5911-0SC 601.4.IASH 20'SPS—Sesv 0pr 13" - FT 539.63 $27,163.24 Estimator:Bid Hiu Regression A $61.% ]52.6418'Storm Water bid fire used Sumac Bid Phase lB
Ca—M 1elivph Filler 1 EA $183,497.00 $183A97.00DIsrhare2:IFPU0811.23.5 497.00
Cvnterh Jellyfish Flfle, 1 EA 584,252.00 584,252.00 Discharge 3:JFPM906-8.2 252.00Conteh lellyflA Filter 1 EA $84,M2.00 $84,252.00 DIxha,ge 4:I FP008O6-8.2 25 00
iv M,h Jellyish Fllte, 1 EA $95,319.00 $95,319.00 Dhrhar eS:IFPOl18D6-M2 $95,311.11
C4nle,h Jellyfish Fllee, 1 FA $95,319.00 $95,319.00Disrha,ge6:l FPD0806.10.2 $95,319.00
Conle,h J,W,hFllte, 1 FA $123,263.00 $123,263.000Iuha,ge7:IFP00808.143 5123,MOO
Cantechfellyfish Filter I FA 5163,674.00 $163,674.00 Diacha,ge B:JFPDO811-204 $163,674.00
Vortech 0000 1 FA $38,96D.00 $38,9MO Discharge2 $38.%0.00
Vartech V3000 I EA $22,675.00 $22,675.00 Discharge 3 522,675.00
Vanech V9000 I EA $22 675.00 $22,675.00 Di-ar e4 $22,675A0
—era V4000 1 EA $25,877.G0 $25,8]711 Olsrhar e5 525,877.00
Vanr,h VIB00 1 EA $25,877A0 $25,8)7.00 Dluhar e 6 $25,877.M
Vanerh V5000 1 EA $29,216.00 $29,216.00 Diuharge] 529,216.00
VvneN Vl000 1 FA $32.419+00 $12A19.00 DIs,ha eB $32,419.00
[anstrvnivn Cost SubroroH 52,633,183.71 $3,005,776.66
CpnsWnivn Cvntfngen,ies(2S%) $658,4M94 $]51,444.21
Total Cats"""'Cm $3,292,1D4.71 $3.S7,321.07
Design vnd Engineering Ce-(35M) $813.026.18 $939,305.27
T4tvl—,Dmin Cp $4.115.130.88 $4,696,516.M
HORROCKS
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix E — Deinhard Curve Flattening
SH SS&Deinha;-d1 Boydstim Coi ridor-Exchntrge Feasibilit, 39
Revised Alignment
Deinhard Lane:Curves at Fire Station
All references are to AASHTO Green Book unless otherwise noted.
Based on the lane width and radii of the horizontal curves near the fire station,widening of the traveled
way is needed to accommodate the WB-67 design vehicle per section 3.3.10.
Lane widening at S-curves near fire station.
Roadway Width=24 ft
Curve# Design Radius Table 3-26b Table 3-27 Road Width Rounded
Speed Width
Option 1 30 mph 400-FT 5.9-FT 1.0-FT 30.9-FT 31-FT
Option 2 35 mph 550-FT 4.5-FT 0.8-FT 29.3-FT 30-FT
Deinhard Lane: Emergency Signal at Fire Station
An emergency signal may be needed to support the Fire Departments Operations if gaps in traffic are
not adequate to permit the entrance of emergency vehicles (MUTCD 2009 Chapter 4G). In addition to
the advance warning signage required per MUTCD,warning beacons may be needed due to the curve
geometry(sight distance)on either side of the fire station.
rp#
-
, s
w+' _
4 I +
x r
_
w. w
kIll
RL
_s.`... • ram.
r4• I`
G.Q
te
N
119E .,
ri
r �
t
Fogfne location reqused for WB-67 aaning
oeo � ••n
Deinhard - Fire Station Curves SH-55 DEINHARD INTERSECTION: ALTERNATIVE NO.2
Realign Demhard to soften curve radi. -Constntd additional turn lanes as rocornmandod in 0ro Midas Geld TIS.
-Existing radii-^-250-FT. •improve reap for WB-67 hAtning:SE outer 500-SD-500(13.FT offset);SW
•Rath of the revised aligmtent shown a 550-FT(east curve),900•FT(west pave). caner 420-75420(10+7 offset);NE and MY comers show the foglino location
•Design speed=35 mph
required to accomodate M-67 movements.
•Lane width inpeasas to 15-FT through the horiZwtal paves to accomodate WB-S7 movemome. -Ro-stripe Deinhard to make EB Dolnhard to SB SH-65 the primary travel tam.
in conjunction wart re-ahngmont of the fro station curves.
-Re-stdpe SW55 to make the WO Iaft omo Dainhard the primary movemenL
-Re-stripe SH-55 to reduce the knglh of Dte SB rightonty turn lane Into the
airport,winch ersninatas the weaving section.
COST ESTIMATE-Deinhard Curve Flattening
Date 11/6/2020
Estimate By Chris Melander,Horrocks Engineers(Based on Estimate prepared by Dan Block for SH-55/Deinhard Intersection
Description Cost estimate for curve flattening and lane widening at Fire station curves Deinhard intersection.
Construction Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Notes
Clearing&Grubbing 2 ACRE $ 6,783.33 $ 13,566.66 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19814&KN18872
Selective Removal of Trees 15 EACH $ 515.15 $ 7,727.25 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13481,KN 20842,KN 13951,
KN20797,KN19414,KN13991,KN8432
ROM Quantity(25%of Clearing&Grubbing Area).Avg Bid
Excavation 7000 CUYD $ 19.64 $ 137,480.00 of similar quantity:KN19415,KN18950,KN20797,
KN13388,KN13390
ROM Quantity.Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19947,
Water for Dust Abatement 326 MG $ 10.00 $ 3,258.29 KN19415,KN18950,KN13961,KN13390,&KN20294
Fiber Wattle 6000 FT $ 3.05 $ 18,300.00 2x Clearing&Grubbin perimeter.Avg Bid of similar
quantity:KN13962,KN13481,&KN13946
Silt Fence 3000 FT $ 2.63 $ 7,890.00 Clearing&Grubbin perimeter.Avg Bid of similar quantity:
KN18872,KN20797,KN2886,&KN19190
Granular Subbase(1.7-FT,130 pcf) 7000 TON $ 15.90 $ 111,300.00 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN18872
3/4"Aggregate Type A For Base(0.65-FT,142 PCF) 3000 TON $ 26.88 $ 80,640.00 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13946,KN20797,&
KN13388
Est-High @ 15%of aggregate volume for repairs during
Soft Spot Repair 450 CUYO $ 22.67 $ 10,201.50 live traffic prior to paving.Avg Bid of KN19947&KN1S723
CSS-1(0.12 gal/sqyd) 8401 GAL $ 3.75 $ 3,150.00 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19415
Superpave HMA(0.5-FT,143 PCF) 1 .30001 TON $ 92.51 $ 277,530.00 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13946,KN19154,KN13390
Sub-Total $ 671,043.70
Traffic Control 10% $ 67,104.37
Striping 10% $ 67,104.37
Mobilization 5% $ 33,552.18
Contingency 30% $ 201,313.11
Total $ 1,040,117.73
Total Project Costs Cost Note
Design Services 10% $ 104,011.77
Construction Services 12% $ 124,814.13
Right-Of-Way $ 50,000.00 ROM-Placeholder
Construction $ 1,040,117.73
Total $ 1,318,943.63
HORROCKS
®u-u-
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix F — Developer Intersection Design
SH 55 DeiubaidlBoydstuu ConidorExcbauge Feasibility 40
i61720 lI t �- :' t� ,`f + ,g`' RO EDGE Of!
U'S TE-LLC_ "-� =k° '_ - r 16 3 .. EXISTING ASPHALT (TVP).- - .-
ir- _ 3..:�_ _- --- --- - �'NlGHWAY5 - A_ =v. -- --
! _ _
rL _ •` i �`;•��,/ --Ve - Va-�7` •� .Vat --Ya
'HIGHWAY
/
.-! '. N - - H & GAP (35 MPH
3RD ST)
.,15AWCUT & PAVEIxENTI _ 120.0' DECELERATION LENGTH
REPAIR LIMIT; . o '250.0' STORAGE,
_ _ PER FIGURE 38 3 OF ITD TRAFFIC MAf,91AL)
�r -- -
- -
FA
C H PECRTY�MEN p� .� , REPLACE S1GlUAL POE i RE-SlIDE ROADWAY
. •; 11 1 (65-FT MAST) A14D (APPRO% 400-FT, I. .
REBUILD CURB RETURN'. -.... ALL LANES).
it, .i I. 1 ,.t• WITH ADA RAMP.
RELOCATE MONUMENT --
y AND SIDEWALK,.. -
I NEED NTDER RECEMrtG-LANE
SHIFT LANES SLIGHTLY SOUTH .
/ .. :!AND MOVE STOP BAR TO ... ... ... ..
ACCOMMODATE LEFT TURN 0 30
MOVEMENT.
i2p $0'•• ,£ "' - SCALE IN FEET
°'BrKe LEGEND
Prt wa e7(5 uaH TURNING SPEED)
P FRONT WHEEL TRACM24
,I /.jj}Amy ••0'(° f ; UCCALL CITY OF i A�'� � REAR WHEEL TRACKING
1W]DEN ROAD(APPROX 10 FT) .. .. .. - �. .. •`- EXTENTS OF VEHICLE
FOR FULL TURNING LANE ph VEHICLE EMIELOPE(+3FT)
Q i !LENGTH (APPRO% 300 FT) N .
/A. - Gem um
LRIJ
,. N L ... .. em .e>a
YL1TI0 ._
RE-STRIIPE ROADWAY .. .. - i I KO GT ,am
(APPROX 300-FT,
'I ^ ._d ALL LANES). .I.• eF �� s.�iwwn '��,>~ ti•
3 j; �ir'7"a§'^a•^^ � r 1 `
Parametrix
w„�.,,, ,, •„ FIGURE 2A
®�--� RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT DEINHARD LANEISH-55
Tlul f.°.}Ttt::Df fiM1.i1,91t'o, iU!J 114
nz:cia on z
Yi'/J'N YhVM tl I r-U.C Q'-1
;�. p -•yy -'�. +^ , �2,it''ter`". }.�,
r �tl � J I�•, �/�•' i - .ip• �.1, q, •y'`}��i,Y �'.� ; �.^S.rl�. 1 .1�+" K
e # a. ..rs J aaafi.... ..- r ajt, -Sj .',.iT'— s-• J ----.———_—--—---— — U 1 �y`"_.�,'—! ^:^— '-'—_' s—t— K,x__ A�PFDXE
164720 6796 EkISTING ASPHALT (TYP),
LA ELATE — ———--
v __—
'Ar ,55 —
_
—vd—
(N 3RD ST)
120.0' DECELERATION LENGTH & CAP (35 uPH
" �SAYICUT & PAVEMENT, `
PER FIGURE 38-3 OF RD TRAFFIC MANUAL)
REPAIR LIMIT. - - t~A - 0 250.0' STORAGE
�f r
1 G __��_ _�•--.. — — — — — —
H8-fiT o g AA
i' (
_ \ '�►
" > "d
77 PATM c
RC,P ER REPLACE sGJUL PO -;L RE-STRIPE ROADWAY
EuEIT[ C y
.f. REBUILD CURB RETURN ALLT) AND LAN app-FT, ..
_ ALL LANES).
WITH ADA RAMP.
f IY I /, 7\ ,/� -.' .! •`�•;, RELOCATE A16UUENT-''
I I J {_s • R'. AND SIDEWALK.
NEED WIDER RECEMNG LANE.
i ! f SHIFT LANES SLIGHTLY SOUTH
J ; AND MOVE STOP BAR TO 1 0 30'ACCOMMODATE LEFT TURN .. ... �0 SCALE�
MOVEMENT. .. IN FEET
J J2-- J s.04 I ;
{ �� Fi Gf.ND
_ rif ` vB-67(5 uPH TURNING SPEED)
9 �'r IJ.0'/ ;J3.0' -.. a .. /�^-'n �/ FROIR 1MEEL TRACXK40
SRN * RPUOOOOO163605 i rt / REAR WHEEL TRACKWG
MCCALL CITY OF
EXiEIrtS OF V'D+KLE
,WIDEN ROAD (APPROx 10 FT)• ~�
Jr I` FOR FULL TURNING LANE VEHICLE E16'ELOPE(43FT)
"LENGTH (APPROx 300 FT)
.LRfACODOQI6 .
y JLo ;lam f /IaP. ' AVIATION L
7 / I.Q I: RE-STRIPE ROADWAY .. l ,• M9-67 w.,
iN ( 1R I (APPROX 300-FT.
ALL LANES).
a>u :ice
E
Parameatrix FIGURE 213
®®®®® LEFT TURN MOVEMENT DEINHARD LANEISH-55
Parametrix
Conceptual Level Estimate for SH-55
Intersection Improvements
Deinhard Lane/SH-55
June 7, 2019
PARAMETRIX ESTIMATE
Estimated I
Item Item Description Unit Quantity I Unit Price Cost Comment
Construction Costs
1 Removal of Obstructions LS 1 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000 Clearing and grubbing of the area
2 Selective Removal of Trees(6"+) EA 5 $ 800.00 $ 4,000 Estimated from aerial imagery
3 Removal of Bituminous Surface SY 330 $ 3.50 $ 1,200 Estimated area from CAD
4 Removal of Curb/Sidewalk SY 120 $ 10.00 $ 1,200 Estimated area from CAD
5 Excavation CY 800 $ 14.00 $ 11,200 Assume 3.0 feet of asphalt area
6 Water for Dust Abatement MG 15 $ 10.00 $ 200 Used number ITD provided
7 Granular Subbase TN 772 $ 16.00 $ 12,400 Assume 20"thick(140 PCF)
8 3/4"Aggregate Type A for Base TN 353 $ 20.00 $ 7,100 Assume 8"thick(145 PCF)+walk
9 Superpave HMA TN 248 $ 100.00 $ 24,800 Assume 6"thick(150 PCF)
10 Soft Spot Repair CY 28 $ 25.00 $ 700 Assume 15%of 3/4"aggregate
11 CSS-1 GAL 80 $ 3.75 $ 300 Assume 0.12 gal/sy
12 Milling(0.1') SY 0 N/A $ - Not likely needed
13 Traffic Signal(Relocate 1 pole&Peds) LS 1 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000 ACHD estimates,w/illumination
14 Curb&Gutter FT 480 $ 25.00 $ 12,000 Based on recent ITD estimates
15 Sidewalk SY 114 $ 70.00 $ 8,000 Based on recent ITD estimates
16 Pedestrian Ramp EA 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000 Rebuild pedestrian ramp
17 Driveway Approach EA 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500 Driveway to Airport
18 Erosion&Sediment Control % 5% $ 174,000.00 $ 8,700 Minimal budget required
19 1 Drainage Improvements % 5% $ 174,000.00 $ 8,700 Minimal budget required
20 Monument Relocation LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 Move monument out of way
21 Signs SF 48 $ 25.00 $ 1,200 Estimated 3 signs
22 Pavement Markings(Paint) LF 5,110 $ 2.00 $ 10,300 Estimated length from CAD
22 Pavement Markings(Thermoplastic) SY 780 $ 20.00 $ 15,600 Estimated quantity from CAD
23 Construction Traffic Control % 10% $ 228,000.00 $ 22,800 IShoulder widening
24 Mobilization % 10% $ 251,000.00 Ls 25,100 ITypical mobilization cost
Contingency I 30% $ 84,000
Construction Sub-Total 1 $ 361,000
Soft Costs
25 Right-of-Way(&Easements) I AC 1 0.15 $ 200,000.00 1$ 30,000 McCall Airport(15ft x 475ft)
26 Design Engineering % 10% $ 361,000.00 $ 37,000
27 Construction Engineering&Inspection % 12% $ 361,000.00 1 $ 44,000
28 Construction Survey I % 1 5% $ 361,000.00 1 $ 19,000
Contingency 1 10% $ 13,000
Soft Cost Sub-Total $ 143,000
Recommended Budget $ 504,000:.:
le'.. -tFr. �� _ 0.Y � t `+ tir _ ,,� ,. LF i.-`,,���•�.�' "' �-+-,� "'Y•-�� *����, f y�w a. ;y. �i�rls d
r "iNSTALI FOUNDATION" ..p: -vd;� - - vd' :.'•,3 "'"r -- -.s, ti/u
F R FUTURE SICN...jr< '4 .ro „.y,� I r -'
PROPOSED
'''+ "•fit ;GUARDRAfL' . � � ,' ,,..�� 'N'10 N AD A NATELY+ r t44
�. � H. : "jA . (150't) + `39-FEET FOR vlESTBOUND * { ,.
THROUGH TRAF
' ...,?-•�'^,.�y'* y {54'NCUTMv
(TYF')1 Iq ;�r ►.�'"y, .
Irl
r
O
HIGHWAY 55 — — — -
------ (LAKEST) -- -------------
{7
41
UTILITIES TOr
/ REMAIN IN PLACE <•� I a y '�f
YfIDEN ROAD APPRO tI1lAT Lv " a
;l SAWCUT & H'ID�N ASPH41t :; I 1 1 ;fi-FEET FOR EASTBOUND
(-7't)AROUND CORNER.' 'T; j' j 3 THROUGH TRAFfIC. • ^t,. at'
')- • •��..,+r. .^'1 REBUILD 190' OF GUARDRAIL. t' CTSTALL FOUNDATION - - f'
T MINUM GRADING REOUIREO,- ; I i, FOR FUTURE StGtuy •.�'' .;J�'.. .: ,- �,✓' Sm
Pa` w —fit Ia.`
'. t — —_Jgd�_�a t J+�• k--P~ i...p~ 1 ( , sh — —.—o!l — — __'A
0 30 "'r'' 1 r• l �j' 13.0'1 12.0'' TURN' 12.0'I .. �
SCALE IN FEET 3 ^ .''n - !w1 'I tl f +I J •� ,..IFo .. -
ITCEND
W8-67(5 tIPH TURNING SPEED) • ti Iry 1 �' ` ty . .1 ' .
FRONT WHEEL TRACRLYS I , 4
REAR VMEEL TRAL"NG
i RPIA06480010030 x Tw+I, } .� �; I f 1
E%TQrts of vEFULE I � ;Sqg,{��tn7irFETwL.LLC ' �� { 1 � � } 1 � RPu0087400003F
VDQCLE ERLTlOPE(a3FT) •,\ I r-0 } ''. ( �'4 Il H.S H'WCCALL HOLDINGS LlCAdL
Ty Of
k 0� ..m C
s .m low ;,• _. ,t� r _ 44`` I�1 oil.
o � 1. 3.I ..
tr•'ren �m t.a m3m u,. :Go
e-.u.. ::m .v"...°...w• ;iiu - �.` 1 % 1 i �\t( 1 .�I _ 'Tf1k• f 3,`'
vw7•a<+ .ea t),'.. yy� /` - ^.��`� ,{ � •9 :f'� } t , .... ..... .. .... m 1. a '
d a
Pararteetrlx FIGURE 1A
N ®®®®® RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT BOYDSTUN STISH-55
r.3.,'.• �3,Stet/11g1I tJ3 C::�1.,iD�:,3
f•v�[V_rt�l t
.r'�r✓vd �• '�,!!K /��� +1',��.', ;I , � i ,• .... s> -t l.:,�-� a,� �4 ..�`.`Y.� f''"���/C* .''°..,>�,"" t•. J �'�'� " .,d
wry,. ^—ltd � — —•��1ta-- � `d "—.�-vJ_— .•!? � .�/r� t�-VI r- �� 1 `1F7.�•'
rr7 �NSTALL FOUNDATIOfI---77 —" �.`�.— — vr`- +^�''�" mud 7A'i-1 �'.Vn=
■.. ` �,7A.:y � . `"?? f R FUTURE SIGNA�.l'F`' . K •�'° � "�" `r ;` . ..,
PROPOSED - - r r - .. - - `•.. •`�! 'i.. •' ^l..<-
•�
`".•,'� .•'� °! °d.a`.�" ' 191 IN
E TFOR N
•a ,� .I � "j 'GUARDRAIL �- B,.' - -� - EE WEST000 OEL � ,
�n O THROUGH TRAFitC.
• �' ".i s pSA'NCUT (TYP)113
ri
t ih, i af ,
t o
, tti —-N n
VOW
lfy
HIGHWAY 55 = -
,---- - (LAKEST) -—o-_ --- ---
--rI.. UTILITIES TO°
/7/ RELMN M PLACE-�> �• I ( WDEI ROAD APPR0k11!4
SAWCUT& N'ID IE—J`ASPNAL'f. I " ' -o-FEET FOR EASTB
(�-7 OU ID x - TTv
(
' �t `. ,�,� K • •tJ AROUND CORNER. ',Je I 1 - - : (JG TRRON TRAGIC
... •1 REBUILD 190' OF GUARDRAIL 404!� r� Di F� TION
Luu`AL GRADING_REOUIREO.' I f FOR FUTURE SIGNAL
0 3O T - - ! �' 13.Ot 12.0 TURN 12.0{{.`\ B.O.iI i. E
SCALEINFEET
EI GEHD
WO-67(5 MPH TURNI„.SPEED) �. — I. e �,
FRO>R'ATiEEE c1G TRAC% 1 II + '9e. _
�` I `l
REAR wT EEl TRACKI iC RPM0848OOI 0030 t
DTENTS Of L'DaClL .` 1 RPmOD87000003F - r'SAITAIA 1ti'HITETAR'LlC - .nr• �', ', , tt I
YEMCLE ENJELOPE(.3Fn - •�,�t ,I 9 1 ti ° IT H k H'NCCALE HOLDtI'GS LlC
I� RPM�(y 3,L
1 l 1 N AL RY OFsix
.:
S •oa inoo r ,�1 � -
p i I�I, ,.
in '
%u:Prn ,nm wr°M raw• �� -__ . .�_ w i, :1 1. f `` ,y. ;�. l J 11' 1 r ...,r,,.F,ew ,.�i�\
Parametrix FIGURE 1 B
®®-� LEFT TURN MOVEMENT
' " L-"`<<',",L P:O 1 ,..,°l BOYDSTUN STISH-55
a err y✓. ' w''_,�'-�,' i-fir` y ° '+ ^r , i!•, `o `.a'�. `` a
vd
'•INSTALL FOUNaTIOtI' n Vs; -•.' w�•--� -�.a-- a —�
t; V.
FOR FUTURE SIGNAI,�r: , 1 �• w.w'Y•^x .ai,
PROPQSED'
GUARORAIL ~ s -• , N'I N AD A1�OXINAiELY, 'r •u i
c` mf Aii tvtM, �F (150'3) > ti °!al a v.` •19-FEET FOR VTESTBOUND
r• .. -�` `'^ "• _ •.ir - - " !THROUGH TRAFTTC.
1 q "41 3
.H r.. .,SA'HCUi(TYP)Ia..
c rl
4 707taPs'd'wi
.. .... .
AA
-
�_ __ (LAKE ST) _—� _-_ ___ — __-----
r __ ----------
l•---^-« — ..s;.. .�D1ttYhl. 'n *�,�`�f �� � ,\,\ � �t' Q ... � _,��is�1 y+ltxti•.. � ^y UTILITIES TO, _ 1 • s`::,".�f
•. REtAAM IN PiACE-Ix'-tea.•. .Y.'S �.' I �' F.x:.
_ WIDEN ROAD APPROXIlIAiY 4 s
�� " e• SAWCUT Sc WIDEN ASPHALT I I 'I !i ,6-FEET FOR EASTBOUND t
{
�.. (-7'±) AROUND CORNER. .THROUGH TRAFFIC.
r /•�,; D I INSTALL FOUNDATION - _ 'e ✓`'
.!^ .a�► 1 REBUILD 190' OF GUARDRAIL I FOR FUTURE SIGNAL
e j'• MINT)AAL GRADING REOUIRED c r' .r•. x `NIe,.
1l._ �.�'"!.• -`_.. - �—� rti.�*� w'�..,1y�� I. 1 � q I— !h'— _ —wa— — _ __ph_ _ _ ,�` P - _
.'f _ y h. �: � 11 F� I .�I � _ j ... .. ..; I�• Ph
0 30 -
- 1"C yet' °
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND �L am
WO-87(5 aiPN Tt1Rr1114 SPEED) { +v -,� i`>; �_ a " { '• -. ,• 1�Y ti -
FROM%HEEL TRACKUY 'r' •4•� ',
REAR%HEEL TRACKL - • .�'. "`e•. •i. -� 11 III .� - ..:.J .. ��`�,
RPMOMOOIO030 11 I 11
EXTENTS OF vEHtIX£ SA9ALA'%?iRCTA�•LLC '� °: I ` I .RPu00870D0003F t }
VEMCLE EMIELOPE(+3FT) - �` �I 11 .H.& H uCCALI HOUXIfG$ LLC
l 1^ I r
'..fn RPA
t �� � C IAAII 1tY Ov'�Il �:�1���, _ Y�•� .
0co
gp a as
4 uu ;im �MW �,ic �. it fti I . . ,�' n �• 1
Parametrix FIGURE I
,.
BOTH TURNING MOVEMENTS BOYDSTUN STISH-55
Yl..•....M•. �,\tLt
:�:t. p 1' T •'� LODGE WHITLIACritC RPM:4B300100u0` _ I RPY06.3001D040-,-..
\ S1t0 E OGE WFiTETUL C.•�
t
POD E HHITEial'LLC T.off I RPu068300100�0 1 i
RPu06830010070' r
ORE LODGE 59H(TETA14'l1C SHOVE LONE N'IUTETa1 �t=
RPu0683000R]W
1943 Pu00aJ0071�45 '��(•r �� 1pu pi
ITETAX L ;�l* RPu0000007i949 ,4,,ebRE tETaL•LI�� ( 'rti K•1� � tJ
\� NARY... �,. � 1 T l00{,O�WMI
220.0' DECELERATION
-�'f' •it`fie.• "`�'"-i.' STORAGE (100') LENGTH #'
'.+�' M - w J""1�� +ia�.. •� �.1(35 NPH PER FIGURE 36-2o �•'='' 1� ,�"''" - r i'. ''.
154.0' SHI -AP ER,� 'R *�+-61.0'tJ
1" �►-... ', '; - OF ITO TRAFFIC uANUAL y�l..ZL� •3.'' '". .
-_- .., 3 z, _ - ) -'.�*l�.• ., a 15i.0 SI4F1 TAPER ;"
..4 PROPOSED 1i;INSTALL FOU;IOA�16N > i - a=--�:__��;v�— - .jr,'w
GVARORAIL •x FOR FUTURE SIGNALI'� _Y iNMt •i-. •�;� N'j� — ii ~'
150't) I �f �} - 3 �•�e,,fr-_ '.. ..• ... �� �W�. .. `'✓�.: • - =va
•'r;i r���• i' -,•.�••a 7l i 20.0' CAP�£NGTHF- 1
rl
InT__ _ _ _ '2.1
HIGHWAY 55. z2'
. I (LAKE ST) . ?',-
El
I: •f ... n — - w riC.� '`}• "y en-_.",r` -"'r .�j F ;, y'
y' - -- GUARDRAIL- INSTALL,FOUNDATION °~
(IF0.1) vF-t FOR FUTURE SIGNAL '{ _ • 7- _ ^\ a,.- `.1.''- t i
�+�. Z.��•�:y(�+.��"k'�... - - ,�.;rn I �1 `
pan
fry
80010030
SAWA ITDTAx C -
1a^ RPI.!OD87000003F' �, sAk
��� \ ° i Pu00870000020
H AICCALL HDLDe1G$ LLC ^ �OD
IDAfJ0 Pg
AER CGUPA1Tf
1 .;!tr. B
u • �" x '�'•: _ ,+^�,,r. 1 y•r *- _ yit� � TT,.'.'f^+! „F- ," l R ' - - •�t'�. f I\11. R}1C087000003E r`~1QHQ OW ER COUPAItf
ID10 POWER CDUAATJY \
,
r _ -• •.
S ��` ,` '�� F}i 1. Sy, .'„�''r�.za.�.' * .'�+w.rt.• :1i ,�,�, - \ .: ��•�.'',-r
SCALE IN FEET
Parametrrlx
FIGURE I
-®®-i TURNING LANE IMPROVEMENTS BOYDSTUN ST1SH-55
Parametrix
Conceptual Level Estimate for SH-55
Boyastt,n St/sH-ss
Intersection Improvements
June 7,2019
PARAMETRIX ESTIMATE
Estimate
Item Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost Comment
Construction Costs
r6 1 Removal of Obstructions LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 Clearing and grubbing of the area
2 Selective Removal of Trees(6"+) EA 12 $ 800.00 $ 9,600 Estimated from aerial imagery
3 Removal of Bituminous Surface SY 600 $ 3.50 $ 2,100 Estimated area from CAD
4 Excavation CY 1,585 $ 14.00 $ 22,200 Assume 3.0 feet of asphalt area
5 Granular Borrow CY 1,585 $ 16.00 $ 25,400 Assume 3.0 feet of asphalt area
Water for Dust Abatement MG 15 $ 10.00 $ 200 Used number ITD provided
7 Granular Subbase TN 1,834 $ 16.00 $ 29,400 Assume 20"thick(140 PCF)
8 3/4"Aggregate Type A for Base TN 751 $ 20.00 $ 15,100 Assume 8"thick(145 PCF)
9 Superpave HMA TN 588 $ 100.00 $ 58,800 Assume 6"thick(150 PCF)
10 Soft Spot Repair CY 58 $ 25.00 $ 1,500 Assume 15%of 3/4"aggregate
11 CSS-1 GAL 191 $ 3.75 $ 800 Assume 0.12 gal/sy
12 Traffic Signal LS 0.2 $ 250,000.00 $ 50,000 Foundation&conduit-20%cost
13 Illumination EA 4 $ 8,000.00 $ 32,000 Estimated additional lights
14 Guardrail LF 330 $ 30.00 $ 9,900 Bids from Karcher IC
15 Curb&Gutter FT 01 N/A $ - Part of round-a-bout option
16 Island Concrete SY 0 N/A $ - Part of round-a-bout option
17 Erosion&Sediment Control % 5% $ 272,000.00 $ 13,600 Minimal budget required
18 Drainage Improvements % 5% $ 272,000.00 $ 13,600 Minimal budget required
19 Extend Pedistrian Underpass SF 0 N/A $ - Not likely needed
20 Retaining Wall SF 0 N/A $ Not likely needed
21 Landscaping LS 0 N/A $ Not likely needed
22 Signs SF 160 $ 25.00 $ 4,000 Estimated 10 signs
23 Pavement Markings(Paint) LF 5,440 $ 2.00 $ 10,900 Estimated length from CAD
23 Pavement Markings(Thermoplastic) SY 270 $ 20.00 $ 5,400 Estimated quantity from CAD
24 Construction Traffic Control % 15% $ 320,000.00 $ 48,000 Will be challenging to construct
25 Mobilization % 10% $ 368,000.00 $ 36,800 ITypical mobilization cost
Contingency I 30% $ 122,000
Construction Sub-Total I $ 527,000
Soft Costs
26 Right-of-Way(&Easements) AC 0 $ 200,000.00 $ - No Right-of-way Needed
27 Design Engineering % 10% $ 527,000.00 $ 53,000
28 Construction Engineering&Inspection. % 12% $ 527,000.00 $ 64,000
29 Construction Survey % 5% $ 527,000.00 $ 27,000
Contingency I 10% $ 15,000
Soft Cost Sub-Total 1 $ 159,000,1 .
Recommended Budget $ 686,000
HORROCKS
®11,11
E N G I N E E R S
Appendix G — ITD Intersection Design
SH 55&Deinha d1Boyd-mn Conidor Exchange Feasihilidy 41
�• EOP
� I" � ap- - ,fir ;.' �;' �' •.[_
Zi
4 EXTEND UNOERPMSImpop
Lij
10
R
ti
" £OP � r.� � y io qv
� ai! • � r � '3 ',�11 rs,� i
� ,o r _RETAINING WALL(HdIGHT-5,625.5T}
' 'n)
rp IL .. , 'r r ..lam �'' ~', •' }
4,
INJ
a r 1
1 i
zot} r•
ire
EOP
EXTEND UNDE11Pf15Sr
` ,.xiM.� t k�..}'TS- ';mil ,ii. •. Y �� +w+ ,,"�'.�„�, • f , `. Q ii `; , e
� AR 5AIL
': ��,�� 7 v • r` q�T.R �/ f�..a Sw .~'Is
• yjc' tiT 'e 1 I F
~ PEDESTRIAN RAILING
t' ►r y t` 1 11 i` ' ,` M--) REGAINING WALI,(HI!IGHr.jD.FTJ+e
SiDEWA1,K�' "t {. '�'`'*' ' ✓ J r };,'� �1�1
} !
La ag.
w� q 14L
�� �. ^li�'0"• r� � yak �, n 'L y�� - �--'- y � ws. . �...
r
� 1tiw: �. � � J•ry'q � I .. 1• �� .J '�..._ fir:- ......._......a ,.-T
a'-�a 'a. _ y�1:.°s "`y+r. s r..ir• ..11111 _
�..... ._. s a _ -.... .--` .1 a� •�, �� _�-
• • • a• • • • 1 ii� 4
.`ft t a a
.. `�40
`• • +
` I
/� 0 ,
COST ESTIMATE-Boydstun/SH-55 Roundabout(No Sidewalk)
Date 2/19/2019
Estimate By Dan Block
Description Cost estimate for the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of SH-55 and Boydstun St in McCall.
Assumptions:
HMA Pavement
Stiff leg widening of existing underpass structure for expansion to the south only
Retaining wall is needed on the north end of the intersection to support roadway embankment
No Sidewalk
Construction Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Notes
Clearing&Grubbing 3.00 ACRE $ 6,783.33 $ 20,349.99 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19814&KN18872
Selective Removal of Trees 25.00 EACH $ 515.15 $ 12,878.75 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13481,KN 20842,KN 13951,
KN20797,KN19414,KN13991,KN8432
Removal of Bituminous Surface 312.00 SQYD $ 12.91 $ 4,027.92 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13387&KN20225
Excavation 1296.30 CUYD $ 19.64 $ 25,459.26 ROM Quantity.Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19415,
KN18950,KN20797,KN13388,KN13390
Granular Borrow 3442.70 CUYD $ 12.12 $ 41,725.57 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13481,KN19602,&KN13390
Water for Dust Abatement 15.00 MG $ 10.00 $ 106.29 ROM Quantity.Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19947,
KN19415,KN18950,KN13961,KN13390,&KN20294
Fiber Wattle 1438.50 FT $ 3.05 $ 4,387.43
1/2 Perimeter of Clearing&Grubbing area.Avg Bid of
similar quantity:KN13962,KN13481,&KN13946
Silt Fence 2877.00 FT $ 2.63 $ 7,566.51
Perimeter of Clearing&Grubbing area.Avg Bid of similar
quantity:KN18872,KN20797,KN2886,&KN19190
Inlet Protection 7.00 EACH $ 76.42 $ 534.94 1 existing inlet,6 constructed.Avg Bid of KN19965,
KN18950,KN20797
Granular Subbase(1.7-FT,130 pcf) 3284.50 TON $ 15.90 $ 52,223.58 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN18872
3/4"Aggregate Type A For Base(0.65-FT,142 PCF) 1714.70 TON $ 26.88 $ 46,091.22 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13946,KN20797,&KN13388
Est-High @ 15%of aggregate volume for repairs during
Soft Spot Repair 257.21 CUYD $ 22.67 $ 5,830.85 live traffic prior to paving.Avg Bid of KN19947&KN18723
CSS-1(0.12 gal/sqyd) 495.40 GAL $ 3.75 $ 1,857.75 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19415
Approach 2.00 EACH $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19415
Superpave HMA(0.5-FT,143 PCF) 2037.68 TON $ 92.51 $ 188,505.97 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13946,KN19154,KN13390
252 sgft per ramp x 6 ramps.Avg Bid of similar quantity:
Curb Ramp 168.00 SQYD $ 153.81 $ 25,840.08 KN20842,KN19412,&KN19414
Curb&Gutter 1591.40 FT $ 24.17 $ 38,464.14 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN20797
SP-Island Paving(Truck Apron) 497.42 SQYD $ 74.17 $ 36,891.90 Avg Bid of KN19814
Island Concrete 264.16 SQYD $ 41.82 $ 11,046.99 Use Sidewalk Unit Price
Guardrail 135.00 FT $ 25.35 $ 3,422.25 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19154&KN13961
18"Culvert 180.00 FT $ 60.18 $ 10,832.40 1 per catch basin(30-FT each).Avg Bid of similar quantity:
KN19414
Catch Basin 6.00 EACH $ 2,398.54 $ 14,391.24 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13947&KN19814
36"Culvert 250.00 FT $ 83.47 $ 20,867.50 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN18852
Extend Pedestrian Underpass 168.00 SOFT $ 400.00 $ 67,200.00 ROM-Estimate.Assume 12-FT extension
Retaining Wall 1127.81 SQFT $ 75.00 $ 84,585.94 200.5-FT x 5.625-FT
Illumination 1.00 LS j$ 16,512.00 $ 16,512.00 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN12886
Signs 1.001 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 ROM-Est
Landscaping 1.001 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 ROM-Est
Sub-Total $ 774,600.46
Traffic Control 10% $ 77,460.05
Striping 10% $ 77,460.05
Mobilization 5% $ 38,730.02
Contingency 30% $ 232,380.14
Total $ 1,200,630.71
Total Project Costs Cost Note
Design Services 10% $ 120,063.07
Construction Services 12% $ 144,075.69
Right-Of-Way $ 250,000.00 ROM-Placeholder
Construction $ 1,200,630.71
Total $ 1,714,769.46
�"/t "�� .. i� 'i t5 x•� .rarf" ,..rwi!"i ;= ,.... -_ J� ..,W 1
f
1� R;��, _ 1 � '{ , � s ram^[ •4
----------- -----
Gob jle Eam _6.
• �a • z • • a• • • • 1 arti r '`�
-Y�'yr• � 5 •• i 4a c���� _ � �� 'T
• Mr♦ ! F,
kaPW
- t• '
ik
40
•yt ` iy �`� t 1 T r� > 1 .�' .rni�, ..� VFW � ! +! -
1 { '
A
,� a'.�-fir` �• '; � ��" , a'vt -
r
t� t 1
r
COST ESTIMATE-Deinhard/SH-55 Intersection Expansion(Free Right Portion Only)
Date 2/27/2019
Estimate By Dan Block
Description Cost estimate for the SW Free-Right Leg of expanding the SH-55/Deinhard intersection..
This cost only includes the SW portion of the intersection.
Mill/Inlay costs are shown for the west leg of Deinhard and the south leg of SH-55.
Construction Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Notes
Clearing&Grubbing 1.00 ACRE $ 6,783.33 $ 6,783.33 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19814&KN18872
Selective Removal of Trees 15.00 EACH $ 515.15 $ 7,727.25 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13481,KIN 20842,KN 13951,
KN20797,KN19414,KN13991,KN8432
ROM Quantity(25%of Clearing&Grubbing Area).Avg Bid
Excavation 755.53 CUYD $ 19.64 $ 14,838.57 of similar quantity:KN19415,KN18950,KN20797,
KN13388,KN13390
Water for Dust Abatement 15.00 MG $ 10.00 $ 106.29 ROM Quantity.Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19947,
KN19415,KN18950,KN13961,KN13390,&KN20294
Fiber Wattle 398.25 FT $ 3.05 $ 1,214.66 1/2 Silt Fence.Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13962,
KN13481,&KN13946
Silt Fence 796.50 FT $ 2.63 $ 2,094.80 1/52 Clearing&Grubbin perimeter.Avg Bid of similar
quantity:KN18872,KN20797,KN2886,&KN19190
Inlet Protection 0.00 EACH $ 76.42 $ - 2 existing inlets on East side of int,none on West side.Avg
Bid of KN19965,KN18950,KN20797
Granular Subbase(1.7-FT,130 pcf) 3005.49 TON $ 15.90 $ 47,787.28 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN18872
3/4"Aggregate Type A For Base(0.65-FT,142 PCF) 1278.45 TON $ 26.88 $ 34,364.66 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13946,KN20797,&KN13388
Soft Spot Repair 191.77 CUYD $ 22.67 $ 4,347.36 Est-High @ 15%of aggregate volume for repairs during
live traffic prior to paving.Avg Bid of KN19947&KN18723
Milling(0.1') 5779.22 SQYD $ 4.93 $ 28,491.56 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19442
CSS-1(0.12 gal/sgyd) 967.70 GAL $ 3.75 $ 3,628.89 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19415
Approach 2.00 EACH $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19415
Superpave HMA(0.5-FT,143 PCF) 1478.98 TON $ 92.51 $ 136,820.33 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13946,KN19154,KN13390
Sidewalk 769.53 SQYD $ 41.82 $ 32,181.74 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN19814&KN189727
Curb Ramp 112.00 SQYD $ 153.81 $ 17,226.72 252 sgft per ramp x 4 ramps at SW corner.Avg Bid of similar
quantity:KN20842,KN19412,&KN19414
Curb&Gutter 1012.98 FT $ 24.17 $ 24,483.73 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN20797
18"Culvert 150.00 FT $ 60.18 $ 9,027.00 1 per catch basin(30-FT each).Avg Bid of similar quantity:
KN19414
Catch Basin 5.00 EACH $ 2,398.54 $ 11,992.70 Avg Bid of similar quantity:KN13947&KN19814
Signal(includes PED heads,Luminaires,etc.) 0.25 LS $275,000.00 $ 68,750.00 25%of signal cost.
Sub-Total $ 454,866.87
Traffic Control 10% $ 45,486.69
Striping 10% $ 45,486.69
Mobilization 5% $ 22,743.34
Contingency 30% $ 136,460.06
Total $ 705,043.65
Total Project Costs Cost Note
Design Services 10% $ 70,504.36
Construction Services 12% $ 84,605.24
Right-Of-Way $ 50,000.00 ROM-Placeholder
Construction $ 705,043.65
Total $ 910,153.25