HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20120626MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events
THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: June 19, 2012
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2012
RE: Pro Cycling Challenge - concerts
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting an additional funding of $25,000 for two
concerts in connection with the Pro Challenge. Each concert would have a budget of $12,500.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff and Council had previously looked into partnering
with Michael Goldberg and offering a ticketed concert on Wednesday, August 22. That type of
production was too costly.
DISCUSSION: Aspen is in unique and enviable position of hosting not only the Queen stage
but the only host to be awarded two stages for the 2012 USA Pro Cycling Challenge, which is a
live televised event to 160 plus countries. In an effort to maintain and build on the success of last
year, staff would like to add two concerts to the Pro Challenge events. Staff has been working
with Tumbleweed Productions (Joe Lang) and Michael Goldberg to produce grassroots, old -
school Aspen style concerts. Staff would like to do two concerts, one on Friday, August 1 oth to
kick off the countdown for the Pro Challenge and the other concert the night of the stage finish,
on Wednesday, August 22nd. Both of these concerts would be free and open to the public. Staff
is working with the Parks Department to determine the best location for both of these concerts.
By hosting a community event/free concert on Friday, August loth, staff is looking to create a
buzz prior to the Pro Challenge and generate excitement for the bike race. Last year, after the
stage finish, there weren't any planned activities and it felt like a let -down as the vendors were
packing up. Staff observed the spectators milling about and discussing the day and all that they
saw and experienced in Aspen. Because we are a two stage host, staff feels by offering 'a free
concert, it will keep people in town and the enthusiasm for the race alive.
Both concerts would be community minded family oriented and mindful of the dinner crowd.
Page 1 of 2
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The budget for each concert is $12,500 for a total of v
$25,000. This amount is currently not in the Pro Challenge budget and staff is requesting this as
an additional fund for the bike race.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ZGreen is a strong part of our entire planning process. The
City holds itself, and it's events to a higher standard than other events.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is requesting the additional funding. If Council does not
approve, there won't be concerts.
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: June 22, 2012
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2012
RE: Entrance to Aspen Analysis & Cost Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
As part of Council's top ten goal on the Entrance to Aspen (ETA), staff is providing a brief
review of previously analyzed alternatives, updated analysis and information on the expansion of
the Castle Creek Bridge from the Reversible Lane Alternative, a modification to the Reversible
Lane Alternative called a Fixed Three Lane Alternative and update to the construction cost
estimates previously provided in 2008.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
In 2008, Council requested information, analysis, feasibility studies, travel time studies and
construction cost estimates on several ETA alternatives. This included the Preferred Alternative,
Split Shot Alternative, and Reversible Lane Alternative.
BACKGROUND:
Many different demonstrations, experiments and studies have been conducted relating to the
Entrance to Aspen including:
2005
• S-Curves Task Force Meetings and Studies
• No Left Turn Restriction from Cemetery Lane onto SH 82 as a demonstration
• Construction of the Main Street Bus Lane
• Closures of Bleeker, Hallam, and North 7t' Streets
2006
• CDOT conducted the Reevaluation of the SH 82/ETA Federal Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and Record Of Decision (ROD)
Page 1 of 5
2007
• Created a staff ETA team that created many documents and conducted various public
outreach on the ETA including:
- A history of the votes on the ETA
- The ETA Where Do We Go from Here flyer
- A video on the history of the ETA
- The www.SH 82.com website
- ETA information in the City's e-newsletter
- Meeting in a Box toolkit for citizens who wanted to have their own meetings
• Conducted a variety of public meetings including
- Two Voices on the Entrance meetings
- Keypad Meeting at Wheeler Opera House
2008
Conducted several Council work sessions including:
- February 19, 2008-Split Shot Feasibility, Reversible Lane Feasibility Study, SH 82
turn restriction study
June 2, 2008-Split Shot, Reversible Lane, Truscott intersection signal timing,
evaluation process for proposed changes to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
process
- November 18, 2008- ETA Cost Estimates, travel time modeling, evaluation process
for proposed changes to the EIS
2010
• Council directed staff to stage a transportation open house to include information on the
Preferred, Split Shot and Reversible Lane Alternatives. These open houses were held on
April 2.
• Staff conducted a survey of Aspen and Pitkin county residents to obtain their opinion on
Entrance to Aspen alternatives under evaluation by Council.
• Presented Council with a draft non -binding advisory question to review. Council chose
not to pursue the question.
2011
Presented ETA survey results in the summer of 2011 to Council and the community
DISCUSSION:
In 2008, staff and consultants provided Council with detailed information on several Entrance to
Aspen alternatives including the Preferred Alternative, split shot, and reversible lane. At the
work sessions, staff and consultants provided Council with information and analysis of each
Page 2 of 5
alternative. The feasibility studies included information and analysis on alignment, travel times,
speed, open space impacts, and estimated costs.
In July of 2011, at the Council retreat, Council established one of its top ten goals for 2011/12 as:
Update Entrance to Aspen information and present to community for clarity of understanding
about current options.
In response to this Council goal, staff is providing updated analysis on the possible expansion of
Castle Creek Bridge related to the Reversible Lane Alternative and updated cost information on
the different ETA alternatives presented in 2008. The repairs in 2011 by CDOT have impacted
the cost estimates for the expansion of the Castle Creek Bridge. Staff presented this updated
information to the public at an open house earlier in the day.
Fixed Three Lane Alternative
In addition to the ETA alternatives evaluated in 2008, staff has included another alternative
which is a modification of the reversible lane which has been called a Fixed Three Lane
Alternative. This alternative would have one general purpose lane coming into town and two
general purpose lanes going out of town. These three lanes would be fixed in each direction and
would not reverse during peak periods. The two lanes would be mixed use lanes with buses and
vehicle sharing both lanes. For this analysis a dedicated bus lane was not assumed. The
modeling, travel times and analysis were based on the afternoon peak period so that it could be
compared to the studies performed in 2008.
The main benefit of this alternative would be the additional roadway capacity for the outbound
vehicles during the afternoon peak period. This directional increase in capacity would improve
the outbound travel times from current conditions and might ease some congestion.
The Fixed Three Lane Alternative would also reduce the need for overhead sign bridges and
other traffic control measures that were not favored as part of the Reversible Lane Alternative.
The elimination of these items would reduce the visual impact and reduce the cost of this
alternative.
The disadvantage of a fixed three lane configuration is that with only one lane into town the
inbound congestion and travel times would not change from today. For travel times in just the
westbound direction, the reversible and fixed lane alternatives rank first with the best time
savings due to the two general purpose outbound lanes rather than the general purpose lane and
bus lane section of the Preferred and Split Shot Alternatives. When travel times in both
directions are analyzed, the fixed third lane alternative ranks third behind the Preferred
Alternative (first) and the reversible lane (second).
Castle Creek Bridge
The Fixed Three Lane Alternative like the Reversible Lane Alternative would still require major
modifications to the Castle Creek Bridge to accommodate a third lane and pedestrians. In
2011the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) made repairs to the bridge that raised
its sufficiency rating from a 29.6 to a 62.6.
Page 3 of 5
The bridge has been analyzed after the repairs were made to determine the impacts of a third lane
to its structure, loading, sufficiency rating, right-of-way (ROW) and estimated costs of
improvements. Expansion of the bridge to one side (north) with additional piers and deck
appears to be the most economic and least impactful. Detours down Power Plant Road, the
length of construction, the location of the construction and other constructability issues would
need careful consideration. A third lane on the bridge would require right-of-way acquisition
and temporary construction easements. It is important to note that CDOT will have important
and perhaps controlling input into the design, location, and construction of an expanded or new
bridge. The Castle Creek Bridge was built in 1961, is over 50 years old, undergoes periodic
annual maintenance and inspection, and sees high traffic volumes. CDOT would likely want to
evaluate the expansion of the existing bridge versus the design and construction of a new bridge
in this or another location.
It is also important to note, that as a third lane would be considered an increase in capacity to SH
82 in the Entrance to Aspen corridor and a change from the Preferred Alternative, it would be
required to go through some kind of Environmental Impact Statement process and could result in
a new or modified Record of Decision.
Construction Cost Estimates Updates
At Council's request staff asked SGM to update the construction costs for the different ETA
alternatives analyzed in 2008. SGM consulted with CDOT on construction costs statewide,
verified these costs and then compared them to trends on the Western slope. Each alternative
was analyzed using this methodology and updated costs were applied. The updated cost
estimates are as follows:
Alternative 2008 2012
Preferred Alternative (400' tunnel) $62.3 million $59.1 million
Split Shot (Roundabout) $35.3 million $33.5 million
Split Shot (Grade Separated) $51.6 million $48.9 million
Reversible Lane $ 7.2 million $ 6.9 million
Three Lane $ 5.9 million
NEXT STEPS:
Staff with CDOT approval and consultant assistance, will be conducting an experiment related to
the ETA this July at the Cemetery Lane and SH 82 intersection. SGM will perform a field study
of the Cemetery Lane signal to provide a preliminary analysis and signal optimization of the
intersection. Phase 1 involves collecting data, analyzing existing conditions, manual operation of
the signal by a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE), and post field condition study.
Based on the results of Phase 1, Phase 2 of the study could be implemented with similar scope
involving a revised signal timing plan. The results of Phase 1 with manual operation would be
compared to Phase 2 with a revised signal timing plan that could be implemented on a year round
basis. The study will also look at additional hardware, newer adaptive signal technology, and
possible physical changes to the intersection. These improvements could be incorporated into the
2013 capital plan if viewed favorably by Council.
2 Page 4 of 5
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
There are no financial impacts to the budget as this analysis and update is informational.
But, if Council wants to pursue additional analysis or studies a supplemental budgetary request
would be necessary. Currently there is no budget approved for further study.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
There are no environmental impacts from this informational update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council await the results from the Cemetery Lane experiment (see Next
Steps on page 4) before taking any further action.
ALTERNATIVES:
There is no recommendation and no alternatives from this informational update.
PROPOSED MOTION:
There is no proposed motion.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Preferred Alternative with Land Bridge
Attachment B:
Preferred Alternative with 400' Tunnel
Attachment C:
Preferred Alternative with 300' Land Bridge
Attachment D:
Preferred Alternative Typical Sections
Attachment E:
Split Shot Alternative — Grade Separated
Attachment F:
Split Shot Alternative — Roundabout
Attachment G:
Split Shot Typical Sections
Attachment H:
Reversible Lane Concept Plan
Attachment I:
Reversible Lane Details & Cross Sections
Attachment J:
SGM Memo & Attachments
Page 5 of 5 3
+
F
0 100’200’400’
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE WITH
400’TUNNEL
0’100’200’
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE WITH
LAND BRIDGE
400’
0
•1I
m
m
C,
-l
C,
r
Cl)mC,
0z
Cl)
m
•11m
m
i:j
m
z
m
C)
r
P1
C)a’
P1P1
a’
VC)
P1
a
z0a’
a’
C)
r
V
ID
a’
0
C)P1
a’
C)-I
C
a’P1
p
0’100’200’400
SPLIT SHOT -
RADE SEPERATED
Co
+r I 0 100’200’400’
SPLIT SHOT -
ROUNDABOUT
Cl)
F—
-I
Cl)
I
0
-I
-I0
-l
m
0
mP1
0
P1
Reversible Lane Concept Plan
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER
ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
Ti-IF CITY OF ASPEN
Reversible Lane Details &Cross Sections
xt ti I
12-0
Dl
UU
Asymmetric Bridge Design
(Preferred Design)
SCHMUESER
GORDON MEYER
ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
Typical Advisory SignageLaneControlSignalsandSignBridges
on 1-70 in Glenwood Canyon (To be placed throughout
affected comdor area)
Symmetric Bridge Design
-‘
Sign Bridge at Main and 7th
THE Cim’OF ASPEN
(3SGM
www sgrninc corn
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Krueger and Lynn Rumbaugh, City of Aspen Transportation
FROM: Lee Barger, SGM
DATE: June 22, 2012
SUBJ: Project # 2007-480.006
ETA Fixed Three -Lane Analysis and Update to 2008 ETA Construction
Cost Estimates
Executive Summary
SGM has re-evaluated the Reversible Lane alternative to compare a new alternative, the Fixed
Three Lane, to the Preferred, Split Shot(s), and Reversible Lane alternatives. This memo
summarizes our analysis results from the structural, operational and cost impacts associated with
this new design concept. The primary findings of the memo include:
• As was found in the Reversible Lane Feasibility Analysis, it may be possible to widen the
existing Castle Creek Bridge to the north side to accommodate an additional traffic lane;
however, CDOT may be reluctant to invest significant money in adding to an existing
structure that may be near the end of its practical service life.
• Outbound PM peak modeled travel times are similar to those of the reversible lane
alternative. These show the greatest improvement over the No -Build, but they allow two
general purpose lane instead of a single general purpose and a bus lane that are included
in the Preferred and Split Shot alternatives.
• Inbound traffic travel times would be similar to today's, as no capacity improvements are
planned for eastbound traffic.
• Construction costs on the Western Slope have decreased by about 5% since the costs
were calculated in 2008.
• Pursuing the Fixed Three Lane alternative further involves reopening the Entrance to
Aspen EIS in order to change the Record of Decision and might ultimately result in full
bridge replacement of the Castle Creek Bridge.
Introduction
The City of Aspen in 2012 plans to revisit several of the previous studies relating to the Entrance
to Aspen last conducted in 2008 by Parsons Transportation Group, HDR Engineering, and SGM.
SGM has been retained to update this previous information and to provide analysis for the
following:
1. Redefine the previous traffic analysis of the interim solution of a Reversible Lane
through the S-curves and Castle Creek Bridge
2. Provide an update to the structural analysis of the Castle Creek Bridge and its ability
to be expanded after recent upgrades performed by CDOT
3. Provide updated Construction Cost Estimates of the Alternatives (Preferred, Split
Shot — Roundabout, Split Shot — Grade Separation) and modify the Reversible Lane
Alternative to reflect a "Fixed Three -Lane" configuration.
12 GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945.1004
SSGM
www sgm-inc com
Ouafffication
This report is a planning level document that reassesses the feasibility of expanding the Castle
Creek Bridge to provide an additional lane of through traffic capacity along the segment from the
Maroon Creek roundabout to 7`h and Main Streets. Since this alternative identifies capacity
improvements within the Entrance to Aspen project area that are not consistent with those of the
preferred alternative in the Record of Decision, various paths must be taken to adopt any new
alternative depending on the degree of impact the alternative has when compared to the preferred
alternative. A flow chart has been included as Attachment A that identifies the various paths that
could be taken to change the ROD. The feasibility analysis for the bridge expansion also relies
on a critical assumption that CDOT would allow expansion of the bridge instead of requiring a
completely new structure. No discussions with CDOT Staff Bridge or the Resident Engineer
have been conducted to approach this subject.
History
In the efforts conducted in 2008 by the City of Aspen, Parsons Transportation reassessed the
construction costs associated with three build alternatives in the footprint of the final segment of
the SH 82 Entrance to Aspen project. At the same time, SGM provided a feasibility analysis for
an interim solution of a Reversible Third Lane to be added to the existing SH 82 corridor. The
limits of all of these studies extend from the Maroon Creek Roundabout to the intersection of 7t'
and Main.
Since this previous work was conducted, the community has continued to discuss the
advancement of alternative solutions to the Entrance to Aspen beyond the Modified -Direct
(Preferred Alternative) as defined in the Record of Decision (ROD). The Reversible Lane
alternative, which allows for the directional peak flow to be accommodated with two lanes of
traffic (eastbound in the AM and westbound in the PM), was shown to have similar or slightly
improved travel times when compared against the other alternatives modeled using Synchro
(traffic simulation software). The visual impacts of the sign bridges necessary for lane
assignment were the most common comments against this alternative, but it still remains a viable
short-term alternative solution for the corridor.
The Reversible Lane Feasibility Analysis done in 2008 also provided analysis of the Castle Creek
Bridge's ability to be expanded to accommodate another lane of traffic and compliant pedestrian
access across the bridge. Some of the costs associated with the bridge expansion identified in
2008 fixed deficiencies that have since been corrected by CDOT in 2011 as part of a bridge
maintenance/repair project. These costs will be adjusted in this new estimate.
13
SSGM
www sgm Inc com
Reassessment of the Castle Creek Bridge
General Bridge Sufficiency Rating Discussion
What does bridge sufficiency rating mean?
CDOT uses a national sufficiency rating formula to evaluate a bridge's sufficiency to remain in
service and to determine eligibility for federal funds. This formula generates a percentage -based
sufficiency rating: 100 percent represents an entirely sufficient bridge and 0 percent represents an
entirely insufficient (or deficient) bridge. The sufficiency rating is never less than 0 or more than
100. For example, new bridges designed to current engineering standards would be expected to
have a sufficiency rating of 100; and in contrast, the old SH-82 Maroon Creek had a sufficiency
rating of only 9 before it was eventually replaced.
A bridge sufficiency rating includes a multitude
of factors: inspection results of the structural
condition of the bridge, traffic volumes, number
of lanes, road widths, clearances, and importance
for national security and public use, as examples.
The sufficiency rating is calculated by using a
formula defined by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). As the figure to the
right shows, the formula places 55 percent of its
value on the structural condition of the bridge, 30
percent on its current functionality, and 15
percent on whether it is essential to public use.
Bridges are often referred to as being
"Structurally Deficient" or "Functionally
Obsolete" based on the results of the sufficiency
rating formula.
What is a "structurally deficient" bridge?
Sufficiency Rating = A + g + C - D
Maximum 55%
of Total Value
A
Structural Adequacy and Safety
sum
SUbStUdU
CIA�.n
Serviceability and
BFunctiormi
Obsolescence
Dolome XpMn,
,woes -. ShuClum
A —9. Daly Tre10c
App wh Roedxey WMth
structu Type
Maximum 309.
8.� A.::g �10i
wMrw� ammo Dv Dft
of Total Value
Dads wrens+
condban
Dock Go—vy
\S,
Un4Mtlp.b,CM
waurvayAdeauxy
Appweei P-d-y AhWa.M
C\
Essentiality for
Public Use
DOWL nP
A".pe Dopy Ua!hr
Maximum 1s%
of Total Value
Structurally deficient means there are elements of
the bridge that need to be monitored and/or
repaired. The fact that a bridge is "structurally
deficient" does not imply that it is likely to Special Reductlona
Maximum 13%
collapse or that it is unsafe. It means the bridge iraaDSSa L of Total Value
e Satory Faehve
must be monitored, inspected and mm, Snw&"Tvoe
repaired/replaced at an appropriate time to
maintain its structural integrity. Prior to the CDOT repairs in 2011. the Castle Creek Bridge was
considered structurally deficient.
How is "structural deficiency" determined?
The condition of different parts of a bridge is rated on a scale of 0 to 9 (with 9 being "excellent"
and zero being "failed"). A structurally deficient bridge is one for which the deck (riding surface),
the superstructure (supports immediately beneath the driving surface) or the substructure
(foundation and supporting posts and piers) are rated in condition 4 or less.
14
6SGM
www sgm !nc com
What is a `.functionally obsolete" bridge?
A functionally obsolete bridge is one that was built to standards that are not used today. These
bridges are not automatically rated as structurally deficient, nor are they inherently unsafe.
Functionally obsolete bridges are those that do not have adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, or
vertical clearances to serve current traffic demand or to meet the current geometric standards, or
those that may be occasionally flooded.
A functionally obsolete bridge is similar to an older house. A house built in 1950 might be
perfectly acceptable to live in, but it does not meet all of today's building codes. Yet, when it
comes time to consider upgrading that house or making improvements, the owner must look at
ways to bring the structure up to current standards. The Castle Creek Bridge is currently
considered to be Functionally Obsolete due to its capacity (2 lanes) to meet traffic demands
(23,500 vehicles/day).
To be eligible for federal aid to replace a bridge, it must have a sufficiency rating of less than 50
and be either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. To be eligible for repair, a bridge
must have a sufficiency rating of less than 80. These eligible bridges which are then included in
the FHWA Federal Select List of Bridges, commonly known as "the Select List". In general, if a
bridge receives funding for a major rehabilitation project it would be expected that the repair
would result in new sufficiency rating greater than 80 so the structure can be removed from the
Select List.
Castle Creek Bridge_ Sufficiencv Rating Discussion
The Castle Creek Bridge was constructed in 1961. Current bridge inspection reports were
obtained from CDOT. In 2011, CDOT made repairs to the bridge to correct some of the
deficiencies identified in the previous inspection report. These repairs consisted of grinding out
the cracked welds on the exterior girders that support the sidewalks and rehabilitation work on the
west abutment (Abutment 1). These repairs elevated the overall bridge sufficiency rating from
29.6 to 62.6 and removed the bridge from a `Structurally Deficient (SD)' status. The structural
inventory rating of the bridge remained unchanged at 34.1 tons. The inventory rating represents
the overall load capacity of the bridge. At 34.1 tons, the bridge has a slightly reduced structural
capacity from the desired minimum 36 ton capacity, but it is not low enough to require posting
and does not significantly impact the overall sufficiency rating.
To assess what effect the proposed bridge widening would have on the overall sufficiency rating,
the proposed widened structure was evaluated as a Mane structure carrying the current number of
vehicles (23,500 veh/day). Other basic improvements such as painting the existing girders and
replacing all of the bridge rails and approach guardrails were also factored in to this evaluation.
The proposed widened and improved structure results in an overall sufficiency rating of 76.0;
better than its current rating of 62.6, but less than the desired rating of 80.
As discussed previously, bridges with a sufficiency rating of 80 or less are placed on the Select
List of the National Bridge Inventory and are eligible for repair or replacement funding. Bridges
with sufficiency ratings between 50 and 80 are generally considered in need of rehabilitation to
remedy structural deficiencies or improve overall functionality. As would be expected, the
sufficiency rating of the Castle Creek Bridge derives its largest rating reduction for its inadequate
width to carry the traffic demand. Given the traffic volume of 23,500 vehicles per day (2008), a
3-lane bridge with a curb -to -curb width of 45.5 feet or a 4-lane bridge with a curb -to -curb width
of 56.5 feet would be required to improve the sufficiency rating to above 80. Thus, an additional
15
'5SGM
WWW sgm nc C,"
6 feet of roadway width would need to be provided beyond the proposed widening to elevate the
rating above 80. One possible method of providing this additional width is to not separate the
vehicular traffic from the pedestrian walkway with a bridge rail, but to instead stripe a bike/ped
lane. This is considered acceptable in accordance with AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications
for roadways with a posted speed limit of 45 mph or less. However, this may not be consistent
with the desired pedestrian -friendly neighborhood character.
In summary, the proposed widening in coordination with some needed repairs will indeed
improve the overall rating of the bridge. However, this still would not be enough to push the
rating above 80 without an additional 6 feet of roadway width on the bridge; and in reality, a 4-
lane bridge would be considered more appropriate by FHWA and CDOT for the given traffic
volume. The structural capacity of the existing bridge should be considered adequate and should
not preclude adding on to the existing bridge, but this would require concurrence from CDOT.
While other bridges in the Aspen area have been in service for as long as 100 years (Maroon
Creek Bridge prior to 2008), history shows that most bridges built in the era of the Castle Creek
Bridge should be expected to have a practical service life of 50 to 75 years. Although the
structural inspection and analysis shows that expansion is feasible, this may not be desirable by
CDOT given the age of the existing structure.
A conceptual bridge plan and profile layout, roadway typical sections, abutments sections, and
pier sections are shown on Attachments B — E, respectively. Refer to the attached Sufficiency
Rating Calculation Worksheets (Attachment F) for additional information.
Bridge Cost Estimate Discussion
A review of the previously identified bridge items was performed to verify quantities and update
pricing. Items resulting in significant cost differences from the previous Opinion of Probable
Costs include:
• Added item for temporary shoring to widen the west abutment (Abut. 1) $100,000
• Added item for cofferdam and dewatering to construct pier footing in Castle $50,000
Creek (Pier 4)
• Revised concrete quantities and unit prices
• Revised pedestrian railing unit price
$150,000
$65,000
• Added items to account for relocating and reconstructing the bike path and $275,000
associated retaining walls at the west end of the bridge
• Deleted items for scour mitigation — the previously assumed scour potential at ($180,000)
Pier 4 has not been substantiated in the bridge inspection reports
• Revised the unit price for the debris containment system based on recent ($150,000)
project costs for the Grand Avenue Pedestrian Bridge deck replacement project
in Glenwood Springs (2010)
• Revised asphalt quantity to include only asphalt required for a full width ($90,000)
bridge overlay assuming the approach roadway asphalt quantities will be
separate cost items
Net Increase (including other incidental items) $215,000
16
'BSGM
www sgm-inc com
Refer to attached Three Lane Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for additional
information (Attachment G). Construction of the Fixed Three Lane would have similar impacts
to traffic as the Reversible Lane alternative, with project duration of one to two years to complete.
Short periods of one-way traffic will be necessary and could potentially be scheduled to occur
during periods of lower traffic volumes on SH 82 (off season). The majority of the work could
occur with two-way traffic maintained on the bridge. The most heavily impacted area in the
project area would be on Power Plant Road where the majority of the staging and initial pier and
abutment construction would occur.
ROW Impacts of Sinrle Sided Expansion
Similar to the conclusions found in the 2008 SGM Reversible Lane Feasibility Study, expansion
of the Bridge on a single side (north) is the most economic and least impactful to the general
traveling public. The existing SH 82 ROW is 75' wide from the Roundabout to the up valley
abutment of the Bridge where it widens to 100' through the rest of the City. The narrower section
would necessitate a purchase of ROW both on private parcels and those owned by the City to
accommodate the lane expansion. Additional temporary and construction easements would also
be necessary in conjunction with the work to allow for access in the Castle Creek drainage.
Traffic Analysis of a Fixed Three Lane Configuration
The Fixed Three Lane alternative evolved through staff discussions, which would allow for only
one eastbound (inbound) lane and two full-time dedicated westbound (outbound) lanes from Main
Street to the Maroon Creek Roundabout. The two westbound lanes would be general purpose
lanes with buses mixed in with general traffic. Similar to the reversible lane alternative,
improvements would be necessary at the intersection of Hallam and Seventh Streets to allow for
three continuous travel lanes in this curve, a new signalized intersection at Cemetery Lane would
be required, and an additional travel lane would be required from the bridge to the roundabout.
Attachment H shows this concept in plan view.
Previous Modelina Efforts
A Synchro traffic modeling effort was completed in 2008 by the City of Aspen that compared the
average travel times and corridor travel speeds of the Reversible Lane to a no -build scenario, as
well as to the three alternative options that were under consideration at the time. The three other
alternatives included the Modified Direct (Preferred Alternative in the ROD), the Split Shot with
a roundabout at Cemetery Lane, and the Split Shot with a grade separated Cemetery Lane. The
modeling effort analyzed only the PM peak, as this was recognized as the more critical time of
day for analysis that would provide enough information to generally assess the AM peak.
Using this previous modeling effort, results for the Fixed Three Lane alternative were developed
using the reversible lane results for westbound travel times and average travel speeds and the no -
build results for eastbound travel times and average travel speeds. Since the proposed 3-lane
section would include two dedicated lanes leaving town and one lane entering, the operational
results of the Reversible and No -Build alternatives should replicate the model results if it were
developed with the three -lane permanent section.
Based on the results from the 2008 analysis, the following table has been updated to show the
Fixed Three Lane alternative's performance results along side the results of the Modified Direct,
the Split Shot with Roundabout, and the Reversible Lane. The intersection control for the
17
SSGM
www sgm-inc com
Cemetery Lane intersection is noted beneath the Split Shot, Reversible Lane, and Fixed Three
Lane alternatives. Table 1 is attached to the end of this memo showing the results of the traffic
analysis.
As Table 1 shows, the Modified Direct alternative provides the best travel times and speed in the
eastbound (EB) direction. In the direction of heaviest flow (WB direction), the Reversible Lane
and 3-Lane alternatives provide the best travel times and speeds for the overall corridor. The
downtown section (from 1st to 7tb) shows significant travel time improvement over the other
alternatives. This is due to the lack of a merge for traffic at the west end of Main Street, which
exists in the Modified Direct and Split Shot alternatives to allow for the dedicated bus lane from
70' and Main to the roundabout. This merge exists under the current conditions or the No Build
alternative and is a primary source of today's congestion during the PM peak periods,
compounded during the summer and winter seasonal peaks.
If the additional lane for the Fixed Three Lane alternative were designated as a bus -only lane, the
WB travel times would be similar to the Split Shot alternative, although the Split Shot modeled a
roundabout at Cemetery instead of a traffic signal. Additional modeling would be necessary to
estimate the travel times if the additional lane were designated as a bus/HOV lane, but we can
presume that the travel times would be somewhere between those of the Split Shot and those of
the Fixed Three Lane alternatives shown in Table 1.
Operational Benefits and Limitations of 3-lane Alternative
The Fixed Three Lane alternative provides one -lane eastbound and two -lanes westbound from
Main Street to the Maroon Creek roundabout, providing a full-time, additional general purpose
lane of capacity in the westbound direction. This alternative has similar benefits as the
Reversible Lane alternative in the PM peak, without the need for the overhead lane -use structures
each block. The constant three -lane section provides better driver expectation and is more easily
traveled by drivers unfamiliar with Aspen when compared to the reversible -lane configuration.
The Fixed Three Lane alternative maintains existing eastbound capacity in the AM peak, while
westbound traffic flow will improve, although this is not the primary directional movement in the
AM peak. Inbound (eastbound) travel times, speeds, and queues under the Fixed Three Lane
alternative will be similar to what is experienced today.
The primary benefit of the Fixed Three Lane alternative (as with the Reversible Lane alternative)
will be noticed in the PM peak when traffic queues on Main Street are reduced by the continuous
two westbound lanes exiting town. Travel times leaving downtown (from 1st to 7tn Streets) are
estimated to be about one-half the length of the travel times estimated for the Modified Direct
alternative, due to the elimination of the two-lane to one merge that currently exists on west Main
Street. This alternative will also be cheaper than the Reversible Lane alternative since the
overhead sign structures and signal system are not required every block.
Construction Cost Escalations
To replicate efforts done by Parsons Transpiration to update ETA construction costs, the
estimates and subsequent updates generated in 1996, 2001, 2005 and 2008 have been evaluated
based on current economic conditions. The following verification steps have been taken to revise
the three ETA Alternatives and modify the Reversible Lane estimates to reflect a Fixed Three
Lane interim option:
SSGM
-vWW s9m nc com
1. Conducted a cost verification meeting with the CDOT Glenwood Springs Residency on
March 5`h, 2012. Subsequent CDOT statewide Construction Cost Indices have been
shared to evaluate overall highway trends in conjunction with CDOT Headquarters. The
Colorado Highway Construction Cost Index for the fourth quarter of 2011 is attached to
this report (Attachment I).
2. The previous cost analysis of the interim Reversible Lane solution has been changed
based on recent improvements to the Castle Creek Bridge and the elimination of traffic
signalization devices necessary to operate the alternating traffic lane.
3. No advancement in the design of alternates (Modified Direct with 400' Tunnel, Split Shot
— Roundabout, Split Shot — Grade Separation) that would influence costs or contingencies
originally assumed.
4. Verifications have been made against recent CDOT Region 3 bid tabulations, verifying
costs trends isolated on the Western Slope opposed to the State-wide average.
5. A reduction in ROW unit cost has not been evaluated independently but proportionally
reduces at the same rate as the Construction Costs.
Colorado Construction Costs Indices statewide reflect a general downturn in construction cost
since their peak in 2008 when the last ETA cost update was conducted. The third and fourth
quarters of 2011 statewide were trending upwards, but locally construction costs compared in the
peak in 2008 are still below previous highway unit costs. The last CDOT project bid in the SH 82
Corridor showed marked differences in the unit cost of items 2 of the 6 items (Aggregate Base
Course Class 6 and Hot Mix Asphalt) that make up the Colorado Construction Cost Index. Using
this general trend between 2008 and 2012 for the State appears to be prudent in applying to
construction costs in the Roaring Fork Valley. Although these costs are based on the most recent
available construction projects, they do no account for market conditions that are driven by future
economic and political conditions.
Table 2 is attached to this memo and summarizes the 2012 alternative costs and right-of-way
needs for the five alternatives under consideration. The 2008 costs are included for reference and
are generally 105% of the costs in 2012. The previous study completed by Parson in 2008 that
served as the basis for this update is also attached to this memo as Attachment J.
List of Attachments
Attachment A — EIS Decision Process Flow Chart
Attachment B — Bridge General Layout
Attachment C — Typical Sections
Attachment D — Abutment 1
Attachment E — Piers
Attachment F — Sufficiency Rating Calculation Worksheets
Attachment G — Fixed Three Lane Cost Estimate
Attachment H — Fixed Three Lane Plan View
Attachment I — Colorado Highway Construction Cost Index
Attachment J — SH 82 Entrance to Aspen Final Segment Cost Estimates (Parsons 2008)
Evej
Ta
b
l
e
I
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
ET
A
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
PM
P
e
a
k
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
b
l
e
2
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
C
o
s
t
s
a
n
d
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
1:
4
6
17
1:
4
6
17
Sp
l
i
t
Sh
o
t
Sp
l
i
t
Sh
o
t
Gr
a
d
e
Mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
Di
r
e
c
t
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
Se
p
.
Re
v
e
r
s
i
b
l
e
La
n
e
,
Fi
x
e
d
3-
L
a
n
e
N
o
t
e
s
:
Mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
40
0
t
u
n
n
e
l
o
p
t
i
o
n
R
e
v
e
r
s
i
b
l
e
L
a
n
e
a
n
d
F
i
x
e
d
T
h
r
e
e
La
n
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
w
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
t
o
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
EB
2:
3
2
16
1:
2
6
22
Cr
e
e
k
WB
2:
2
7
16
1:
1
8
25
2:
0
3
19
1:
5
5
21
1:
4
6
19
1:
2
7
21
1:
5
6
16
2:
3
2
16
7t
h
—
S
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
EB
0:
5
4
22
1:
0
4
22
1:
0
5
22
1:
0
6
21
1:
0
4
22
0:
5
4
22
I
st
S
t
r
e
e
t
WB
2:
0
9
12
2:
1
3
12
2:
1
1
13
2:
5
4
10
1:
1
7
21
1:
1
7
21
To
t
a
l
EB
3:
2
6
18
2:
3
0
22
2:
5
1
20
2:
3
3
21
3:
0
0
18
3:
2
6
18
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
WB
4:
3
6
14
3:
3
1
17
4:
1
4
16
4:
4
9
14
3:
0
3
19
3:
0
3
19
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
($
M
)
20
0
8
$6
2
.
3
M
$3
5
.
3
M
$5
1
.6
M
$7
.
2
M
n/
a
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
($
M
)
20
1
2
$5
9
.
1
M
$3
3
.
5
M
$4
8
.
9
M
$6
.
9
M
$5
.
9
M
Ne
t
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
2.
9
4.
2
7.
4
0.
5
0.
5
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(A
c
r
e
s
)
20
Change toPreferred Alternative
Les5 adverse
impact
‘Memo1O
original ES
Results in
Changes
are of limited
design or location
New SEIS and
ROD*,bUt project
activities outside
of affected area
may continue
EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative
[We are hereNomajor
Results iny
-—
cteps
Wtlnfl PreferredFEISand%..L:=11•Alternative %._Record of
Re-evaluationDecision(ROD),
‘s.,(June 2OO7)
Results jr
Known significant
impacts that were
not evaluated in EIS
Preferred
ternative
proved for
FinaIDesign and
nstruction
Potentially ‘
significant impacts
that were not
evaluated in EIS
Results ‘II
F
Was an
Less adverse
impact
New studies
I
Alternative fully
evaluated in EIS
but was not the
Preferred
Alternative
F
)ignificant
impacts
and ROD
I •
lo significant
mpacts
‘ako requires Section 4(f evaluation
PARSONS
1
‘.Dedslon(ROD)
I
Project Approved for Final Design and Construction
,FElSand
Record of
Decision (ROD)
Less adverse
impact
Attachment A
—-..—---—-
-..——.——
---..—.-.———.——---
...—.
EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative
No majot
steps
withm
Results in
[Weare here
Preferred
Alternative
Re-evaluation
(June 2007),.’
--
Results in
Change to Preferred Alternative
Known significant
impacts that were
not evaluated in EIS
Preferred
Alternative
Approved for
Final Design and
Construction
Potentially
significant impacts
that were not
evaluated in EIS
Results Was an
Less adverse
impact
Results in
Alternatlve fully ‘
evaluated in ElS
but was notthe
Preferred
Alternative
Changes
are of limited
design or location
New studies e-—
.--
and ROD*Significant
No significantimpacts
/Mérno
original EIS
file -
T
aise requires Section 4(f)evaluation
ISand
ROD,but project
activities outside
of affected area
..may continue
Project Approved for Final Design and Construction
7040-
-7070 7030-
Print Dote;2/27/2012 Sheet Revisions As Constructed CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE EXPANSION Project No/CodeDrawingFileNomo:CC Bridge.dwg D0tO Commonto
No Revsons GENERAL LAYOUTHoriz.Saab:I”40 Volt.Snob:As Noted
________________________________________
,.S..080 000 -Unit lnforrnotbon Unit Looder bnitbols 00000 Se,0000.00 0 60 Revised;tructurn H—098
Tits On or A&er Detoter MDF
____
Vo,d:Subset:Boldge I Detent Steels:81 oF 84 Sheet Number
PLAN
I
S
I
—7005
—“to
-7080
-7080
—7080
—707D
—7080
-7800
-7040
70t0
7100
7080-
7000
7875
7010
7100
ELEVATION
(token ol of cabling strunture)
Altaahrnent C
Pedestrian
Rail (New)
a
B
S
S
S
Print Dater 3/14/2012 Sheet Revisions I As Constructed CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE EXPANSION Project No./Code
‘so
Nanre CC
Bedgedog Vart.Son,Same
Date Cnmnmnentn nil.6 j No Rertaiana TYPICAL SECTIONS
0 Unit lnfarn,ation Unit Leader InitialS j CO eme0 L_Revised Desgner MOP truatare H—09—B
Tn Cry or Atriiic Detamler,MDF
-——-Vo,d,Sheet Sobset Bridge Sahaet Sheets B2 of Sheet Namnber
EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION
(Looking Dane Valley)
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
(Looking Down Valley)
ABUTMENT 1 ELEVATION
(Looking Down Volloy)
SECTION
e
Print Dot 3/13/2012 Sheet Revisions As Constructed CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE EXPANSION Iproject No./CodeDrowingFoNomw:CC Bridgo.dwg
Vert.Swoim Some
0oto Commeots nit.6 j No Rovioiono:ABUTMENT 1
2 Unit lnforrnokoo Unit Leodor loitiolo
________________________________________
0,.000g CO O6O
—-Revioed Donignor MDF trooture H098
Tiic Cliv OF A5l’2 .
0oloiIor MOF Nunrbore
i/md.
Shoot Sboot,Oridge Soboot Shoelo B3 of B4 Shoot Number
2)00C)0zC.)0)00za(/
)z0>cU.)
U.
)
0a
J
0
LuLuC-
)
U.
)
-
J
-oWI
0
IDI
6
C
I
0
o
i
.2
01
2)E
2)
[0
-
I
WI
I
06
—
z
0
04’
,
3
0
w0
[0C0[0>Ii
)
II
)
‘I
)U)
E6I-
)
OgO
[
[0
6
>
0
02(3
6z0
[02)
000
)
0
.
E0
b
0
P
0
[
0
P
3
3
\
L
0
0
b
0
W
p
J
S
f
i
‘
0
0
’
)
0
(
0
0
3
—
90
0
\
U
O
C
0
2
0
d
S
U
D
’
0
UO
d
O
y
O
9
t
t
O
O
Z
\
j
(
Q
\
.
j
26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
B
r
i
d
g
e
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
R
a
t
i
n
g
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
S
S
G
M
Re
f
:
Re
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
an
d
Co
d
i
n
g
Gu
i
d
e
fo
r
th
e
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
an
d
Ap
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
of
th
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
Br
i
d
g
e
s
,
Re
p
o
r
t
No
.
FH
W
A
-
P
D
-
9
6
-
0
0
1
SU
F
F
I
C
I
E
N
C
Y
RA
T
I
N
G
=
S1
+
S2
+
S3
-
S
4
Su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Ra
t
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
no
t
be
le
s
s
0%
no
r
gr
e
a
t
e
r
th
a
n
10
0
%
28
La
n
e
s
on
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
29
AD
T
32
Ap
p
r
.
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Wi
d
t
h
43
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ty
p
e
,
Ma
i
n
51
Br
i
d
g
e
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Wi
d
t
h
53
VC
o
v
e
r
D
e
c
k
58
De
c
k
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
67
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
68
De
c
k
Ge
o
m
e
t
r
y
69
Un
d
e
r
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
71
Wa
t
e
r
w
a
y
Ad
e
q
u
a
c
y
72
Ap
p
r
.
Rd
w
y
.
Al
i
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
10
0
ST
R
A
H
N
E
T
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
19
De
t
o
u
r
Le
n
g
t
h
.
.
—
29
A
D
T
10
0
ST
R
A
H
N
E
T
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
4.
SP
E
C
I
A
L
R
E
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
S4
=
13
%
Ma
x
19
De
t
o
u
r
Le
n
g
t
h
36
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
43
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ty
p
e
,
Ma
i
n
St
r
.
No
.
H-
0
9
-
B
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
R
a
t
i
n
g
62
.
7
FO
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
O
b
s
o
l
e
t
e
S1
=
44
.
4
%
S2
=
8.
0
%
S3
=
13
.
3
%
S4
=
3.
0
%
10
0
%
80
%
60
%
-2
0
%
40
%
20
%0%
P
a
g
e
1
of
5
27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
In
p
u
t
fr
o
m
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
A
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
(S
l
&
A
)
S
h
e
e
t
It
e
m
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
k
j
J
j
j
J
n
p
u
t
SI
Un
i
t
s
19
D
e
t
o
u
r
Le
n
g
t
h
0.
6
ml
1.
0
k
m
28
A
L
a
n
e
s
on
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
1
29
AD
T
23
5
0
0
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
32
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Wi
d
t
h
44
.
0
ft
13
.
4
m
36
A
Br
i
d
g
e
Ra
i
l
i
n
g
s
1
2
36
B
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
2
36
C
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Gu
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
2
36
D
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
Gu
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
En
d
s
I
2
42
A
Ty
p
e
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
On
Br
i
d
g
e
5
42
B
Ty
p
e
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Un
d
e
r
Br
i
d
g
e
6
43
A
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ty
p
e
Ma
i
n
:
Ma
t
I
4
43
B
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ty
p
e
Ma
i
n
:
Ty
p
e
03
51
Br
i
d
g
e
Wi
d
t
h
Cu
r
b
to
Cu
r
b
ft
12
.
0
m
1
53
Mm
Ci
r
Ov
e
r
Br
i
d
g
e
99
.
9
9
ft
30
.
5
m
58
De
c
k
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
6
ND
59
Su
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
ND
3
—
60
Su
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
6
ND
66
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Ra
t
i
n
g
3
4
.
1
T
30
.
9
t
67
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
5
ND
NO
68
De
c
k
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
.
4
NO
69
U
n
d
e
r
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
Ve
r
t
/
H
o
r
3
FO
71
W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
A
d
e
q
u
a
c
y
9
ND
NO
72
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Ro
a
d
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
8
10
0
D
e
f
e
n
s
e
(S
T
R
A
H
N
E
T
)
0
No
t
e
1
Br
i
d
g
e
w
i
d
e
n
e
d
to
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
2n
d
Do
w
n
Va
l
l
e
y
la
n
e
2
A
s
s
u
m
e
th
a
t
al
l
ra
i
l
i
n
g
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
wi
l
l
be
up
g
r
a
d
e
d
to
cu
r
r
e
n
t
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
3
A
s
s
u
m
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
re
p
a
i
r
s
to
th
e
br
i
d
g
e
(e
.
g
.
pa
i
n
t
i
n
g
of
st
e
e
l
gi
r
d
e
r
s
)
wi
l
l
be
ma
d
e
an
d
Su
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
ca
n
be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
fr
o
m
5
to
6.
28
P
a
g
e
2
o
f
5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
1.
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
A
d
e
q
u
a
c
y
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
(5
5
%
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
)
a.
On
l
y
th
e
lo
w
e
s
t
ra
t
i
n
g
co
d
e
of
It
e
m
59
an
d
60
ap
p
l
i
e
s
.
It
e
m
59
(S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
)
=
6
It
e
m
60
(S
u
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
)
=
6
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ra
t
i
n
g
=
6
A
=
0%
b.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
fo
r
Lo
a
d
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
:
It
e
m
66
(I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Ra
t
i
n
g
)
=
30
.
9
t
B
=
0.
6
%
S1=
5
5
-
(
A
+
B
)
S1
54
.
4
%
2.
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
O
b
s
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
c
e
(3
0
%
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
)
a.
Ra
t
i
n
g
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
(1
3
%
ma
x
i
m
u
m
)
It
e
m
58
(D
e
c
k
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
)
=
6
A
=
0%
It
e
m
67
(S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
)
=
5
B
=
1%
It
e
m
68
(D
e
c
k
Ge
o
m
e
t
r
y
)
=
4
C
=
2%
It
e
m
69
(U
n
d
e
r
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
)
=
3
D
=
4%
It
e
m
71
(W
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
A
d
e
q
u
a
c
y
)
=
9
E
=
0%
It
e
m
72
(A
p
p
r
.
Rd
.
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
)
=
8
F
=
0%
J
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
+
E
+
F
J
=
7%
b.
Wi
d
t
h
of
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
In
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(1
5
%
ma
x
i
m
u
m
)
X
=
A
D
T
/
#
L
a
n
e
s
=
2
3
5
0
0
/
3
=
78
3
3
Y
=
Wi
d
t
h
/
#
L
a
n
e
s
=
12
.
O
m
/
3
=
4.
0
1
(1
)
If
It
e
m
51
(B
r
i
d
g
e
Wi
d
t
h
)
+
0.
6
m
<
It
e
m
31
(A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Rd
w
y
Wi
d
t
h
)
th
e
n
G
=
5%
1
2
.
O
m
+
0
.
6
m
=
1
2
.
6
m
1
3
.
4
m
G
=
5%
(2
)
Fo
r
1-
l
a
n
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
s
on
l
y
It
e
m
28
A
(L
a
n
e
s
on
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
)
3
H
=
N/
A
(3
)
Fo
r
2
or
mo
r
e
la
n
e
br
i
d
g
e
s
.
If
th
e
s
e
li
m
i
t
s
ap
p
l
y
,
do
no
t
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
(4
)
.
If
La
n
e
s
=
2
a
n
d
Y
4.
9
;
H
=
0%
If
La
n
e
s
=
3
an
d
Y
?
4.
6
;
H
=
0%
If
La
n
e
s
4
a
n
d
Y
?
4
.
3
;
H
=
0%
If
La
n
e
s
5
an
d
Y
?
3.
7
;
H
=
0%
It
e
m
28
A
(L
a
n
e
s
on
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
)
=
3
H
=
N/
A
P
a
g
e
3
o
f
5
29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
(4
)
Fo
r
al
l
ex
c
e
p
t
1-
l
a
n
e
br
i
d
g
e
s
C
a
s
e
/
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1.
Y
<
2
.
7
a
n
d
X
>
5
0
2.
Y
<
2
.
7
a
n
d
X
s
5
O
3.
Y
?
2
.
7
a
n
d
X
5
0
4.
5
0
<
X
1
2
5
a
n
d
Y
<
3
.
0
5.
5
0
<
X
1
2
5
a
n
d
3
.
0
Y
<
4
.
0
6.
5
0
<
X
12
5
an
d
Y
4
.
0
7.
1
2
5
<
X
3
7
5
a
n
d
Y
<
3
.
4
8.
12
5
<
X
37
5
an
d
3
.
4
<
Y
<
4
.
3
9.
1
2
5
<
X
3
7
5
a
n
d
Y
>
4
.
3
10
.
3
7
5
<
X
13
5
0
an
d
Y
<
3
.
7
11
.
3
7
5
<
X
1
3
5
0
a
n
d
3
.
7
Y
<
4
.
9
12
.
3
7
5
<
X
1
3
5
0
a
n
d
Y
4
.
9
13
.
X
>
13
5
0
an
d
Y
<
4
.
6
14
.
X
>
13
5
0
an
d
4
.
6
Y
<
4
.
9
15
.
X
>
1
3
5
0
a
n
d
Y
4
.
9
Fr
o
m
(2
)
th
r
o
u
g
h
(4
)
,
U
s
e
H
=
G
+
H
(
1
5
%
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
)
G
+
H
=
c.
Ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
C
l
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
In
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(2
%
ma
x
i
m
u
m
)
If
It
e
m
10
0
(S
T
R
A
I
-
I
N
E
T
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
)
>
0
an
d
It
e
m
53
(V
C
ov
e
r
De
c
k
)
4.
8
7
;
I
=
0%
It
e
m
53
(V
C
ov
e
r
De
c
k
)
<
4
.
8
7
;
I
=
2%
If
It
e
m
10
0
(S
T
R
A
H
N
E
T
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
)
=
0
an
d
It
e
m
53
(V
C
ov
e
r
De
c
k
)
4.
2
6
;
I
=
0%
It
e
m
53
(V
C
ov
e
r
De
c
k
)
<
4
.
2
6
;
I
=
2%
It
e
m
10
0
(S
T
R
A
H
N
E
T
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
)
=
0
It
e
m
53
(L
a
n
e
s
on
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
)
=
30
.
5
m
1=
0%
S2=
3
0
-
[
J
+
(
G
+
H
)
+
l
]
S2=
8.
0
%
3.
E
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
t
y
fo
r
P
u
b
l
i
c
U
s
e
(1
5
%
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
)
a.
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
K
=
(
S1
+
S2)
I
85
K
=
0.
7
3
4
b.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
A
=
15
[(
A
D
T
(#
2
9
)
x
D
e
t
o
u
r
Le
n
g
t
h
(#
1
9
)
)
?
(
32
0
,
0
0
0
x
K)
]
It
e
m
29
(A
D
T
)
23
5
0
0
It
e
m
19
(D
e
t
o
u
r
Le
n
g
t
h
)
=
1.
0
km
A
=
1.
4
%
c.
ST
R
A
H
N
E
T
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
:
If
It
e
m
10
0
(S
T
R
A
H
N
E
T
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
)
>
0;
B
=
2%
If
It
e
m
10
0
(S
T
R
A
H
N
E
T
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
)
=
0;
B
0%
It
e
m
10
0
(S
T
R
A
H
N
E
T
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
)
=
0
B
=
0%
S3=
1
5
-
(
A
+
B
)
S3=
13
.
6
%
S1+
S
2+
S
76
.
0
%
1
X
=
78
3
3
H
=
15
.
0
%
Y
=
4.
0
1
H
=
15
%
H
=
7.
5
%
H
=
0
%
H
=
15
%
H
=
1
5
(
4
-
Y
)
%
H
0%
H
=
15
%
H
=
15
(
4
.
3
-
H
=
0
%
H
=
15
%
H
1
5
[
(
4
.
9
-
Y
)
I
1.
2
)
%
H
=
0
%
H
=
15
%
H
=
15[
(
4
.
9
-
Y)
/
I
.2
]
%
H
=0
%
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
15
.
0
%
N/
A
N/
A
15
.
0
%
15
%
30
P
a
g
e
4
of
5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
4.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
(U
s
e
on
l
y
wi
t
h
S1
+
S2
+
S3
50
)
(1
3
%
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
)
a.
De
t
o
u
r
Le
n
g
t
h
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(m
a
x
i
m
u
m
5%
)
A
=
(
#
1
9
)
x
(
7
.
9
x
1
0
9)
It
e
m
19
(D
e
t
o
u
r
Le
n
g
t
h
)
=
1.
0
km
A
=
0%
b.
If
th
e
2n
d
an
d
3r
d
di
g
i
t
s
of
It
e
m
43
(S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ty
p
e
,
Ma
i
n
)
ar
e
eq
u
a
l
to
10
,
12
,
13
14
,
15
,
16
or
17
;
th
e
n
B
=
5%
It
e
m
43
B
(S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ty
p
e
)
=
03
B
=
0%
c.
If
2
di
g
i
t
s
of
It
e
m
36
(T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
)
=
0;
C
=
1%
If
3
di
g
i
t
s
of
It
e
m
36
(T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
)
=
0;
C
=
2%
If
4
di
g
i
t
s
of
It
e
m
36
(T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
)
=
0;
C
=
3%
It
e
m
36
A
Br
i
d
g
e
Ra
i
l
i
n
g
s
I
It
e
m
36
B
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
I
It
e
m
36
C
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
Gu
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
I
It
e
m
36
D
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
Gu
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
En
d
s
I
To
t
a
l
0’
s
0
C
=
0%
S4=
A
+
B
+
C
S4=
0.
0
%
P
a
g
e
5
o
f
5
31
Attachment G
ITEM EST.
NO.QTY.UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION
1 1 LS Removal of Obstructions and Structures
2 1 LS Utility Relocations
3 1 LS Temp Shoring (Abutment 1)
4 1 LS Cofferdam I Dewatering (Pier 4)
5 200000 LB Structural Steel
6 12 EA Bearing Device (Type I)
7 6 Bearing Device (Type II)
8 49 CY Class 0 Concrete (Abutments)
9 179 CY ClassDConcrete(Piers)
10 190 CY Class 0 Concrete (Deck)
11 110000 LB Reinforcing Steel
12 hF Piling-
13 1 LS Debris Containment System
14 0 tS Scour Romodi3tipn
15 293 TON HBP Bridge Deck Overlay
16 848 LF Bridge Rail Type IOM
17 848 LF Pedestrian Railing (Steel)
18 100 LF Relocate Bike Path
19 1500 SF Reconstruct Bike Path Ret.Walls
20 4 EA Transitions/End Sections
21 1 LS Architectural Items
22 1 LS Cemetery Traffic Signal
23 1 LS Highway Widening
I:i20070007-480 Aspen vranspsvalioniOue -Cseiie Creek BAdge eseeriOeceCsst Esi,maIe S Lsre.XIs
ATTACHMENT G
CITY OF ASPEN
FIXED THREE LANE CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
3 LANE REVERSIBLE LANE EOPC
EXPANSION EST.UNIT TOTAL
(03112)QTY.PRICE COST
$100,000
$75,000
$100,000 0
$50,000 0
$400,000 167901
$36,000 10
$21,000
$43,863 366
$170,520
$228,403
$137,500 83443
$0 660
$250,000 1
$0 1
$43,929 1694
$148,400 848
$127,200 848
$50,000 0
$225,000 0
$20,000
$50,000
$650,000
$300,000 0 $0.00
DIFF.NOTES
$0.00 $0 $100,000 Added Item
$0.00 $0 $50,000 Added Item
$2.50 $419,753 -$19,753 Increased qty to account for miscellaneous steel (X-frwnes,
stiffeners,etc)and decreased unit price
$5,000.00 $50,000 $7,900 Revised previous bearing pad item to account for 18 total bearings
and specifed bearing types for abutments and piers
UNIT
PRICE
$100,000.00
$75,000.00
$100,000.00
$50,000.00
$2.00
$3,000.00
$3,500.00
$900.00
$950.00
$1,200.00
$1.25
$500
$250,000.00
$150,000.00
$150.00
$175.00
$150.00
$500.00
$150.00
$5,000.00
$50,000.00
$650,000.00
$300,000.00
$600.00 $292,800 $149,986 Revised concrete qtys to differentiate between speahc strudural
elements arid increased unit prices
$1.50 $125,165 $12,336
$50.00 $33,000 -$33,000 Deleted this item -the previously assumed scour potential not
substantiated by inspection report
$400,000.00 $400,000 -$150,000 Decreased unit price based on debris containment system costs on
Grand Ave pad bridge deck replacement
$150,000.00 $150,000 -$150,000 Deleted this item -the previously assumed scour potential not
substantiated by inspnction report
$80.00 $135,520 -$91,591 Revised qty for fut width dedc overlay and increased unit price for
small quantity
$175.00 $148,400 $0 Ctrangedutemname
$75.00 $63,600 $63,600 Increased unit price assuming these wti be substantial arid
architectural rails
$0.00 $0 $50,000 Added item
$0.00 $0 $225,000 Added item
Bridge Items TOTAL $213,578
Kept this item.Assumed to include communications to intertace
with the interconnect to optimize corridor timing
$0 $300,000 Added Item -Assumes addition of 1400’westbound lane from west
abutment to roundabout and 7th/Hallam island redux
Attachment 9
UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION
A VMS (Ground Mounted)
I4A VMppo4ounte12JS-
0
A
rna
&A tED an Control-Signals-—-.--(1W’aee)
A Gentrollee.(Master)
FA Cosed.Girouit..Tolevision4Camsr.a)
A Glosed-Cireuitelevision--Pole
hS Communications
Wwing
33 1 LS Mobilization =10%
34 1 LS Traffic Control =15%
35 1 LS Construction Survey =2%
36 1 LS Clearing &Grubbing =1%
37 1 LS Signing &Striping =5%
38 1 LS Drainage Items =1%
39 1 LS Storm Water Management =1%
40 1 LS Minor Contract Revisions =5%
41 1 LS Planning and Design Engineering =12°!.
42 1 LS Contingencies =20%
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE:
ATTACHMENT G
CITY OF ASPEN
FIXED THREE LANE CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
3 LANE REVERSIBLE LANE EOPC
EXPANSION EST.UNIT TOTAL
(03112)QTY.PRICE COST
2 $115,000.00 $230,000
2 $7,500.00 $15,000
10 $45,000.00 $450,000
34 $650.00 $22,100
1 $3,500.00 $3,500
2 $9,000.00 $18,000
2 $11,000.00 $22,000
1 $50,000.00 $50,000
1 $150,000.00 $150,000
10%
15%
2%
1%
5%
1%
1%
5%
12%
20%
DIFF.
-$230,000
-$15,000 Deleted this item
-$450,000 Deleted this item
-$22,100 Deleted this item
-$3,500 Deleted this tern
-$18,000 Deleted this teen
-$22,000 Deleled this item
-$50,000 Deleted this item
-$150,000 Deleted this item
ITEM
NO.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
EST.
QTY.
9
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
NOTES
UNIT
PRICE
S115,000.0p
$750000
$15,000.00
53.50000
59.00000
$44$0l00
S800l-0G
$450000,00
SUBTOTAL
$322,681.49
$484,022.23
$64,536.30
$32,268.15
$161,340.74
$32,268.15
$32,268.15
$161340.74
$387,217.79
$645,362.98
SUBTOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$9
$0
$9
$9
$0
$3,226,815
$322,681
$484,022
$64,536
$32,268
$161,341
$32,268
$32268
$161,341
$387218
$645,363
$2,323,307
$5,550,122
Traffic Items TOTAL -$660,600
2009 ESTIMATE (North Widening):$7,273,837 ‘DID NOT INCLUDE ITEM #23 -$300K
I:1200fl2n07-480 Op.,,Te,epoflaflcMOOS .0,11.CeO Bddge ,pa,MDoOC.I EsIleele 3 Lsn,,,I.
Attachment IColoradoHighwayConstructionCostIndexGraphandTabulations(1987 Base Year)
Colorado Construction FederaIAid HWY Construction
Cost Index •Cost Index
60
8 240
0
220
L..
•1U)
200
C)
Best fitted curve for Colorado Colomclo 4 QTR Moving
Trend tInX
1 )>0 tfl r o 0 >>0 8 a a a <0)0)0)0)0 0
0)0)0)0)0 0
0 —‘-————C ——_
Attachment J
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
130 Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Final Segment Cost Estimates
r�-
Prepared by:
Parsons Transportation Group
Glenwood Springs & Denver, Colorado
November 2008
36
Attachment J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
Description of Alternatives...........................................................................................1
PreferredAlternative............................................................................................................... 1
SplitShot Alternative................................................................................................................1
Cost Estimating - Introduction and History ................................................................. 2
CostEstimating Process................................................................................................ 3
ResultsSummary ............................................................................................................ 3
Riskand Opportunity..................................................................................................... 3
All Alternatives - Cost and Schedule Risks........................................................................... 4
Preferred Alternative - Cost and Schedule Opportunities................................................4
Split Shot Alternatives - Cost and Schedule Opportunities...............................................4
FIGURES
Figure 1: Preferred Alternative.................................................................................5
Figure 2: Split Shot Alternative - Roundabout........................................................ 6
Figure 3: Split Shot Alternative - Grade Separation ............................................... 7
APPENDICES
Appendix A EIS and Re-evaluation Cost Estimates, 1996 and 2005
Appendix B Cost Estimates and Transmittal, May 2001
Appendix C Updated Cost Estimates, 2008
Page
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November, 2008
37
Attachment J
INTRODUCTION
In June 2008, the City of Aspen requested that cost estimates be prepared for the final segment
of the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen project. The final segment project area begins at the
Maroon Creek Roundabout and extends to 7th and Main Street in the City of Aspen. Multiple
build alternatives exist for the final segment. The alternatives were studied, and the project
team prepared cost estimates for the following three alternatives:
• The Modified Direct Alternative (Preferred Alternative).
• The Split Shot Alternative with an at -grade roundabout at the SH 82/Cemetery Lane
intersection (Split Shot Alternative Option A).
• The Split Shot Alternative with a grade -separated intersection at SH 82/Cemetery Lane
(Split Shot Alternative Option B).
Description of Alternatives
Preferred Alternative
The Modified Direct Alternative (Preferred Alternative) is described in the 1998 Record of
Decision. See Figure 1 for details. This alternative provides for construction along the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) easement across Marolt Park, and includes two 40 mph
design speed curves with a direct connection at 7th and Main Street. This alternative includes a
cut and cover tunnel of no less than 400 feet in length, which preserves open space and provides
connectivity to adjacent open space parcels. The tunnel also allows for trail connections over
the new alignment.
The roadway configuration for the Preferred Alternative includes two (2) general-purpose
lanes, two (2) outside lanes reserved exclusively for Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA)
buses and emergency vehicles, and a new bridge across Castle Creek. The configuration allows
for a future light rail line on the south side of the alignment. Existing State Highway (SH) 82,
from Cemetery Lane to where the alignment diverts for the existing highway above the Maroon
Creek Roundabout, will be abandoned and reclaimed as open space. The existing roadway
from Cemetery Lane through the S-curves will become a city street, with a connection to SH 82
at 7th and Main Street.
Split Shot Alternative
The Split Shot Alternative uses the existing SH 82 alignment from the Maroon Creek
Roundabout to 7th and Main Street as the outbound (westbound) travel solution for general
traffic and buses. Inbound (eastbound) traffic would utilize the existing alignment to Cemetery
Lane. Eastbound traffic would continue along a new two-lane, one-way roadway that would
cross the Marolt-Thomas Open Space northeast of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex,
and then cross Castle Creek by way of a new bridge that would align with West Main Street.
This alternative utilizes two lanes in each direction. In both directions, the left lane would be
available for general traffic, and the right lane would be dedicated to RFTA buses and
emergency vehicles.
Page 1
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
38 November, 2008
Attachment J
This design includes provisions for future light rail transit (LRT) to be constructed next to the
inbound lanes on the south side while maintaining operation on the general traffic lane and the
bus lane.
For details regarding the general layout and configuration of the Split Shot Alternative, please
refer to the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Split Shot Alternative Feasibility Analysis prepared
by HDR, Inc. in November 2007.
Options A and B
Different options to the basic Split Shot Alternative were developed as follows:
• Option A - Split Shot as designed with the Cemetery Lane roundabout (see Figure 2 for
details). The S-curves are re -engineered for one general-purpose lane and one bus lane
utilizing all available pavement width to optimize curvature for outbound traffic.
• Option B - Split Shot as designed with a grade -separated intersection at SH 82/Cemetery
Lane (see Figure 3 for details).
Cost Estimating - Introduction and History
The first cost estimates for this project were developed to support the comparison of
alternatives as part of the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. In 1996, a cost
estimate was prepared for the Final EIS. In 2005, the EIS cost estimate was updated for the
Re-evaluation. Design contingencies used were 20% in 1996, and 30% in 2005. Appendix A
includes the 1996 and 2005 estimates for reference purposes.
Concerning contingencies, as time passes and project development proceeds on a corridor
project such as the SH 82 Entrance to Aspen, design refinements are made to update and focus
on integrated solutions. For example, with the final segment of the Entrance to Aspen, the EIS
produced a PA that includes a direct connection to 7th and Main Street by eliminated the "S"
curves. Impacts to the Marolt Park will be minimized by the use of structures, careful site
grading, and landscaping. However, the focus for corridor activities has been the re-evaluation
of alternatives, and design and construction of segments up to and including the Maroon Creek
Roundabout.
There has not been any design advanced on this final segment since the concepts developed for
the ROD.
Critical issues of structure delineation, site grading, landscaping, and environmental protection
need integration and resolution through a careful multi -disciplinary design process as described in
the Record of Decision (ROD). These technical solutions, when properly managed through
adequate site investigation, structural and roadway design, and construction procurement and
management, will ultimately drive the final constructed cost of the project.
Page 2
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November, 2008
W
Attachment J
Cost Estimating Process
The process used to update the cost estimates is as follows:
1. Telephone interviews were conducted with City of Aspen (COA) and CDOT staff. It was
determined that a more detailed estimate, prepared in May 2001, be used for this update.
2. Parson staff reviewed this estimate, which includes approximately 60 construction items.
The estimate was based on year 2000 unit cost data from CDOT projects on SH 82, escalated
to 2001 dollars. Only the Preferred Alternative was estimated.
Parsons proceeded to update unit prices for the Preferred Alternative to year 2009 costs, and
created a draft estimate for this alternative.
4. In order to develop quantities for the Split Shot Alternative options, Parsons laid in a
conceptual alignment. This was used to delineate structures, and create an approximate
earthwork model.
5. Quantities for the Split Shot Alternative options were calculated from design data
developed in Step 4. Unit prices assigned were consistent with prices used in Step 3 above
for the Preferred Alternative. Draft estimates for the Split Shot Alternative options were
developed.
6. Results were taken to a Cost Workshop held in Glenwood Springs. CDOT staff, COA staff,
and Parsons staff reviewed each item and agreed upon final unit prices.
7. These estimates are included in this report and will be presented to Aspen City Council on
November 18, 2008.
Results Summary
Summary of Cost Estimates and Right of Way Impacts
Construction
Total
Open Space
Cost
Cost
Open Space
Returned
Net Take
Alternative
($ Million)
($ Million)
Take (acres)
(acres)
(acres)
Preferred Alternative
38.4
62.3
5.4*
2.5**
2.9
Split Shot Alternative A
Roundabout
19.1
35.3
4.2
0.0
4.2
Split Shot Alternative B Grade
Separated 28.9 51.6 7.4' 0.0 7.4
*Does not include deduction for the Tunnel
**From Record of Decision, Aspen MOU Page 9
Risk and Opportunity
The probable range in cost and schedule for each alternative is driven by key "base
uncertainties," which reflect the limited information available on the current Preferred
Alternative and Split Shot plans, scope, and delivery strategy. Risks (potential adverse project
Page 3
no]
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November, 2008
Attachment J
outcomes) and opportunities (potential beneficial project outcomes) represent potential
deviations from the assumed "basic design" alternatives. Uncertainties, risks, and
opportunities will drive changes to cost and duration. The most significant cost and schedule
uncertainties, risks, and opportunities for the alternatives are summarized below.
All Alternatives - Cost and Schedule Risks
• Inability to get materials, labor, or equipment when needed for construction.
• Lack of competition in the contracting market at the time of project advertisement/bid.
• Uncertainty in the scope for final designs and ROD commitments, including mitigation to
properties at the direct connection.
• Uncertainty in utility relocations.
• Lack of subsurface data.
• Delay in funding procurement.
• Delays completing necessary Open Space vote.
• Construction traffic control issues and/or work -hour restrictions during construction.
• Challenges to NEPA determinations.
Preferred Alternative - Cost and Schedule Opportunities
• Shorten the grade separation (cut and cover tunnel) to less than 400 feet.
• Innovative or different project delivery strategy.
Split Shot Alternatives - Cost and Schedule Opportunities
• Innovative or different project delivery strategy.
Page 4
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November, 2008
41
Attachment J
APPENDIX A EIS AND RE-EVALUATION COST ESTIMATES,
1996 AND 2005
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
42 November, 2008
‘age 5
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Final Segment Cost Estimates
November 2008
—RIGHT OF WAY
-CUT “)COVER
vs
a -
%I-//t -—_<.-I CWN VALLEY BUS LANE
---/7
---
-4
•7!••
1
1 —
UP VALLEY BUS LANE ASTLE CREEK BRIOG -—
0
2.
*2:
FIGURE3 \
SPLIT SHOT —GRADE SEPARATION 4 /“
ALTERNATIVE k
—
1M8
—FUTURE LIGHT RAIL PAT 7--
-
Page 7
State Highway 82 Entrance ta Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November 2008
Attachment J
Attachment J
Page 6
Slate Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November 2008
PESTRJAPJ UNDER GP
Capital Cost Technical Report
State Highway 82 / Entrance to Aspen
Environmental Reevaluation
November 13, 2008
Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 3
and
Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Division
Attachment J
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
W
Attachment J
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Highway Cost Items..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Light Rail Cost Items........................................................................................................................4
1.3 Direct Cost Items..............................................................................................................................5
2.0 COST SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Capital Cost.......................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs.....................................................................................................7
3.0 AGENCY COORDINATION...............................................................................................................8
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................................................................................................8
APPENDIX A: DETAILED CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS................................................................................. 9
Tables
Table 2-1. Summary of Capital Cost Estimates............................................................................................................7
January 10, 2007 Capital Costs i 47
Attachment J
1.0 Introduction
This technical report summarizes the review of the cost estimates and assumptions presented in the 1997
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Preferred
Alternative selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) issued in August 1998. No review of the quantities
was conducted; it is assumed that all pertinent cost items were included as items in the original Capital
Cost Analysis Technical Memorandum estimate.
1.1 Highway Cost Items
For the most part, the dollar amounts used for unit costs are based on Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) 2005 unit costs for construction. In most cases, an average unit or construction
cost over the last five years was assumed. When possible these unit costs were compared to costs for
recent construction in the Aspen area. Volume of work was also considered in developing the unit costs,
as large volumes can result in a cost reduction. Assumptions associated with each item are shown below.
Site Preparation — $5,000 per acre
o Calculated using an average of CDOT item 201, Clearing and Grubbing, over the 6-year period
from 2000 through 2005.
Excavation — $15 per cubic yard
c Calculated using an average of CDOT item 203, Unclassified Excavation, over the 6-year period
from 2000 through 2005.
Embankment — $0
o Normal construction practice is to pay for the larger of either excavation or embankment. For
this case, excavation was used, thus no cost was calculated for embankment.
Aggregate Base Course (ABC) — $25 per ton
o Calculations are based on the average cost of a 12—inch- thick Class 6 ABC over the 6year period
from 2000 through 2005. This unit cost was also compared to recent unit costs for the Aspen
Overlay Project.
Hot Bituminous Pavement (HBP) — $75 per ton
o The 1997 FEIS cost estimate assumed the use of Grade "E" HBP. Current practice is to use 3
inches of Grade "S" HBP with 2 inches of Grade "SX" HBP on top. Quantities were determined
based on a ratio of 3/5 for Grade S and 2'5 for Grade SX. Costs for both were based on 2005 cost
data from CDOT, Denver International Airport (DIA), the Aspen Overlay Project, and the
Snowmass Canyon Project. Costs were inflated by 10% to account for the recent increase in the
cost of oil.
48 January 10, 2007 Capital Costs
Attachment J
Guardrail Type 3 — $16 per linear foot
c Calculations are based on the average cost over the 4year period from 2002 through 2005.
Retaining Wall — $75 per square foot
o This unit cost was calculated based on costs of recent projects in the Roaring Fork Valley such as
Aspen Overlay, Maroon Creek Bridge, and Snowmass Canyon. Because the City of Aspen is
likely to require high -end architectural treatments, a cost of $75 per square foot was assumed.
Structure Excavation — $25 per cubic yard
o This unit cost was calculated based on the average CDOT structure excavation cost over the past
4 years and compared to recent cost data from Forest Service projects. This cost was also
compared against the bid tabs from the recent Maroon Creek Bridge project and other CDOT
projects in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Structure Backfill - $30 per cubic yard
o This unit cost was calculated based on the average CDOT structure backfill cost over the past 4
years and compared against the bid tabs from the recent Maroon Creek Bridge project
Tunnel Structure - $10,000 per linear foot
o The 1997 FEIS cost estimate assumed $70 per square foot. Because this is not an industry
standard for estimating cut and cover tunnel costs, this estimate was calculated using linear foot
costs for a given width. A cut and cover tunnel structure estimated at 400 feet long and 68.5 feet
wide was estimated to cost about $145 per square foot.. It is recommended that this cost be
further evaluated based on material costs for a cut and cover tunnel.
Drainage — $80 per linear foot
o No assumptions were included as to the derivation of the 1996 value for the FEIS. This updated
estimate assumes an 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe, complete in place (includes all backfill,
etc.). The unit cost was calculated using the average CDOT drainage cost for recent and under -
construction projects in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Bridges
Maroon Creek Bridge — $305 per square foot (2005 selected bid for bridge infrastructure
only)
o This structure is currently under construction and is scheduled for completion by spring
of 2008. The 1997 estimated cost to construct the Maroon Creek Bridge was based on a
design area of 35,360 square feet priced at $155 per square foot or $5,500,000. The 2005
selected construction bid was based on a design area of 45,260 square feet priced at $305
per square foot or $13,800,000, for bridge infrastructure only. Total constructed cost,
including ancillary work such as tie-ins and utility relocations, is currently estimated at
January 10, 2007 Capital Costs 2 49
Attachment J
$17,900,000. This total constructed cost estimate is the figure used in the updated cost
estimate (see Table 2-1 and Appendix A).
Castle Creek Bridge - $250 per square foot
o The estimated unit cost for construction of the Castle Creek Bridge, based on the 2005
selected bid for Maroon Creek Bridge minus the costs for demolition of the existing
pedestrian bridge, was $294 per square foot. This estimate was further reduced based on
the assumptions that the Castle Creek Bridge is smaller in square footage and would not
require supporting piers and would likely require much less aesthetic detailing.
Seeding and Landscaping - $3000 per acre
o The average cost for landscaping of the Maroon Creek Bridge project was estimated to be $2700
per acre. This did not include any trees. To provide for a few trees the value was increased to
$3000 per acre.
Signing and Striping - $20 per linear foot
o Two recent CDOT projects (2006 State Highway 13 and 2005 Maroon Creek Bridge) were
reviewed to calculate this average cost for signing and striping per linear foot.
Curb and Gutter - $20 per linear foot
o This unit cost was based on the average CDOT curb and gutter cost from 2001 to 2005, and 2005
data from DIA.
Trail Relocations — Lump Sum of $70,000
o No information was available regarding the assumptions about the cost of trail relocations in the
1997 FEIS. The 1996 cost estimate was $35,000 for a trail width of 10 feet. Assuming this value
was accurate for 1996, an average yearly increase of 3% over 10 years was used.
Retrofit existing Maroon Creek Bridge for Light Rail Transit (LRT) — Lump Sum of $2,000,000
o The existing bridge, constructed in 1927 and widened in 1979, is a 20-span riveted plate girder
bridge, 651 feet long and 30 feet wide (19,530 square feet). This structure was designed to carry
freight rail traffic, thus the structure should be capable of carrying LRT loads. Because the
original bridge was constructed in 1927, retrofitting the structure may require a secondary support
system. With no structure conditional data available, the cost to retrofit can be compared to the
cost for a new 650-foot, long, 30-foot wide bridge at $100 per square foot (or $100 x 19,530 =
$1,953,000.)
New Signals with LRT Pre-empt - $290,000 Each
o New signals with LRT Pre-empt would be required at the relocated Owl Creek Road/State
Highway 82 intersection, 7 h Street, 5t' Street, 3rd Street, and Garmisch Street. The configuration
of each intersection was compared to those from the 2005 Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
(CP/EV LRT) system. The Owl Creek Road intersection was estimated at $613,000 based on the
50 January 10, 2007 Capital Costs
Attachment J
intricacies of its geometry. 7's Street is less complex but requires taking into account a skewed
track alignment that crosses the major through -way, thus it is estimated at $352,000. 5`h Street,
3'd Street, and Garmisch Street will be simpler as the geometry of the intersections has the LRT
running down the center of the main through -ways. Total for each of these three intersections is
estimated at $160,000. Thus the average cost for each is $290,000. All this assumes low -end
communication control such as visual and radio, not the high -end supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) system.
LRT Crossing Gates - $250,000 per set of gates
o This estimate is based on recent Regional Transportation District (RTD) T-REX costs.
Install LRT Pre-empt on Existing Signals - $100,000
o This estimate is based on recent RTD T-REX and CP/EV LRT costs.
1.2 Light Rail Cost Items
For the most part, the dollar amounts used for the unit costs are based on RTD (T-REX) 2005 unit costs
for construction. Where possible, these unit costs were compared to costs for other recent light rail
projects throughout the United States. Assumptions associated with each item are presented below.
Ballast, Tie and Rail - $300 per track foot
o The 1997 Capital Cost Analysis technical memorandum noted that utility relocation was included
in this item for a total unit cost of $250 per track foot. This updated estimate is based on current
RTD costs for ballast, tie and rail that does not include utility relocates. A lump sum cost of
$1,000,000 was added to account for utility relocates. The 1997 technical memorandum did not
indicate that Rail was included in this total but based on the cost used in 1997, it is reasonable to
assume that it is included.
Embedded Track - $570 per track foot
o This estimate is based on current RTD costs for embedded track. Again, utility relocation was
broken out from this item and estimated at $1,000,000 total.
Special Track Work - $160,000 each
o This unit cost pertains to the cost of turn -outs at the switch points. The average RTD cost for
turn -outs in 2005 dollars is approximately $60,000. The total unit cost is based on the cost for
each turn -out plus approximately $100,000 to account for switches and labor.
Maintenance Facility - $500 per square foot
o This unit cost is based on RTD T-REX costs of $480 per square foot which includes site work,
track and electrification facilities. It does not include traction power substations.
January 10, 2007 Capital Costs 4 51
Attachment J
Electrification - $1,500,000 per Track Mile
o This cost is taken directly from recent RTD T-REX data.
LRT Control Systems - $1,200,000 per Track Mile
o This cost is taken directly from recent RTD T-REX data.
LRT Truing Lathe - $1,300,000 each
o This cost is taken directly from recent RTD T-REX data.
Ticket Vending Machines (TVM) — Lump Sum of $1,200,000
o RTD T-REX cost per TVM is $70,000 (includes engineering, installation and software
development — does not include weather shelters for customers). Usually 2 to 3 TVMs are
required per station. For five of the seven stations it was assumed that 2 TVMs will suffice, while
the end stations will require 3 TVMs each, for a total of 16 TVMs. Lump sum cost is calculated
for 16 TVMs at $70,000 each, and rounded up.
Right-of-way (ROW) Acquisition — a per acre cost of $650,000 for developable and $32,500 for non -
developable
o For the ROW associated with the highway widening, it is assumed that the majority of this land is
outside of downtown and would only increase in value at approximately 30% over the ten years
since the original cost estimate. For the ROW associated with the LRT, the majority of this land
is in the higher cost downtown area, thus the developable land is assumed to have increased by
60% over the last ten years. For both the highway and LRT, undevelopable land was assumed to
have increased by 30%. The values should be verified by recent CDOT ROW costs.
1.3 Direct Cost Items
Parking Structures — Lump Sum of $83,300,000
o The 1997 FEIS parking structures estimate assumed 3,600 spaces would be required at the airport
station and 750 spaces would be required at the Buttermilk Station. Recent RTD costs are
$13,000 per space for a station location similar to Buttermilk in terms of land availability and
construction impacts. Recent DIA costs are $26,000 per space for expansions to existing parking
with relatively high impacts to existing traffic. Thus $15,000 per space was estimated for
Buttermilk and $20,000 per space for the airport.
Transit Stations - $1,000,000 per station
o One station will be required at each of the following locations: Airport Terminal, Buttermilk Ski
Area, Moore Property, 7t' Street, 3`a Street, Monarch Street, and Rubey Park. This cost is taken
directly from recent RTD T-REX data.
52 January 10, 2007 Capital Costs
Attachment J
Transit Vehicles - $ 3,200,000 per vehicle
o As stated in the 1997 FEIS, the LRT system will require nine light rail vehicles (LRV), and
would consist of four trains of two vehicles used in the following manner: 2 trains in operation, 1
spare and 1 in maintenance. The ninth vehicle serves as additional backup. The train type should
be similar to those used in neighboring locations to help in getting parts when needed. This cost
estimate is taken directly from recent RTD T-REX data.
2.0 Cost Summary
2.1 Capital Cost
The capital cost comparison presented in Table 2-1 below shows that the overall project cost has
increased 84.4% since publication of the 1997 FEIS. The total capital cost of the 1997 ROD Preferred
Alternative was $155.5 million. Since that time, the total cost has risen to $286.8 million. For a more
detailed breakdown of costs, see Appendix A of this report.
January 10, 2007 Capital Costs 6 53
Attachment J
Table 2-1
Summary of Capital Cost Estimates
Cost Item
FEIS Capital Cost
Reevaluation Capital
Cost
Estimate ($ Million)
Cost Estimate ($ Million)
Differential (%)
1997 to Current
Design and Construction
Costs - SH82 and LRT System
-Highway
$ 24.8
$ 74.4
200.0 %
-LRT
$ 40.5
$88.3
118.0 %
Subtotal
$ 65.3
$162.7
149.1 %
LRT Stations
$ 2.2
$ 7.0
218.2 %
Right -of -Way
-Highway/LRT
$ 2.6
$ 3.3
26.9 %
-LRT Stations
$ 3.0
$ 4.9
63.3 %
Subtotal
$ 5.6
$ 8.2
46.4 %
Multimodal Facilities
-Airport
$ 60.0
$ 72.0
20.0 %
-Buttermilk
$ 8.5
$ 11.3
32.9 %
Subtotal
$ 68.5
$ 83.3
21.6 %
LRT Vehicles
$13.9
$ 25.6
84.2 %
TOTAL
$ 155.5
$ 286.8
79.4 °/
Projects Completed or In
Construction
-Realigned Owl Ck. Road
$3.3
$7.6
130.30/
-ABC to Buttermilk
-
$15.0
-Maroon Creek Bridge
$5 5
$17.9
°
225.4
-Maroon Ck. Roundabout
w
$6.3
TOTAL
$46.8
COST REMAINING
$240.0
The total estimated cost for completing the interim bus -lane phase of the ROD Preferred Alternative is
$30.9 million (2005 dollars), including highway design, construction and right-of-way, but not including
any required parking additions in the study area. (See Appendix A for highway design, construction and
right-of-way cost details. The total amount is approximately $77.7 million, less the $46.8 million already
spent or funded, as shown in Table 2-1 above).
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs
The operations and maintenance cost estimate for the 1997 FEIS and this Reevaluation are compared in
Table 2-2. The Reevaluation estimate is based on the most recent (2006) cost data available from
Houston METRORail (Slaughter, personal communication 2006).
54 January 10, 2007 Capital Costs
Attachment J
The Reevaluation cost estimate is based on the transit (headway) scenarios used in the 1997 FEIS: (1)15-
minute service during peak (high volume) periods, and 30-minute base service, and (2) 10-minute service
during peak periods and 20-minute base service.
Table 2-2
Comparison of Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for the Preferred Alternative
($Million)
1997 FEIS
2006 Reevaluation
O&M Cost Item
15-minute Peak/
10-minute Peak/
15-minute Peak/
10-minute Peak/
30-minute Base
20-minute Base
30-minute Base
20-minute Base
Total
$1.65
$ 2.27
$ 4.17
$ 4.59
3.0 Agency Coordination
Highway cost items were reviewed by CDOT, Region 3 and revised based on costs of recent projects in
the Roaring Fork Valley such as the Aspen Overlay Project, Maroon Creek Bridge Project, and the
Snowmass Canyon Project.
4.0 List of Preparers
Jane Donovan, P.E., Bridge Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc.
5.0 References
Slaughter, Kimberly, 2006. Kimberly Slaughter, Transportation Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc.
Personal communication, operational and maintenance capital costs discussion with Jane
Donovan, December 28, 2006.
January 10, 2007 Capital Costs 8 55
Attachment J
Appendix A: Detailed Capital Cost Analysis
56 January 10, 2007 Capital Costs
Attachment J
STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
APPROX UNIT COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST
ITEM DESCRIPTION _ UNIT
Highway Cost Items
Site Preparation (Clearing and Grubbing)
22
ACRE
$900.00
$5,000.00
$20,000
$110,000
Excavation
86095
CY
$7.00
$15.00
$603,000
$1,291,000
Embankment Material (Information Only)
45380
CY
Aggregate Base Course (Class 6)
51756
TON
$10.00
$25.00
$518,000
$1,294,000
Hot Bituminous Pavement
21560
TON
$39.00
$75.00
$841,000
$1,617,000
Guard Rail (Type 3)
5570
LF
$16.00
$16.00
$90,000
$90,000
Guard Rail (Type 4)
LF
Retaining Wall
4000
SF
$40.00
$75.00
$160,000
$300,000
Structural Excavation
43860
CY
$7.00
$25.00
$307,000
$1,097,000
Structural Backfill (Class 1)
25400
CY
$18.00
$30.00
$457,000
$762,000
Tunnel Structure
27400
SF
$70.00
$145.00
$1,918,000
$3,973,000
Drainage
11200
LF
$30.00
$80.00
$336,000
$896,000
Maroon Creek Bridge
35360
SF
$155.00
*
$5,481,000
$17,900,000
Castle Creek Bridge
33125
SF
$135.00
$250.00
$4,472,000
$8,281,000
Seeding (landscaping)
11
ACRE
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
$11,000
$33,000
Signing & Striping
16000
LF
$10.00
$20.00
$160,000
$320,000
Curb and Gutter Type 2 II-B and I-B
43250
LF
$9.00
$20.00
$390,000
$870,000
'frail Relocations
1
LS
$35,000.00
$70,000.00
$35,000
$70,000
OVERALL HIGHWAY SUBTOTAL
$15,800,000
$38,904,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL (FOR CONSTRUCTION) 4 %
$632,000
$1,556,000
MOBILIZATION 8%
$790,000
$3,112,000
SUBTOTAL
$17,222,000
$43,572,000
LEVEL OF DESIGN CONTINGINCIES 20% (1996),
30% (2005)
$3,444,000
$13,072,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$20,666,000
56,644,000
DESIGN ENGINEERING 10%
$2,067,000
$5,664,000
CONSTRUCTION MGMNT 21.3%
$2,067,000
$12,065,000
HIGHWAY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
$24,800,000
$74,373,000
*Total constructed cost, based on 2005.6 estimate (see text).
January 10, 2007 Capital Costs 10 57
Attachment J
STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION
APPROX
UNIT
UNIT COST
UNIT COST TOTAL COST TOTAL COST
QUANT
(1996)
(2005)
(1996)
(2005)
LRT Cost Items
Light Rail -Tie, Ballast and Rail
28850
TF
$250.00
$300.00
$7,213,000
$8,655,000
Utility Relocation
1
LS
$0.00
$1,000,000.00
$0
$1,000,000
Light Rail - Embedded Track
7850
TF
$550.00
$570.00
$4,318,000
$4,474,500
Utility Relocation
1
LS
$0.00
$1,000,000.00
$0
$1,000,000
Special Track Work (switches)
9
EA
$120,000.00
$t60,000.00
$1,080,000
$1,440,000
Maintenance Facility
25000
SF
$146.00
$500.00
$3,650,000
$12,500,000
Electrification
695
TM
$834,244.00
$1,500,000.00
$5,798,000
$10,425,000
LRT Control Systems
6.95
TM
$292,266.00
$1,200,000.00
$2,031,000
$8,340,000
LRT Wheel Truning Lathe
1
EA
$980,714.00
$1,300.000.00
$981,000
$1,300,000
Retrofit Maroon Creek for LRT
1
LS
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
Traffic Control - New Signals w/ LRT Pre-empts
5
EA
$125,000.00
$290,000.00
$625,000
$1.450,000
Traffic Control - LRT Crossing Gates
8
EA
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$1,600,000
$2,000,000
Traffic Control - Install LRT Pre-empt for ex. Signals
3
EA
$25,000.00
$100,000.00
$75.000
$300,000
Miscellaneous LRT Items
1
EA
$148,000.00
$192,400.00
$148,000
$192,400
Ticket Vending Machines
1
LS
$501,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$501,000
$1,200.000
OVERALL LRT SUBTOTAL
$29,520,000
$56,277,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL (FOR CONSTRUCTION) 4%
$1,181,000
$2,251,000
MOBILIZATION 5%
$1,476,000
$2,814,000
SUBTOTAL
$32,177,000
$61,342,000
ALLOWANCE FOR UNLISTED ITEMS 5%
$1,608,850
N/A
LEVEL OF DESIGN CONTINGINCIES 20%
N/A
$12,268,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
$33,785,850
$73,610,000
DESIGN ENGINEERING 10%
$3,379,000
$7,361,000
CONSTRUCTION MGMNT 10%
$3,379,000
$7.361,000
LRT DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
$40,5",000
$88,332,000
58 January 10, 2007 Capital Costs 11
Attachment
STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION
APPROX
UNIT
UNIT COST
UNIT COST
TOTAL COST TOTAL COST
Direct Cost Items
Highway ROW Acquisition - Developable
4.7
ACRE
$500,000.00
$650,000.00
$2,350,000
$3,055,000
Highway ROW Acquisition - Non -Developable
8.4
ACRE
$25,000.00
$32,500.00
$210,000
$273,000
LRT Station ROW Acquisition - Developable
6
ACRE
$500,000.00
$800,000.00
$3,000,000
$4,800.000
LRT Station ROW Acquisition - Non -Developable
1.7
AGRE
$25,000.00
$32,500.00
$43,000
$55,000
Transit Stations
1
LS
$2,200.000.00
$7,000,000.00
$2,200,000
$7,000.000
Parking
1
LS
$68,500,000.00
$83,250,000.00
$68,500,000
$83,250,000
Transit Vehicles
8
EA
$1.735.500.00
$3,200,000.00
$13,884,000
$25,600,000
DIRECT COST TOTAL
$90,187,000
$124,033,000
HIGHWAY TOTAL
$24,800.000
$74,373,000
LRT TOTAL
$40.544,000
$88,332,000
GRAND TOTAL FOR PROJECT
$155,531,000
$266,738,000
January 10, 2007 Capital Costs 12 59
Attachment J
APPENDIX B COST ESTIMATES AND TRANSMITTAL, MAY 2001
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November, 2008
W
Attachment .3WASHINGTONINFRASTRUCTURESERVICES
Job No.2321.00
Description:Enlrence to Aspen
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE:SEPTEMBER,2000
Prepared By MDB
Checked By NASITEMITEMCASTLECREEKCUT&COVER CASTLE CREEK MAROON CREEK MAROON CREEK PROJECT ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION ROADWAY TUNNEL BRIDGE ROADWAY BRIDGE TOTAL UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
201 CLEAIRNG AND GRUBBING (0.4%OF FOTAL)0.29 0.07 0.07 0.46 0.11 1 L 127,624.90 $127,824.90
202 REMOVALOFASPHALTMAT 6,847 20.697 27,544 SY $1.50 $41,316.00
202 REMOVALOFASPI-IALTMAT(PLANING)
1,555
-1,555 SY $2.50 $3,887.50
202 REMOVAL OF CURB AND GUVVER
1,860 1,880 LF $5.00 $9,300.00
202 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL
390 420 810 LF $5.00 $4 050.00
202 REMOVALOFCONCRETEPAVEMENT
709 709 CV $15.00 $10,635.00
202 REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1
I EACH $5,000.00 $5000.00
202 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE 1 3 4 EACH $3,000.00 $1,O0O.0O
203 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION (CIP)65,000 19,500 84,500 CY $9.00 $760 500.00
203 EMBANKMENTMATERIAL(CIP)(SPECIAL)9,216 18,700 27.916 CY $20.00 $558,320.00
203 MUCK EXCAVATION 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 CY $10.00 $50,000.00
203 POTHOLING 50 50 50-50 50 250 HR S 150.00 $37,500.00
206 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (CLASS I)2.329 2,120 4,449 CV $22.00 $97,878.00
206 STF11JCTURE EXCAVATION 506 1,120 1,626 CY $7.00 $11,382.00
208 EROSIONCONTROL(0.5%OFTOTAL)0.29 0.07 007 0.46 0.11 1 LS 8 159,781.12 $159,781.12
210 RESET STRUCTURE 1
1 EACH $185,000.00 $185,000.00
210 RESETTFIAFFICSIGNALHEAD
4 4 EACH $1,200.00 $4.80000
210 RESETTF1AFF1CSIONALPOLE
2 2 EACH $3,500.00 $7,000.00
210 RESET FENCE
450 450 LF S 20.00 5-9,000.00
210 ADJUST STRUCTURE
1 1 EACH $10,000.00 $10,000.00
210 ADJUST VALVE BOX
3 3 EACH $150.00 $450.00
210 ADJUST MANHOLE
8 8 EACH $300.00 $2,400.00212LANDSCAPEANDIRRIGATION(3.5%OFTOAL)0.36 0.07 0.57 1 IS *1,118.467.86 $1,118,467.86304AGGREGATEBASECOURSE(CLASS 8)3,191 5,130 8,321 TON S 15.00 $124,815.00.403 HOTBITUMINOtJSPAVEMENT 3,920 7,300 11,220 TON $40.00 $44-8,800.00403HOTBITUMINOUSPAVEMENT(PATCHING)250 250 500 TON $150.00 $75,000.00
411 ASPHALT CEMENT 216 440 656 TON $340.00 $223,040.00411EMULSIFIEDASPHALT(SLOW-SETTiNG)1,296 4.800 6,096 GAL S 2.00 $12,192.00420GEOTEXTILESEPARATOR(CLASS A)9,400 28,100 37,500 SY $1.00 $37,500.00504RETAININGWALLI
4,551 4,551 SF $50.00 $227,550.00504RETAININGWALL2
575 575 SF $50.00 $28,750.00504RETAININGWALL3
1,764 1,764 SF $50.00 $88,200.00504FIETAININGWALL4980980SF$50.00 $49,000.00601MAROONCREEKBRTOGE
36.040 36,040 SF $200.00 $7,208,000.00601PEDESTRIANBRIDGEOVERMAROONCREEK
9,800 9,800 SF $125.00 $1,225,000.00601CASTIECREEKBRIDGE
41,160 41,160 SF $175.00 $7,203,000.00601CUTANDCOVERTUNNEL36,000 36,000 SF $255.00 $9,180,000.00601OVERFLOWCHANNEL1313CV$600.00 S 7,800.00601CONCRETECLASSB(DRAINAGE STRUCTURE)161 161 CV $410.00 $66,0l0.00601CONCRETECLASSI)cALL)372 372 CV $450.00 $167,400.00GUISTONEMASONRYFACING4,180 4.180 SF 8 28.00 $117.040,00601TUNNELTILE33,600 .33,600 SF $10.00 $336,000.00602REINFORCINGSTEEL58,000 58.000 LB $.0.55 $31,900.0060318INCHREINFORCEDCONCRETEPIPE
180 180 IF $45.00 $8,100.0060324INCHREINFOFICEDCONCRETEPIPE2281901,480 1,898 LF $65.00 $123,370.0060336INCI-IREINFORCEDCONCRETEPIPE 1,700 400 2.100 LF $95.00 $199,500.0060318INCHREINFORCEDCONCRETEENDSECTION
2 2 EACH $525.00 $1,050.0060324INCHREINFORCEDCONCRETEENDSECTION22EACH$550.00 $1,100.00604INLETTYPEC88EACH$2,900.00 $23,200.00604INLETTYPE1312214EACH$3,300.00 8 46,200.00604INLETTYPER-
8 8 EACH $2,650.00 $21,200.00604VANEGRATEINLET
I 1 EACH $3,200.00 $3,200.00
604 MANHOLE SLAB BASE (X FOOT)4 3 7 EACH $4.075,00 $34,125.00
604 12 INCH PLASTIC PIPE (SEWER)1,723
,1,723 IF $100.00 $172,300.00
PAGE 1 0F2
Attachment J
Job No.2321.00
WASHINGTON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
oescription:Entrance to Aspen
Prepared By MOB
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE:SEPTEMBER 2000
Checked By NAS ‘
ITEM ITEM CASTLE CnEElc CUT &COVER CASTLE CREEK MAROON CREEK MAROON CREEK PROJECT ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION ROADWAY TUNNEL RIDGE ROADWAY BRIDGE TOTAL UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
604 12 INCH PLASTIC PIPE (WATER)500
500 LF $50.00 $25,000.00
604 PRV VAULT 2
2 EACH $200,000.00 $400,000.00
606 BRIDGERAILTYPEIOSPECIAL
86 660 945 LF $165.00 $155,925.00
607 FENCE CHAIN LINK (SPECIAL)200
200 LF $75.00 $15.000,00
607 FENCE (MASONRY)(SOUND)(96 IN)900
900 IF $225.00 $202,500.00
608 CONCRETE BIKEPATI-l (6 INCH)(COLORED)2,500 1,503 4,003 SY $65.00 $260,195.00
608 CURBAND.GUTTERTVPE2 6,920 6,648 13,568 IF 8 18.00 $244,224.00
610 MEDIAN COVER MATERIAL 17,300
17,300 SF $13.00 $224,900.00
613 2 INCH ELECTRICAL CONDUIT (PLASTIC)
7,580 7,580 IF $9.00 $68,220.00
613 HIGHWAY LIGHTING 10
10 EACH $8,000.00 $60,000.00
613 STF1EETLIGHTING (SPECIAL)16
16 EACH $8,000.00 $128,000.00
613 TUNNEL LIGHTING 1 1 IS $329,000.00 $329,000.00
614 SIGNING AND STRIPING (2%OF TOTAL)0.29 0.07 0.07 0.46 0.11 1 LS $639,124.49 639,124.49614TRAFFICSIGNAL(7th Street)1
1 IS $150,000.00 150,000.00
614 TF1AFFICSJGNALMASTARMSTEEL
2 2 EACH $3,500.00 7,000.00614WEATHERMONITORINGSYSTEM1IIS$60,000.00 60,000.00616SIPHON(30)560 550 IF $100.00 55,000.00616TRASHGUARD(30’)2 2 EACH $750.00 $1,54)0.00616VALVEANDVALVEBOX213EACH$1,000.00 $3,000.00620FiELDLABORATORY(CLASS X)1 1 2 EACH 8 49,000.00 98,000.00620FIELDOFFiCE112EACH$69,000.00 $138.000,00625CONSTRUCTIONSURVEYING(1.5%OF TOTAL>0.29 0.07 0.07 0.48 0.11 1 LS $479,343.37 $479,43.37626MOBILIZATION(7%OF TOTAL)029 0.07 0.07 0.46 0.11 I IS $2,236.935.72 $2.236,936.72630TRAFFICCONTROL0.29 0.07 0.07 0.46 0.11 I IS $245,000.00 $245,000.00700FIAMINORCONTRACTREVISIONS(5%OF TOTAL)0.29 0.07 0.07 0.46 0.11 1 FA $1,697,811.23 $1.597,811.23Subtotal$5.355,291.47 10,907,380.21 $7.727,532.46 $5,514,268.76 $9,056,040.29 $38,560,513.18CONTINGENCY20%$1,071058.29 $2,181.476.04 $1,545,506.49 $I 102,853.75 $1,811,208.06 $7,712,102.64Subtotal$6,426,349.76 $13,088,856.25 8 9,273,038.95 $6,617,122.51 $10.867,248.35 $46,272,615.81DESIGN12%Castle,8.5%M3roon $771,161.97 $1,570,662.75 $1,112,764.67 $562,455.41 $923,716.11 $4.940.760.92CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT10%$642,634.98 $1,308,885,62 $927,303.89 $661,712.25 $1,086,724.83 $4,627.261.58UTiLITIES$190,000.00 $2,525,000.00 $2,715,000.00RIGHTOFWAY$3,075,000.00 $400,000.00 $3,475,000.00
TOTAL $11,105,146.71 $15,968,404.62 $11,313,107.52 $10,766,290.17 $12,877,689.29 $62,030,638.31
PAGE 2 OF 2
Attachment J
Washington
Infrastructure Services
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Ralph Trapani
LOCATION: CDOT Region 3, Glenwood Springs
SUBJECT: Entrance to Aspen Preliminary Estimate
DATE: May 10, 2001
FROM: Nick Senn
LOCATION: Gl*d Springs
Because of the differences between the 1996 Revised FEIS Engineers Estimate and the 2001
Preliminary Estimate this memo is to provide some clarity to highlight the differences between
the two. All information gathered was based upon preliminary efforts by Washington
Infrastructure on the Maroon Creek end of the Entrance and CDOT Region 3 work on the Castle
Creek side. The Maroon Creek Roundabout project in the center of the project was constructed
in 1999 by Pitkin County and work associated with it has not been included in the 2001 estimate.
1. Construction Escalations — All unit cost in the 2000 estimates have been based on the
recent SH 82 projects with similar types of construction and have been escalated to 2001
dollars. If the 1996 estimate is escalated at the CDOT published escalation rates of 9%
the planning project estimate would be at $51.4 million. A more typical estimate of
escalations is around 4% a year, which would equate to $40.6 million of the original
estimate.
2. Site work — After a more detailed preliminary design has been completed, the earthwork
for the project has risen from $1,389,000 to $2,107,000. A better definition of project
removals and resets, and the addition of the R-59 layer of material into the estimate are
the major differences. Difference equals approximately = $718,000
3. Roadway and Path Templates — As the design has progressed the template of the roadway
and pedestrian trails developed to include curb and gutter, guardrail, fencing, lighting
signalization and path alignments quantified. The planning estimate has $2,034,000 and
the revised estimate has $3,485,000, which accounts for only a small increase due to
deduction for the work done on the Roundabout. Difference equals approximately =
$1,451,000
4. Drainage — The planning estimate is based on a percentage of total cost has been defined
and quantified and increased from $336,000 to $539,000 for roadway drainage.
Difference equals approximately = $203, 000
63
J
Attachment J
Wmahineon
Infrasbacture Services
INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
5. Incidental Structures — Retaining walls and the reestablishment of the pedestrian crossing
of Maroon Creek was for the most part omitted from the planning estimate. These cost
have changed from $160,000 to $1,817,900. The major contribution is made by the
Pedestrian Crossing. Since this estimate was complied there has been consensus that a
more cost effective solution can be reached to have the trail at the same elevation as the
roadway on the Maroon Creek Bridge. Difference equals approximately = $1,658,000
6. Major Structures — Both the bridges and the tunnel have significant increases in the cost
per SF of area. The structure quantities have also increased based on establishment of the
exact templates at all locations. All major structures have been built in order to
accommodate the transit platform and have the ability to eliminate the center median and
add "Bus Only" lanes, thus making rail and tight four lane alignment.
At the time of the estimate the bridges cost were based upon the two possible options for
these structures, either steel tub or concrete arch bridges. Costs were compared to similar
projects and the unit prices for the arch structures were plugged to allow for the most
conservative estimate. Tunnel costs are based upon the roadway template having open
structure that is spanning 60 LF with the remaining width provided for the transit
envelope. Difference equals approximately = $11,720,000
7. Utilities — These were not included in the original estimate and have added $3,346,000.
Difference equals approximately = $3,346,000
8. Landscaping — The planning estimate has $11,000 and the planting and irrigation
estimate in the preliminary estimate has increased that to $1,118,000 to accommodate for
the restoration of the Marolt open space. Difference equals approximately = $1,107,000
9. Project Indirects — Because these are based upon percentages of the totals these have
increased from $1,764,000 to $4,697,000. Difference equals approximately =
$2, 933, 000
10. Design and Contingency — Because this estimate is only based upon the work done on
establishing alignments, the contingency has been left at 20%. There have been no
further investigations into subsurface conditions and only limited progression of the
definition of major structures that necessitate this conservative approach. The combined
totals for unknown items and engineering were originally $9,401,000 and have increased
to $15,653,000. Difference equals approximately = $6, 252, 000
Attachment J
Following are the assumptions and background for the FIR cost estimate for the Entrance to
Aspen project prepared September, 2000.
Quantity assumed at I LS costing 0.4% of total based on the SnowCan FIR estimate.
Item 202 Removal of AvI&M-al
Quantity taken off by Chad for abandoned portion of 82 upvalley to Cemetery Lane
(3,741) and bike path (3,106). Unit cost taken from SnowCan bid tab at $1.5/SY.
One to remove at Cemetery Lane. Unit cost of $5,000 derived from data in the Maroon
Creek Roundabout bid tab (higher than low bidder, but lower than others).
FK- ! #717 P
This is for the removal of the road maintenance shed. Unit price guesstimated.
Quantity provided by CDOT and includes the berm. Unit cost of $5.25 consistent with
low bid for ABC and Roundabout projects.
Quantity taken off by Chad for roadway templet. Unit cost of $20.00 consistent with low
bid for ABC and Roundabout projects.
Include a quantity for muck excavation as an allowance for the removal of unsuitable
materials. Quantity estimated at the actual quantity on the Roundabout (1,000 yards).
Unit price is the average of the three bid tabs*.
65
Attachment J
Assume 50 hours of potholing for utilities. Unit price of $150 is the average of the three
bid tabs.
Quantity calculated by Chad (2,267 for tunnel and 62 for drainage structure). Unit cost of
$22.00 consistent with all three recent bid tabs.
Quantity calculated by Chad (33,067 for tunnel and 506 for drainage structure). Unit cost
of $7.00 is the average of the bid amounts from all three bid tabs.
Quantity assumed at 1 LS costing 0.5% of total based on the SnowCan FIR estimate.
The structure to be reset is the historic Berger Cabin. The cost of moving this cabin was
estimated at $150,000 for moving the cabin, plus $20,000 for utility hookups, plus
$15,000 to put the $erger family up for a month in a hotel at $500 per night:
Quantity assumed at 1 LS costing 5% of total based on Nick's experience in the area.
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost of $15.00 is the average (rounded up) of the bid
amounts from all three bid tabs.
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost of $35.00 based on Sema's bid for the ABC
project and is consistent with other bids.
.:
Attachment J
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost of $340.00 based on Sema's bid for ABC project
(to reflect the recent rise in oil costs).
Item 411 EmLsified AVh& (Slow -Setting)
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost of $2.00 based on the fact thEt this is the highest
amount bid in the three tabs, and it was bid several times.
Item 420 Geotextile Se rat r (Class s A)
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost estimated at $1.00 based on the three bid tabs.
Quantity based on wall needed for upvalley end of bridge. Unit cost based on MSE wall
unit price of $25/SF which is bumped up from 1998 cost data book ($20) due to steep
terrain and small quantity.
Quantity calculated by Chad Unit cost$12.25 is the average of the bid amounts from all
three bid tabs.
Item 516 Dampproo (A halfl
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost of $12.00 is the normal bid price from the
Roundabout and ABC jobs.
Item 518 Bridge Expansion Device
Quantity estimated by Chad. Unit price of $150 per foot taken from SnowCan bid for 0
to 4 inch.
67
Attachment J
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost of $410/CY based on average of low bids from
the SnowCan, ABC, and Roundabout projects for Concrete Class D (Box).
Quantity calculated based on . Unit cost will vary depending on what is
included in the work and what access restrictions are in place for bridge pier
construction!! ! ! !
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost of $410/CY based on average of low bids from all
the SnowCan, ABC, and Roundabout projects for Concrete Class D (Box).
Quantity calculated based on . Unit cost will vary depending on
what is included in the work! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! 111
Quantity estimated by Chad for wing walls at entrances to tunnel. Unit price $500 is
based on bumping up a little the awarded bid price on the Roundabout ($480).
Quantity calculated by Chad for wing walls and headwall at entrance to the tunnel. Unit
price of $25/sf recommended by Nick and also is a little higher than the West Vail unit
price of $23/sf for 4" and 6" stone masonry facing.
Item 601 Tunnel Tile
Quantity calculated by Chad. Unit cost based on twice the material cost which was based
on the cost of file at the local store.
Quantity estimated by Chad. Unit cost of $0.55 based on majority of bids, average of
Attachment J
regular bar and epoxy coated bar.
Item 603 24 Inch Renn_formd Concrete Pine
Quantity estimated by Chad. Unit cost of $65.00 based on average of bids for
Roundabout, ABC, and SnowCan.
Item 603 24 Inch Reinforced Concrete End iecti�n
Quantity estimated by Chad.. Unit cost of $550.00 based on average of bids for
Roundabout, ABC, and SnowCan.
Quantity estimated by Chad. Unit price of $2,900 taken from the Roundabout for 10 foot.
Quantity for sanitary sewer manholes provided by CDOT. Unit price of $3,300 is the
average of the 5',10', and 15' unit prices at the roundabout.
item 604 12 Inch Plastic Pine
This pipe is for sanitary sewer. CDOT provided a quantity of 1,723 feet. The unit cost of
$100 came from the Roundabout project.
Quantity based on length of box times both edges. Unit price based on 1998 bid data
book.
Item 606 Bridge Rai J= 77
Quantity estimated by Chad based on length of tunnel tunes four (bridge quantity
included in the cost of bridge. Unit price of $90 per foot taken from SnowCan bid.
11771 •i- 0."M _1
C91
Attachment J
Quantity based on ??????????? Unit price based on ????????????
Quantity estimated by Chad at 900 linear feet. Unit price in 1998 Cost Data Book was
$110 for a quantity of over 3,400 linear feet. Use $225 per foot to account for smaller
quantity, area price increases, and the fancy wall Aspen is bound to want.
Quantity estimated by Chad. Unit price of 62.50 taken from Roundabout low bid.
Quantity estimated by Chad. Unit price of $18.00 average of Roundabout and ABC bids
for Section I-B and Section H-B.
Quantity estimated by Chad. Unit price based on Roundabout awarded bid amount.
Quantity calculated by Chad based on existing lighting spacing. Unit price based on
SnowCan unit costs. Assumed spacing of 120 feet from Roundabout plans. 120 feet of
2" electrical conduit (plastic) at $6.35/ft = $762; concrete foundation pad = $1,000/each;
light standard metal (35) _ $4,200; luminaire = $1,050/each; wiring = $6,000 lump sum
divided by 6 lights or $1,000 per light. Total per light cost = $762 + $1,000 + $4,200 +
$1,050 + $1,000 = $8,012 (say $8,000)
Quantity estimated by Chad at 16 based on existing light spacing. Unit price same as for
highway lighting because, though these are shorter, they are fancier.
Item 613 Tunnel Lighting
One lump sum of $329,000 calculated by Chad based on length of tunnel lighting and
costs from Shale Bluffs pedestrian underpass lighting.
VIC
Attachment J
Assume this item is 2% of the project total (the roundabout was 1.8%, ABC was 2.6%).
One signal at the intersection of 7"' and Main Street. Assume $125,000 as a conservative
estimate.
Assume a weather monitoring station will be installed at the tunnel with the sensor in the
Castle Creek Bridge. Unit cost for the monitoring station taken as $90,000 from the
Snowmass Creek East(West project; plus $20,000 for the power drop; plus 200 feet 2"
conduit at $6 per foot for connection between power source and station; plus $2,000 for
pedestal pole; plus $1,000 for concrete foundation pad; rounded up to $120,000 to
include wiring, and miscellaneous items.
1M .T 71-U-11
The quantity of 550 linear feet was provided by CDOT. The unit price of $100 per foot is
approximately double what was bid in 1996 (the last year CDOT paid for a siphon).
MWIM-11MMM, i
The quantity of two is to provide one at each end of the siphon. The unit price of $750
each is 1 1 /2 times what was bid in 1996 for a siphon trash guard.
The quantity of one was estimated based on quantities in the 1996 cost data book. The
unit price of $1,000 is approximately 1 1 /2 times the average 1996 bid (the last year
CDOT paid for this item).
Assume one field lab. Unit cost of $49,000 taken from Snowmass Canyon (may be high
because this is a shorter duration job).
71
Attachment J
Assume one field office. Unit cost of $69,000 taken from Snowmass Canyon (may be
high because this is a shorter duration job).
Quantity assumed at 1 LS costing 1.5% of total based on the SnowCan FIR estimate.
Quantity assumed at 1 LS costing 7.0% of total based on the SnowCan estimate.
One lump sum with the same total ($245,000) as for the Roundabout (logic being that the
roundabout required intense traffic control, but was brief whereas this project will require
much less intense traffic control, but will be longer in duration).
Rr ti u -7777_ -,_
Quantity assumed at 1 LS costing 5% of total (assumed percentage).
Assume the City will want the job done quickly and will offer a $50,000 early completion
incentive.
Design cost of 10.5% of Subtotal taken from SnowCan FIR estimate.
CM cost of 10% of Subtotal identified from local experience.
12" waterline 500 LF (from Chad) @ $501ft (interpolated from ABC unit costs)=$25,000
PRV Vault 2 each at $200,000 = $400,000
TV Cable 200 LF in right-of-way, no cost
Electric overhead 4 poles at $15K each + 340 LF of line work @ $60/ft = $80,400
Electric underground service adjustments $10,000
72
i
Attachment J
Fiberoptic cable, on golf course side, no charge
Main gas line $50,000 for stopple and $1501ft of disturbance times 280 feet=$92,000
Adjust phone service to museum and house $5,000
TOTAL UTILITIES $612,400, say $615,000
Ri LRL--Wav
Lump sum cost provided by Chad, includes appraisers fees, etc.
*Three bid tabs referenced are those from the ABC to Buttermilk, Snowmass Canyon, and
Maroon Creek Roundabout projects.
73
APPENDIX C UPDATED COST ESTIMATES, 2008
Attachment J
State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen I Final Segment Cost Estimates
November, 2008
74
EnRollee to Aspen Cost Estimates
ttttUt200R
toCoIoutaIo poVentogs items
Eotodee Subtotal a Ease Coot items
AttaChmentPREFEIEDALTERNATIVESPLITSHOT.RI NDABflIIT DP T SHOT -DIR IE DEPERA’IN‘17T ITEM TUSSLE CREL.LVEI.TAUTLC CREEL AUTLE CREEK IAUTLE CREEl .3EC.TASTLR CREEH VttEt IDONNVALLC’O ICUTLE CREElNUMBERDESCRIPT4ONUNITPRICERUADWATTUNNELBRtDUETDTAL4000455RDARWATBRIDGETOTALHAIUORTRUADWAYBRIDGEBRIDGEBRIDGE TUTAL P2IUURTUUtLLEAUIRU70105000RIRGXEsTV6U1uC1.4 1.4 0 405.000.oo t.o 7o 9 SR H B 43R,000 00402REMOVALOFASPEALTMUDUT04.00 R,047 R.047 B 2P.UOR.OR IR,57D tS,57U $02,200.00 tR.R70 tR,570 0 62.2RU US2U2REMOVALOFASPt4ALTMACPLANING)UT 3 2.00 1.050 1,501 0 CR07.50 1.020 1.020 5 4.USC.U0 I 020 1.020 E 4,OSU US202REMOVALUPCUREANDGUTTERLP90,00 U S
-B -202 REMUCAL OP UCARECAIL LP B 5.00 9 $S -202 REMOVAL OP CONCRETE PAVEMENT CT B t5.UU U 6 $202 REMOVAL OP TRAPFtC StUNAL EACH 0 5.000,00 t t 0 S00000 t I N U 00000 t t 5 5.00000202RCMDVALUPSTROCTCRREACH92.000,00 t t 9 2.000,00 t I 6 3,500 US 1 t B 3,05000COOONCLASUIPIEDEUCACATIUR)CIP)UT $10,50 05,000 06,000 U t.950.ORCOO 10,000 10,000 9 496,000.00 04,010 04.000 B 2.021.00000203EMBARRMERVMATERIAL)CtP)IUPCCIAL)CV $40.00 9.21R 9.210 9 000,040.00 10,000 0.960 9 43R 20000 9630 9,830 $393,400 CD203MCCKCACACAC)CN CV 9 30.00 1,000 1,000 1,000 3.000 9 90,000,50 1,000 1,000 2.000 9 00.000,00 6,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 B 120.00000203POTHOLINGHR9300,00 10 50 90 150 9 45,000.00 50 10 100 9 30.000,00 10 50 50 50 200 9 00,00000258UCRACTOREBACHFILL(CLASS 1)CC 0 22,00 2,320 2.329 9 11,230)0 $
.
2CR UTRACCURE ECCAVATION CT 9 30.00 CUR 500 9 12.14000
.S
.
209 CR00105 CONTROL (0.5%OP TOTAL)LU 9 156.214,94 1.00 1 0 100,214,04 iCC 1 B 74,64420 100 1 B 112,97044210RCUETUCRUCTCREEACHBtB5,000,05 I t 9 IBI,000.UC I 1 9 tOS,000.00 1 I B 102.00000210REUETTRAFFIC5IURALHEADEACH91,200.00 $9
.
210 RCUET TRAFFIC SIUNAL POLE EACH 9 3,600.00 9 5
.90100000TPENCELPE20.00 9 9 9210ADJUSTSTRUCTUREEACR960,000.00
,9 B S210ADJA$TVALVE 000 EACH 9 100,00 9 6
‘
210 ADJOSVM7C1HULR EACH R 300.00 .9
.$
.9212LANDSCAPE0440IRRIGATION(3.1%Emtsmed.7%splE shV)LS 1.00 I 9 1,093.504.50 1.05 I 9 1.04501900 100 I B 1.561,10009304AGGREGATEEASECOURSE(CLASS 0)TON $4COU 3,691 3,IU1 9 127,040.00 4,400 4.400 9 176.000,00 5 140 5,040 9 22100500403HOTBITAMINOCUPAVEMENTTON9120.00 3.020 3.U20 B 470,400.00 4.930 4.531 9 044,200.00 5,450 6,430 B 011,00000403HOTBITUMINOUSPAVEMENT(PATCHING)TON 9 400.00 250 250 9 10000000 210 250 9 10000005 210 250 $600.50000411ASPHALTCEMERVTON$900,00 210 210 9 604,400.00 272 272 9 244,690.00 320 520 9 29322000411EMOLUIPIEDASPHALT)ULOW.UETTING)GAL 9 4.00 1,290 1290 9 2.604,00 4.625 4,125 6 ID,S0000 1,296 6,290 6 5,60400420000TECTILESEPAICVTORCLAUSAlUT92.00 9,400 9,400 6 1R,IO0.00 10,405 16.49$S 32.93C00 13,399 12.394 9 20,75000004RETAIRINUWALLS)MSC a EACHPILL)UP 9 TROD 900 905 9 73,600.50 9
.9601BRIDGE(CASTLE CREEE)UP 9 305.00 41,160 41,IRO $12.553,000.C0 22.700 26,700 $0,7S3,SDR.U3 94,900 34.550 6 10,6S9,75000901ERIOSE)OVERPASSI SF 6 200.00 6 .
‘B .6.220 7,245 13,470 $2.09400558901BRIDGEREHABLITATIONLU51,210,000.00 I I 9 1,250,000.00 1 1 9 1250.00000 1 I 6 1.250,000 00631CATAN5000EETONNELSF9255,00 39.000 30.000 E 9,160,02000 .9
.9001OVERFLOWCHANNELCT9000.00 13 63 $7.000 00
.S
.9001CONCRETECLAUS0105046000STRUCTURE)CV 9 410.00 101 166 $50,010.00
.9
.6001CONCRETECLAUSS)INALL)CT B 450.00 372 372 9 187,400.00 .S .
‘6006STONEMASONRTPACINOSFB20.00 4,160 4,160 $t17,O4LUO .5
.6001CANNELTLESFU60.00 33.600 33000 9 336.000,00 B $002 REINFORCING STEEL LE S 0.55 52.000 50000 $31 .905.00 9 .
.603 II INCH REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CIP)LF 6 106.00
‘R ‘.9
.960324INCHREINFORCEDCONCRETEPIPELF9105,00 229 150 410 9 43,000.00 435 430 9 45,675,00 1.560 1,900 9 207.9000060335INCHREINFORCEDCONCRETEPIPELF9150,00 1,700 400 2.100 $231,00000 S .500310INCHREINFORCEDCONCRETEENDSECTIONEACH9525,00 9 ‘B .
.S60324INCHREINFORCEDCONCRETEENDSECTIONEACHSISLES55003CCNCREVEBOXCULVERT(PEDESTRIAN)LF 9 1,500.00 ‘$200 200 9 420,000,00 130 130 9 60500000604INLDTTYPECEACH92.900,00 0 0 U 23,2ECUO .9 9604INLETTYPE13EACH93.30000 12 2 14 U 40.20000 9 ..9604INLETTYPEREACH92050.00 $9 B 9 01200.00 0 5 S 21 .20000604VANEGRATEINLETEACH93.20L00 .S
.U 5604MANHOLEALASEASE(0 FOOT)EACH B 4,072.00 4 4 2 19,500.00 4 4 0 10,50000 4 4 5 19,5060000412INCHPLASTICPIPENEWER)LF B 150.00 1,723 1,723 9 259.410,00 1.723 1,703 9 256,450.00 1.723 1,723 $210,4500000462INCHPLAUVICPIPE(WATER)LP 9 153.00 500 500 9 70,000.00 100 500 5 72.000,00 600 lOU $75.00000004PRVVAULTEACH9SU,000.OU 2 2 $100,000,00 S
.N000REIDGECAlLTYPE10UPECIALLF5200.00 05 65 9 17,000.00 .9 .5507FENCECHAINLIHRIUPECOL)LF 9 75,00 200 200 9 15,000,00
.9 .
.B007FENCEMASONRY)SOUND)(38161 LF S 300,00 900 900 9 270000.00 900 900 S 270,000.00 500 900 5 3T0,00000906CONCRETEEIHDPAVH16INCH))COLOREE)UT 9 200.00 4,ISO 4.150’B 930,50000 450 400 U 90,000.00 1500 1,100 B 000,00000006CURBANDGUTTERTYPE2LFB25,00 6,520 0.320 9 173.000,00 0.370 0.370 9 309.260,00 7,120 7.120 B 170,000.00910MEDIANCOVERMATERIALSF9150017,300 17,300 9 224.SOCO0 5.440 1,040 B 21,32C00 1,040 1,840 5 21,320.000132INCHELECTEIEALCONEOIT)PLASTICI LF $900 1.990 1,900 9 17,040.00 4,990 4,090 9 44.IICOO 15015 19,615 6 142.305,00513HIUHWATLIGHTINGEACHB0,000.00 10 IC 0 90,000.00 IC ID 9 90,50000 10 IT 5 00 000.00013STREETLIGHTINGSPECIAL)EACR $9,00500 16 10 5 14400000 10 10 5 144,000.00 15 10 $644,50000613TUNNELLIGHTINGLU$50.000,00 I 1 $50,000,00 .5 .B0140155)98 POlE STEWING 5%OF TOTAL)LI 1,00 I 5 6262,143,36 1,00 I $740,442.75 tOO 1 9 1.629,70455514TRAFFICUIGNAL7th$tmst)LI $000000,00 I I S 10000000 1 I N 50000000 1 1 5 500.200,00014WEATHERMONITORINGSYSTEMLGSRC000.00 1 I 5 90000,00 1 I B 00,000.03 1 1 B 60,05000616SIPHON(OW)LF 4 150.90 550 550 S 62500.00 B .0016TRASHCOCOSOW)EACH $TUCOC 2 2 S 1,500.00 0 ‘S666VALVEANDVALVEBOXEACH$1,000.00 2 1 3 0 3,000.00 2 2 5 2000.00 2 3 B 2,0)000620FIELDLABORATORYCLASS0)EACH S 4A000.OO I 1 S 49,000.00 1 1 5 49,000.00 1 5 49,05000020FIELDOFFICECACE$00,000.00 I I U 09,500.00 1 1 5 66,000.00 1 1 $69,000.00025CONSTRUCTIONSURVEYINGtUGOFTOTAL)LU 1.00 I $4E1044,OI 6,00 1 S 223,932.93 1.00 9 340.91131525MOBILIZATION1%OF TOTAL)LU 1.00 1 U 2,167009.13 1.00 1 9 1,042.01955 600 1 9 1,501,500.09630TRAFFICCONTROL1)2%peelomedand 2%split 5506)LS LOU I 5 156,26494 1.00 1 $291,STT.tO tOO I B 401501.74700FIAMINORCONVRRCTREVIUIONU15%OP TOTAL)FA 6.00 1 0 1202.14950 100 1 $740,442.75 COO 1 5 1,12959435Suototo$31242,90700 $64,920.65500 B 225940E700BaseCooSo36,426,07403 6 IU.100,NU4.40 S 21.R20,431.36
CONTINGENCY PREFERRED 20%.SPLIT 1100 30%)$7,6B5,77LUT 5 5.732.660.32 5 6,070.12346SCUIOGI$46.114.040,15 6 24.041014.72 9 37594,500CC
0011GM 5%3 3,909,171.55 9 1,007,329.10 B 3,007,724.60CONSTRUCTIONMANAUCMDNTtSRS5.300,635,32 0 4,471,490.61 0 0,767,340.04UTILITIDS9190,000.00 6 190,000.00 9 5 IUO,000.ooRIGHTOFWAY$4.000.000.00 5 4.00000000 0 4,500,00CUO
VPUL ——1 02.204,455,4 i 35,300,434,SI
‘4 51,501000,5
PAGE lOP I