22438 2015 Muskallonge MDOT Scoping Report.pdf

MDOT / MDNR CONTRACTING

Scoping for

MUSKALLONGE LAKE STATE PARK

Luce County

Project Scoping by

MDOT – Newberry TSC

5-28-2015

Rev 7-31-2015

INDEX

A. COVER

B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

1. EXAMPLE FROM NPS 1984 PARK ROAD STANDARDS

2. MUSKALLONG LAKE STATE PARK FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

D. EXISTING PHOTOS

E. SURVEY – PR LOCATIONS

1. PHYSICAL REFERENCE(PR) NUMBER LOCATIONS

2. PHYSICAL REFERENCE(PR) NUMBER TABLE

F. PASER DEFINITION – STANDARD RATING SCALE

1. PASER RATING SCALE

2. PASER SCORESHEET FIELD NOTES

3. PASER SCORESHEET COMPILED BY PR NUMBER

G. PROPOSED WORK – OPTION I

1. SCOPING CHECKLIST

2. TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

3. ESTIMATED COST

H. PROPOSED WORK OPTION II

1. SCOPING CHECKLIST

2. TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

3. ESTIMATED COST

I. OTHER ALTERNATIVES

1. DO NOTHING

2. CHIPSEAL OVER EXISTING MATERIAL

3. REMOVE EXISTING SURFACE AND PLACE NEW SURFACE

INTRODUCTION

The MDOT – Newberry TSC has been asked to conduct preliminary scoping and windshield survey of the Muskallonge Lake State Park in Luce County, Michigan in cooperation with the MDNR Park Division to assess the existing condition of the pavement surfaces and make recommendations on proposed fixes along with preliminary cost estimates.

BACKGROUND

The preliminary scope of work was to be from the MDOT Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) fix guidelines with an estimated cost for the improvements with the fix being applied to the existing pavement surface implying no widening of the existing pavement or change in the existing road alignment(s). Subsequent correspondence from the MDNR included the 1984 edition of the National Park Service Park road standards, excerpts from the 2001 AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for Special Purpose Roads and MDNR Standard Typical Cross Section for Road Standards.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

The functional classification of the road segments was taken from the NPS 1984 Park Road Standards and the example from the NPS document is included in this report along with the Muskallonge Lake State Park road layout. The Functional Classifications used for this report are as follows:

1. CLASS I – Principle Park Road

2. CLASS II – Connector Road

3. CLASS III – Special Purpose

OLD PLANS – PAVEMENT WIDTHS

The scope of work included in this document is based on the existing alignment and the existing road widths taken from old plans dated 1974 and field verified on site. In general the pavement width on site are narrower than the proposed widths shown on the old plans with the exception of the loop roads. The existing Class I and II pavements measure 18 to 19 feet along the main road and 14 to 18 ft for the connector roads. The old plans call for 20 ft and the current MDNR design standards call for 24ft pavement with 2 ft shoulders or 28 ft overall width. The Class III pavement, or remnants of pavement and gravel matched the existing plans for the most part at 10 ft wide. The current MDNR design standard calls for 20 ft with 2ft shoulders or 24ft overall width.

The old plans also show a section of the new addition with a cross section of 6” aggregate base cover by a surface seal.

GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS

No geometric (curve or approach radii) or alignment changes are reflected in this estimate. Also no consideration was given to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) since no data was provided. Turning radii for specific design vehicles was not reviewed due to limited scope and pavement fixes were based on car traffic –no truck traffic.

PHYSICAL REFERENCE (PR) NUMBER AND MILEPOINTS

The existing park was broken down by Physical Reference (PR) Number and milepoints. The designated PR number is unique to each segment of roadway in Michigan. The beginning and ending mile points designate the length of a segment of roadway. The PR numbers and milepoints are tabulated in the attached documents with associated pavement widths, areas, Paser ratings and cost.

SURVEY NOTES

A copy of the survey notes from the site is included in the report.

PASER RATINGS

Paser ratings are based on standardized visual rating of the pavement using a scale of 1 to 10.

The rating scale is included in the document for reference.

GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Muskallong State Park is located approximately 50 mile north of the Village of Newberry on the shores of Lake Superior. The existing pavement surface is heavily worn and nonexistent in mant locations. It appears the last fix was some sort of surface seal or chip seal. PASER rating for all segments are attached.

1. CLASS I – The surface of the main road is intact in most locations with the exception of the entrance pavement to the ring roads where the pavement is raveled and falling apart and in the vicinity of the dumpsters which appear to have pulverized the existing pavement. Edge deterioration is evident in some areas.

2. CLASS II – These are the entrance roads to the main camp sites. The surface is deteriorated and outside 2 to 3 feet are gravel with some hard surface in the center.

3. CLASS III – These are the ring roads for the campsites. These roads are deteriorated with potholes and large section of pavement missing.

Based on the poor condition of the existing pavement a standard CPM fix would not be recommended because of the poor base condition and non-uniform surface condition. The recommendation would be to crush and shape the existing pavement and surface, reshape and compact the crushed material and surface with either a double chip seal or a 2 course HMA surface per the MDNR standard typical cross section.

For Option I – Trench 2 ft wide along all roads and place 6” aggregate base. Place a two (2) inch layer of gravel on top of the existing pavement and aggregate widening and then crush with the existing pavement. Grade and compact the crushed material. This would provide a more substantial base, would elevate the road surface to assist with drainage, and would remove all irregularities in the existing pavement. Place a double chip seal on the newly compacted surface. Cost for this option is $318,677.

For Option II – Trench 2 ft wide along all roads and place 6” aggregate base. Crush and shape the existing pavement 4 to 6 inches depending on the existing pavement thickness. Grade and compact the crushed material and place a 2 course Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) surface. Cost for this option is $370,291.

Mobilization for both options is estimated at 15% due to the remote location and long haul distance for equipment and materials. The HMA option was estimated using a unit price of $70/ ton due to the uncertainty with HMA plant locations at the time of construction. The average unit price for MDOT paving projects varies from $61/ton to $68/ton. There is an MDOT paving project in Newberry in 2016 which would likely justify a contractor bringing in a portable HMA plant which would help lower the bid cost. But without a concurrent project the HMA may have to be shipped from Marquette or Sault Ste Marie.

As mentioned above all costs are based on widening the existing widths by 4 ft using 20ft +4 ft for Class I and II roads and 10ft + 4 ft for Class III roads.

Also all pavement surface areas are included in the estimate with the exception of the north ring around the water supply which is in good condition. The reason for this is that due to the mobilization cost, once a contractor and equipment are in place it is best to utilize them to the full extent. Another concern is that with the heavy equipment used by most contractor’s the existing roads will not withstand the construction traffic and will be significantly damaged if not rehabilitated with the project.

See the attached e-mail from Cadeau which was used to update the cost estimates and proposed work.

Rusch, David (MDOT)

From: Cadeau, Eric (DNR) Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:37 PM To: Rusch, David (MDOT) Cc: Cheli, Keith (DNR); Dzelak, James (DNR); Paquin, Thomas (DNR); Nardo, Mary (DNR) Subject: DNR & MDOT Partnership - Statewide analysis of parking lot / roadway priorities -

Muskallonge State Park - Clarification of project scope

Dave, Thank you for providing the DNR maps of the paser rating analysis, these will be very helpful for documenting the condition and limits of deterioration of pavements at Muskallonge State Park.

Per our telephone conversation and per my follow up discussion with Keith Cheli, I’d like to provide MDOT with the following guidance:

1. The DNR is interested in a crush & shape approach to improving the pavements at the Park.

2. Could the DNR receive cost estimating information for each of the two surfacing treatments below? (It would be nice to evaluate level of investment between the two.)

a. A crush and shape with the recommended chip seal surface coat.

b. A crush and shape with the recommended asphalt paving surfacing.

3. The DNR would like to provide the following guidance on campground roadway widths/cross sections:

a. For one way roads within the park please provide:

i. 1 12’ wide lane (either chip sealed or asphalt paved surface)

ii. 1’ wide aggregate shoulder (per side)

b. For two way roads within the park, please provide:

i. 2 10’ wide lanes (either chip sealed or asphalt paved surface)

ii. 2’ wide aggregate shoulder (per side)

4. The DNR supports trenching and other associated work items related to improving the roadway widths.

5. Please provide a 10% contingency line item (after all other work items have been subtotaled) for addressing drainage issues within the campground. (It is assumed that the existing conditions allow sheet flow to flow across the campsite and existing campground roads. It is also assumed that the proposed pavement fix may create a barrier to the aforementioned sheet flow and that additional work items (small diameter culverts) or drainage solutions may require inclusion in the project to ensure campground drainage is not negatively impacted by and improved road bed.

Lastly and most importantly, thank you for interest and assistance in identifying an appropriate solution for conditions found at Muskallonge State Park!

Sincerely, Eric Cadeau Regional Field Planner Baraga OSC 427 US-41 North Baraga, MI 49908 Office: (906)353-6651 Ext 112 Cell: (906)241-8318

PR

Se gm en t

BM

P

EM

P

Le ng th

(m i)

Le ng th

(ft

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

4.

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

0.

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

7.

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

9.

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

5.

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

.0

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

.8

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

9.

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

1.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

9.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

9.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

9.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

1.

0.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

7.

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

2.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

1.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

.4

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

2.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

6.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

1.

0.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

.3

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

3.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

5.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

4.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

7.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

.0

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

6.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

1.

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

5.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp 0.

5.

2.

6.

M U

SK

AL

LO

N

GE

ST

AT

E

PA

RK

Fu nc tio na lC la ss ifi ca tio n

Job N um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping N

/A

7/31/15

Statewide Scoping Package Master Checklist

ROAD CPM

(Refer to Chapter 7 of the Scoping Manual for Details)

II. Project Scoping Document Package

Road Scoping Report & Details Worksheet MPINS Project Concept Statement

Trns*port (Itemized Estimate Report & Project Concept Estimate Report)

Constructability Checklist

I. Job and Scoping Package Information (Major Only - see page 2 for additional information)

Engineer's Estimate R

R T&

S C

P M

Hand Calculations & Assumptions

B rid ge O th erBy Template, if checkbox appears, item is required (unless otherwise noted).

General Items & Information

Proposed Pavement Recommendations

Included in Package?

Soils Information and Recommendations (From Region Soils Engineer)

N A

Control Section:

TSC QC By: Date:

Region QA By: Date:

Scoped By: RUSCH/MCTIVER 05-27-2015Date:

Trench 2 ft each side-6" deep, Fill trench w/ Agg Base,Place 2' agg base, C&S, Double chip SealProposed Fix:

Location: MUSKALLONGE STATE PARK

Route:

Job Number: N/A

N/A N/A

Template:

CS EMP:

CS BMP:

Length:

Culvert Scope Inspection Form (for applicable templates)

Construction Cost:

Construction Engineering (CE) Cost:

$ 318,667Preliminary Engineering (PE) Cost:

Right-of-Way Cost:

PR EMP:

PR BMP:

Length:

MULTIPR Number:

Current Year RSL: Construction Year RSL:YearValue Prop Fix Life: Yrs

Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes

Structure ID: N/A

Sufficiency Rating:

Details / Checklist

Statewide Scoping Package Master Checklist - Road CPM Yes

Program Revision Request (Form 2604)

Estimates for Additional Options Analyzed Traffic

Preliminary MOT Concept Mobility Analysis

Traffic Analysis & Safety Review Geometric Summary Review (reviewed and/or addressed per the 3R/4R Guidelines)

As-Builts / Old Plans

Current Sufficiency Report Condition Reports for Existing Sewers (if applicable) Condition Reports for Existing Culverts (if applicable)

Total Project Cost:

$318,667

Michigan Department of Transportation

0596 (12/12)

Highway Safety Manual Analysis (Not Mandatory)

MDOT 0596 (12/12)

um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

Project Background, Comments, Van Tour Notes or Other Project Constraints. Please explain.

Scoping of MDNR park roads in cooperation with joint MDOT/MDNR future MOU. See the attached estimate, typical cross section and PASER ratings.

Existing Utility Information Field Review Notes

Previous Call For Projects Information

ROW Sheets with Impacts Highlighted http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/ROWFiles/index.cfm

C P

M

R

R T&

S

B rid ge O th er

N A

Supporting Photos

Statewide Scoping Master Package Checklist

Additional CS, PR, Direction and Etc Information (other than the major listed on page 1)

Multiple PR numbers - project located at Muskallonge Lake State Park in Luce County.

III. General Items and Background Information

Is the project to be packaged with other projects?

List potential package job numbers & templates

Yes No

Correspondence

Pavement Historical Database (PHD) Data Maintenance Log Sheets

Additional Information Resulting from the Worksheet

Has the project been added to Projectwise? Yes um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

(Refer to Chapter 7 of the Scoping Manual for Details)

III. Typical Cross Sections Existing Typical:

Proposed Typical:

II. Executive Summary

Crush and shape the existing base with 2 " supplemental aggregate base, place double chip seal.

I. Job and Scoping Package Information (Major Only) Job Number:

Control Section:

Route:

N/A

N/AN/A

Template:

CS EMP:

CS BMP:

Length:

PR EMP:

PR BMP:

Length:

MULTIPR Number:

Structure ID: N/A

MUSKALLONGE STATE PARK

TSC QC By: Date:

Region QA By: Date:

Scoped By: RUSCH/MCTIVER 2015-05-27Date:

Trench 2 ft each side-6" deep, Fill trench w/ Agg Base,Place 2' agg base, C&S, Double chip SealProposed Fix:

Location:

Page 1of 8 um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

IV. Existing Conditions (Typical)

Right Shoulder

Right Shoulder Left Shoulder Paved Width:

Total Width:

Paved Width:

Total Width:

HMA Concrete CompositeType:

Widths:

Number of ramps in project limits:

Other notes on existing ramps:

Ramp

Accel/Decel Lanes Present? Length:

ft ft ft ft ft ftYes No

Left Shoulder Paved Width: Paved Width: n/a n/a

Total Width: n/a n/aTotal Width:

B. Existing Shoulder:

A. Existing Mainline:

C. Existing Ramps:

HMA Concrete CompositeType:

Widths:

Type: HMA Concrete Composite ft ft ft ft

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Pavement Data (Average) Value

RSL: n/a

DI: n/a

Surface Condition: n/a

PASER: 1-4

Year Value RQI: n/a

Rutting: n/a

Faulting: n/a

Friction: n/a

Year

Aggregate (Only)

Drives

D. Existing Photos: (If applicable per proposed scope) Intersections

Guardrail Sidewalks

Bridges Bridge Railing

Bridge Approaches

Other

Included NA Included NA Included NA Included NA Included NA

Included NA Included NA Included NA

Existing Normal Cross Slope?

Superelevations meet Standard?

Horizontal Curve(s) meet Standard?

E. Existing Geometrics:

Vertical Curve(s) meet Standard?

? ?Lanes Shoulders Existing Parabolic Crown?

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

ADT: vpd?

Not Applicable?

(Clear Zone info in RDM 7.01.11C http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/design/englishroadmanual/)

Number of Lanes: 2 10Lane Widths: Posted Speed: 10 Design Speed: n/aft mph mph

Clear Zone: n/a ft n/a ftCut Fill um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

No Geometric features were reviewed as part of this scoping.

Other notes on geometrics and/or existing super rates:

F. Existing Guardrail or Median Barrier:

Existing Guardrail? Type: Condition: Length:

Existing Median Barrier? Condition: Length:

Existing Glare Screen? Condition: Length:

Existing Attenuators?

Type:

Number:

ft ft ft

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Terminals Meet Current Standard?

Yes No

G. Existing Signals:

Existing Traffic Loops? Yes No Unknown

Number of ramps:Existing sidewalk ramps? Condition:Yes No Are there existing gaps with evidence of pedestrian activity? Yes No Are ramps ADA compliant? Number of non-compliant ramps:Yes No

H. Existing Sidewalk:

I. Existing General Conditions: (some items below will require photos - see manual)

Existing railroad crossings?

Existing non-motorized facilities?

Existing rumble strips?

Existing Permanent Traffic Recorders (PTR)?

Location:

Number:

Existing slope stability issues?

Existing erosion issues?

Existing maintenance issues/concerns?

Existing raised pavement markers?

Existing curb & gutter in the project limits?

Type:

Existing crossovers for indirect left turns? Number:

Existing right turn lanes?

Existing left turn lanes? Number:

Number:

Existing settlement areas?

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Type:

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

J. Other General Notes on Existing Conditions:

Existing trees or brush within Clear Zone? Yes No Existing encroachments within Clear Zone? Yes No Type:

Is this on a National Truck Network? Yes No

Is there an Access Management Plan for the project area?

Is there an EA or EIS Study for the project area?

Is this a Corridor of Significance? Type:Yes No Yes No um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

V. Proposed Work (Typical) A. Proposed Mainline:

B. Proposed Shoulders:

Number of Lanes: 2 10Lane Widths:

C. Proposed Ramps:

Type:

Right Shoulder Left Shoulder

Paved Width: Paved Width: n/a n/a Total Width: 2 2 Total Width :

HMA Concrete Composite

Widths:

Type:

Right Shoulder Left Shoulder

Paved Width: Paved Width:

Total Width: Total Width :

HMA Concrete Composite

Widths:

Number of ramps being improved:

Ramp

List ramps and proposed work:

ft ft ft ft ft

SealingType:

Design Speed: 10 ft ft ft ft ft

Type: HMA Concrete Composite

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Pavement Data (Average):

Construction Year RSL: 2016 Prop Fix Life: 10 Yrs

Crush and shape the existing base with 2 " supplemental aggregate base, place double chip seal.

List all work type(s) and related fix life(s):

Aggregate (Only)

Not Applicable?

um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Proposed Normal Section Cross Slope: Lanes: Shoulders:

Horizontal Curve Modification(s)?

Vertical Curve Modification(s)?

Superelevation Modification(s)?

Cross Slope Modification(s)? Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Other notes on geometrics or existing super rates:

D. Proposed Geometric Corrections:

Proposed Guardrail? Type: Length: ftYes No ft

F. Proposed Sidewalk:

Number of ramps:Proposed Sidewalk ADA Ramps? Yes No

Proposed Rumble Strips? Location:Yes No

E. Proposed Guardrail or Median Barrier:

H. Other General Notes on Proposed Improvements:

G. Proposed General Conditions:

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

Lane Width Design Speed

Shoulder Width Bridge Width Structural Capacity Cross Slope

Grade Vertical (SSD) Vertical Alignment Vertical Clearance

Horizontal Clearance Superelevation Horizontal Alignment Accel & Decel Lengths Horizontal (sightline offset)

VI. Bridge Underclearances (see Design Manual for Details) Corridor Underclearance Requirements (14' 6” or 16'):

Number of structures that do not meet underclearance requirements:

Number of grade separated roadways or pedestrian facilities:

Number of grade separated railroads:

Number of grade separated railroads that do not meet underclearance requirements (23'):

VII. Anticipated Design Exception(s) (check all that apply)

IX. Environmental Information

Parking Agreements NPDES (over 5 acres of exposed earth) Participation (other)

Variance (noise, other...)

Maintenance Agreements

Parking Agreements Non-motorized Maint. Agreements

Participation (other) Maintenance Agreements

Known contamination sites (LUST, etc...)?

Known threatened or endangered species?

Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown

Known archaeology? Yes No Unknown Impacts to local park facilities (4F, 6F)?

Known historic bridges or other structures?

Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown

X. Real Estate

VIII. Permits & Agreements Required (check all that apply)

Sidewalk permits? Number:Yes No Unknown

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

XI. Stakeholder Information Proposed Activity Level of Stakeholder Engagement

Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Maintenance of Traffic to be determined by the MDNR to provide the least obstructed access for the contractor.

XII. Site Visit Notes um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

XII. Traffic and Mobility A. Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Scheme:

Full Closure:

Full Detour Route:

Closure Type:

Traffic Routing: On existing Route:

B. Safety Items:

C. Mobility: (see Mobility Manual) Existing Capacity Analysis (includes V/C calc, travel time, LOS, etc) Proposed Capacity Analysis (includes V/C calc, Delay Worksheet, LOS, etc) Preliminary Transportation Management Plan (TMP) (if applicable)

Temporary Crossovers

Other Delay Mitigation Notes:

Temporary Widening

Delay Mitigation Measures:

Incentive/ Disincentive

Night or Weekend Work Mobile Closure Flag Control Temporary Signal

Lane Rental

Dynamic Lane Merge System

A + B

Moveable Temp Barrier

B rid ge C

P M

R

R T&

S

O th er

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Will detour route utilize local roadways?

If yes, will local approval of the detour route be attainable?

Will detour route require improvements?

Traffic Restrictions?

Yes No Unknown Yes No Yes No

Yes No

Lane Closure:

Shoulder Closure:

Flag Control:

Not Applicable?

Part width Construction:

Directional Detour Route:

Signed Alternate Route:

Will project require pedestrian detours? Yes No Unknown

Please list any known traffic restrictions (including detour route)

Park closure was discussed to accomplish the work.

Please give a brief description of MOT plan (including detour route)

Close the park.

Has this project been identified on the FHWA Transparency Report?

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/fivepercent/

Safety Review/Crash Analysis

TOR Package

a. TOR Calculation Spreadsheet

b. UD-10s; Only for miss codings or additional crashes

Geometric Sketch

Has this proposed project been identified on the High Crash List? YearYes No Yes No

Highway Safety Manual Analysis (Not Mandatory)

Year

Crash History (Information from One Line Listing)

N A um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

7/31/15

XIV. Concept Statement Info (check all that apply)

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Enhancement Job

Tree Removals

Adjacent Jobs Bridge Painting Contaminated Site in Area Crosses Farmland Crosses Streams/Lakes/Drains Detour or Road/Ramp Closure

Heritage Route High Tourist Route Natural/Federal Landmarks

Over 5 Acres Earth Disturbance Reduced Traffic Flow ROW/Grading Permit on Recreational Property ROW/Grading Permit on Farmland

Work Outside of Existing Shldr/Curbs Work Outside Toe of Slope

Over 1 Acre Earth Disturbance

Change in Bus Access/Parking Controversial Crosses Floodplains Crosses Wetlands Displacements of Residences/Businesses

Hazardous Materials High Impact Project Historic Bridge

Public Controversy Rip Rap Required ROW/Grading Permit Needed Traffic Generators Widening of Road or Bridge

Engineering Survey Required Environmental Issues

Other Environmental Issues Other

Agency Permit Required

2'2'

22'

O

PT

IO

N I

PR

Se gm en t

BM

P

EM

P

PA

SE

R Rt g

Le ng th

(m i)

Le ng th

(ft

W id th

(ft

Ar ea

(S yd

W id th

(ft

Ar ea

(S yd

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

4.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$7

.1

$2 ,9

.8

$1 ,2

.0

$4 ,9

.9

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

0.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$8

.7

$3 ,5

.2

$1 ,3

.6

$5 ,7

.5

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

7.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$6

.2

$2 ,6

.2

$9

.6

$4 ,2

.0

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

9.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,5

.1

$6 ,6

.0

$2 ,4

.0

$1 0, 0.

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

5.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$4

.9

$1 ,8

.0

$7

.0

$3 ,0

.9

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

.0

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$4 ,7

.1

$1 9, 8.

$7 ,4

.2

$3 2, 2.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

.8

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$2

.4

$9

.0

$3

.0

$1 ,5

.4

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp Gr av el

0.

9.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

Gr av el

$1 ,5

.1

$6 ,4

.2 n/ a

$7 ,9

.3

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp Gr av el

0.

1.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

Gr av el

$5

.5

$1 ,3

.6 n/ a

$1 ,8

.1

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp Gr av el

0.

9.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

Gr av el

$1 ,1

.8

$3 ,0

.2 n/ a

$4 ,1

.0

0.

II

Co nn ec to r*

0.

9.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,5

.1

$6 ,6

.0

$2 ,4

.0

$1 0, 0.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

9.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,1

.8

$4 ,8

.4

$1 ,7

.2

$7 ,7

.4

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

1.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$5

.5

$2 ,1

.2

$8

.6

$3 ,4

.3

0.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

7.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$5

.1

$2 ,4

.4

$9

.2

$3 ,9

.7

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

2.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$3 ,4

.9

$8 ,9

.4

$3 ,2

.2

$1 5, 5.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

1.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$3 ,3

.7

$8 ,7

.6

$3 ,1

.7

$1 5, 4.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

.4

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$3

.7

$1 ,5

.4

$5

.2

$2 ,4

.3

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

2.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$2 ,2

.0

$5 ,8

.8

$2 ,0

.8

$1 0, 3.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

6.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$2 ,1

.3

$5 ,6

.2

$2 ,0

.5

$9 ,8

.1

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

1.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$5

.5

$2 ,1

.2

$8

.6

$3 ,4

.3

0.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

.3

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$2

.5

$1 ,1

.8

$4

.4

$1 ,8

.7

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

3.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,8

.8

$4 ,9

.8

$1 ,7

.0

$8 ,6

.7

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

5.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$2 ,0

.1

$5 ,3

.0

$1 ,9

.8

$9 ,2

.9

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

4.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,9

.9

$5 ,0

.2

$1 ,8

.3

$8 ,8

.4

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

$4

.2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,6

.9

$4 ,4

.0

$1 ,5

.0

$7 ,7

.9

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

7.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,8

.1

$4 ,7

.2

$1 ,7

.7

$8 ,3

.1

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

.0

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$4

.8

$1 ,0

.6

$3

.1

$1 ,8

.5

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

6.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,3

.6

$3 ,4

.6

$1 ,2

.9

$5 ,9

.2

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

Gr av el

0.

0.

$4 .2

$0 .0

$0 .0

$0 .0

Gr av el

$4

.4

$2

.3 n/ a

$6

.7

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

1.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$1 ,3

.1

$3 ,4

.8

$1 ,2

.0

$6 ,0

.0

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

5.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$2 ,0

.1

$5 ,3

.0

$1 ,9

.8

$9 ,2

.9

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

5.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$2 ,8

.7

$7 ,4

.2

$2 ,6

.1

$1 2, 1.

*A dd

Pa rk

Lo t

0.

4.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$7

.1

$5 ,8

.2

$2 ,7

.0

$9 ,4

.3

Ad d Bo at Lo op

0.

7.

$4 .2

$4 .0

$2 .0

$6 .0

$3 .0

$9

.4

$2 ,8

.3

$1 ,2

.8

$5 ,0

.6

2.

8.

0.

8.

$2

,9

.7

$2 5, 4.

$3 8, 1.

$3

,6

.1

To ta lC os tp er se gm en t

N ot e:

Do es no ti nc lu de

PE

CE

Cr us h Sh ap e pl us

2" Ag g Ba se Do ub le Ch ip Se al

M U

SK

AL

LO

N

GE

ST

AT

E

PA

RK

To ta lL en gt h

Su bT ot al Co st

M ob ili za tio n (1 5%

Co nt in ge nc y (1 0%

Tr en ch in g fil lin g

Co st pe rf t

2" Ag g Ba se co st pe rS yd

Cr us h an d Sh ap e

Co st pe rS yd

Do ub le Ch ip Se al

Co st pe rS yd

Tr en ch fil lp er se gm en t

To ta lC on st ru ct io n Co st

Pa ve m en t Ba se Co st pe rS yd

Su rf ac e Co st pe rs eg m en t Fu nc tio na lC la ss ifi ca tio n Ba se Co st pe r se gm en t um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

Statewide Scoping Package Master Checklist

ROAD CPM

II. Project Scoping Document Package

I. Job and Scoping Package Information �Major Only������������2����������������������������

Engineer's Estimate �

��By Template, if checkbox appears, item is required (unless otherwise noted).

General Items & Information

Proposed Pavement Recommendations

Soils Information and Recommendations (From Region Soils Engineer)

Control Section:

TSC QC By: Date:

Region QA By: Date:

Scoped By: ������������� ���2��2���Date:

�������2'�����������������������������������'����������Proposed Fix:

Location: ����������������������

Route:

Job Number: ���

Template:

CS EMP:

CS BMP:

Length:

Construction Cost:

Construction Engineering (CE) Cost:

�����������Preliminary Engineering (PE) Cost:

Right-of-Way Cost:

PR EMP:

PR BMP:

Length:

�����PR Number:

Current Year RSL: Construction Year RSL:��������� Prop Fix Life: ���

Structure ID: N/A

Sufficiency Rating:

Details / Checklist

Statewide Scoping Package Master Checklist - Road CPM Yes

Program Revision Request (Form 2604)

Estimates for Additional Options Analyzed Traffic

Preliminary MOT Concept Mobility Analysis

Traffic Analysis & Safety Review Geometric Summary Review (reviewed and/or addressed per the 3R/4R Guidelines)

As-Builts / Old Plans

Current Sufficiency Report Condition Reports for Existing Sewers (if applicable) Condition Reports for Existing Culverts (if applicable)

Total Project Cost:

$481,144

Michigan Department of Transportation

0596 (12/12)

Highway Safety Manual Analysis (Not Mandatory) um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

Project Background, Comments, Van Tour Notes or Other Project Constraints. Please explain.

Scoping of MDNR park roads in cooperation with �oint MDOT/MDNR future MO�� See the attached estimate, typical cross section and PASER ratings�

Existing �tility �nformation Field Review Notes

Previous Call For Pro�ects �nformation

RO� Sheets with �mpacts Highlighted http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/ROWFiles/index.cfm

C P

M

R

R T&

S

B rid ge O th er

N A

Supporting Photos

Statewide Scoping Master Package Checklist

Additional CS, PR, Direction and Etc Information (other than the ma�or listed on page 1)

Multiple PR numbers - pro�ect located at Muskallonge �ake State Park in �uce County�

III. General Items and Background Information

Is the project to be packaged with other projects?

�ist potential package �ob numbers & templates n/a

Yes No

Correspondence

Pavement Historical Database (PHD) Data Maintenance �og Sheets

Additional �nformation Resulting from the � orksheet

Has the project been added to Projectwise? Yes um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

(Refer to Chapter � of the Scoping Manual for Details)

III. Typical Cross Sections Existing Typical:

Proposed Typical:

II. Executive Summary

Crush and shape the existing base and place 2 course HMA, ��SP - total 330 lb/syd

I. Job and Scoping Package Information (Major Only) Job Number:

Control Section:

Route:

N/A

N/AN/A

Template:

CS EMP:

CS BMP:

Length:

PR EMP:

PR BMP:

Length:

M��T�PR Number:

Structure ID: N/A

M�S�A��ONGE STATE PAR�

TSC QC By: Date:

Region QA By: Date:

Scoped By: R�SCH/MCT��ER 2015-05-2�Date:

Trench 2�x6�, fill w/agg base, C&S, place 6� HMA, ��SPProposed Fix:

Location:

Page 1of 8 um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

IV. Existing Conditions (Typical)

Right Shoulder

Right Shoulder �eft Shoulder Paved � idth�

Total � idth� Paved � idth�

Total � idth�

HMA Concrete CompositeType:

Widths:

Number of ramps in project limits:

Other notes on existing ramps:

Ramp

Accel/Decel Lanes Present? �ength� ft ft ft ft ft ftYes No

�eft Shoulder Paved � idth� Paved � idth� n/a n/a

Total � idth� n/a n/aTotal � idth�

B. Existing Shoulder:

A. Existing Mainline:

C. Existing Ramps:

HMA Concrete CompositeType:

Widths:

Type: HMA Concrete Composite ft ft ft ft

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Pavement Data (Average) �alue

RS�� n/a

D�� n/a

Surface Condition� n/a

PASER� 1-4

Year �alue R��� n/a

Rutting� n/a

Faulting� n/a

Friction� n/a

Year

Aggregate (Only)

Drives

D. Existing Photos: (�f applicable per proposed scope) �ntersections

Guardrail Sidewalks

Bridges Bridge Railing

Bridge Approaches

Other

�ncluded NA �ncluded NA �ncluded NA �ncluded NA �ncluded NA

�ncluded NA �ncluded NA �ncluded NA

Existing Normal Cross Slope�

Superelevations meet Standard� Horizontal Curve(s) meet Standard�

E. Existing Geometrics:

�ertical Curve(s) meet Standard�

� ��anes Shoulders Existing Parabolic Crown�

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No

ADT� vpd�

Not Applicable?

(Clear Zone info in RDM 7.01.11C http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/design/englishroadmanual/)

Number of �anes� 2 10�ane � idths� Posted Speed� 10 Design Speed� n/aft mph mph

Clear �one� n/a ft n/a ftCut Fill um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

No Geometric features were reviewed as part of this scoping�

Other notes on geometrics and/or existing super rates:

F. Existing Guardrail or Median Barrier:

Existing Guardrail� Type� Condition� �ength� Existing Median Barrier� Condition� �ength� Existing Glare Screen� Condition� �ength� Existing Attenuators�

Type�

Number� ft ft ft

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Terminals Meet Current Standard�

Yes No

G. Existing Signals:

Existing Traffic �oops� Yes No �nknown

Number of ramps�Existing sidewalk ramps� Condition�Yes No Are there existing gaps with evidence of pedestrian activity� Yes No Are ramps ADA compliant� Number of non-compliant ramps�Yes No

H. Existing Sidewalk:

I. Existing General Conditions: (some items below will require photos - see manual)

Existing railroad crossings� Existing non-motorized facilities�

Existing rumble strips� Existing Permanent Traffic Recorders (PTR)�

�ocation� Number�

Existing slope stability issues� Existing erosion issues�

Existing maintenance issues/concerns�

Existing raised pavement markers�

Existing curb & gutter in the pro�ect limits�

Type�

Existing crossovers for indirect left turns� Number�

Existing right turn lanes� Existing left turn lanes� Number�

Number�

Existing settlement areas�

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Type�

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

J. Other General Notes on Existing Conditions:

Existing trees or brush within Clear �one� Yes No Existing encroachments within Clear �one� Yes No Type�

�s this on a National Truck Network� Yes No

�s there an Access Management Plan for the pro�ect area� �s there an EA or E�S Study for the pro�ect area�

�s this a Corridor of Significance� Type�Yes No um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

V. Proposed Work (Typical) A. Proposed Mainline:

B. Proposed Shoulders:

Number of �anes� 2 10�ane � idths�

C. Proposed Ramps:

Type:

Right Shoulder �eft Shoulder

Paved � idth� Paved � idth� n/a n/a Total � idth� 2 2 Total � idth �

HMA Concrete Composite

Widths:

Type:

Right Shoulder �eft Shoulder

Paved � idth� Paved � idth� Total � idth� Total � idth �

HMA Concrete Composite

Widths:

Number of ramps being improved:

Ramp

List ramps and proposed work:

ft ft ft ft ft

ResurfaceType�

Design Speed� 10 ft ft ft ft ft

Type: HMA Concrete Composite

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Pavement Data (Average):

Construction Year RS�� 2016 Prop Fix �ife� 10 Yrs

Crush and shape the existing base and place 2 course HMA, ��SP - total 330 lb/syd�

List all work type(s) and related fix life(s):

Aggregate (Only) um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Proposed Normal Section Cross Slope: �anes� Shoulders�

Horizontal Curve Modification(s)� �ertical Curve Modification(s)� Superelevation Modification(s)�

Cross Slope Modification(s)� Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Other notes on geometrics or existing super rates:

D. Proposed Geometric Corrections:

Proposed Guardrail� Type� �ength� ftYes No ft

F. Proposed Sidewalk:

Number of ramps�Proposed Sidewalk ADA Ramps� Yes No

Proposed Rumble Strips� �ocation�Yes No

E. Proposed Guardrail or Median Barrier:

No restoration work is included in this estimate if turf establishment is needed along the edge of the new pavement�

H. Other General Notes on Proposed Improvements:

G. Proposed General Conditions:

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

�ane � idth Design Speed

Shoulder � idth Bridge � idth Structural Capacity Cross Slope

Grade �ertical (SSD) �ertical Alignment �ertical Clearance

Horizontal Clearance Superelevation Horizontal Alignment Accel & Decel �engths Horizontal (sightline offset)

VI. Bridge Underclearances (see Design Manual for Details) Corridor �nderclearance Requirements (14� 6� or 16�)�

Number of structures that do not meet underclearance requirements� Number of grade separated roadways or pedestrian facilities�

Number of grade separated railroads� Number of grade separated railroads that do not meet underclearance requirements (23�)�

VII. Anticipated Design Exception(s) (check all that apply)

IX. Environmental Information

Parking Agreements NPDES (over 5 acres of exposed earth) Participation (other)

�ariance (noise, other���)

Maintenance Agreements

Parking Agreements Non-motorized Maint� Agreements

Participation (other) Maintenance Agreements

�nown contamination sites (��ST, etc���)� �nown threatened or endangered species�

Yes No �nknown Yes No �nknown

�nown archaeology� Yes No �nknown �mpacts to local park facilities (4F, 6F)� �nown historic bridges or other structures�

Yes No �nknown Yes No �nknown

X. Real Estate

VIII. Permits & Agreements Required (check all that apply)

Sidewalk permits� Number�Yes No �nknown

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

Not Applicable?

XI. Stakeholder Information Proposed Activity Level of Stakeholder Engagement

�evel � �evel �� �evel ��� �evel �� �evel �

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Maintenance of Traffic to be determined by the MDNR to provide the least obstructed access for the contractor�

XII. Site Visit Notes um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

XII. Traffic and Mobility A. Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Scheme:

Full Closure�

Full Detour Route�

Closure Type:

Traffic Routing: On existing Route�

B. Safety Items:

C. Mobility: (see Mobility Manual) Existing Capacity Analysis (includes �/C calc, travel time, �OS, etc) Proposed Capacity Analysis (includes �/C calc, Delay � orksheet, �OS, etc) Preliminary Transportation Management Plan (TMP) (if applicable)

Temporary Crossovers

Other Delay Mitigation Notes:

Temporary � idening

Delay Mitigation Measures:

�ncentive/ Disincentive

Night or � eekend � ork Mobile Closure Flag Control Temporary Signal

�ane Rental

Dynamic �ane Merge System

A � B

Moveable Temp Barrier

B rid ge C

P M

R

R T&

S

O th er

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Page � of 8

� ill detour route utilize local roadways� �f yes, will local approval of the detour route be attainable� � ill detour route require improvements�

Traffic Restrictions�

Yes No �nknown Yes No Yes No

Yes No

�ane Closure� Shoulder Closure�

Flag Control�

Not Applicable?

Part width Construction�

Directional Detour Route� Signed Alternate Route�

� ill pro�ect require pedestrian detours� Yes No �nknown

Please list any known traffic restrictions (including detour route)

Park closure was discussed to accomplish the work

Please give a brief description of MOT plan (including detour route)

Close the park�

Has this pro�ect been identified on the FH� A Transparency Report� http�//safety�fhwa�dot�gov/hsip/fivepercent/

Safety Review/Crash Analysis

TOR Package a� TOR Calculation Spreadsheet b� �D-10s� Only for miss codings or additional crashes

Geometric Sketch

Has this proposed pro�ect been identified on the High Crash �ist� YearYes No Yes No

Highway Safety Manual Analysis (Not Mandatory)

Year

Crash History (�nformation from One �ine �isting)

N A um ber:

R oad C

PM

Scoping

N /A

�/31/15

XIV. Concept Statement Info (check all that apply)

ROAD CPM SCOPING REPORT & DETAILS WORKSHEET

Enhancement �ob

Tree Removals

Ad�acent �obs Bridge Painting Contaminated Site in Area Crosses Farmland Crosses Streams/�akes/Drains Detour or Road/Ramp Closure

Heritage Route High Tourist Route Natural/Federal �andmarks

Over 5 Acres Earth Disturbance Reduced Traffic Flow RO� /Grading Permit on Recreational Property RO� /Grading Permit on Farmland

� ork Outside of Existing Shldr/Curbs � ork Outside Toe of Slope

Over 1 Acre Earth Disturbance

Change in Bus Access/Parking Controversial Crosses Floodplains Crosses � etlands Displacements of Residences/Businesses

Hazardous Materials High �mpact Pro�ect Historic Bridge

Public Controversy Rip Rap Required RO� /Grading Permit Needed Traffic Generators � idening of Road or Bridge

Engineering Survey Required Environmental �ssues

Other Environmental �ssues Other

Agency Permit Required

2� 2�

2� 2�

O

PT

IO

N

II

PR

Se gm en t

BM

P

EM

P

PA

SE

R Rt g

Le ng th

(m i)

Le ng th

(ft

W id th

(ft

Ar ea

(S yd

W id th

(ft

Ar ea

(S yd

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

4.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$7

.1

$9

.6

$4 ,7

.2

$6 ,5

.9

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

0.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$8

.7

$1 ,0

.0

$5 ,1

.7

$7 ,0

.5

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

7.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$6

.2

$7

.4

$3 ,7

.5

$5 ,2

.3

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

9.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,5

.1

$1 ,9

.2

$9 ,4

.4

$1 3, 5.

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

5.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$4

.9

$5

.2

$2 ,7

.4

$3 ,7

.5

0.

0.

I

Pr in ci pl e

0.

.0

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$4 ,7

.1

$5 ,9

.7

$2 8, 4.

$3 9, 3.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

.8

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$2

.4

$2

.6

$1 ,3

.2

$1 ,8

.2

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp Gr av el

0.

9.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

Gr av el

$1 ,5

.1

$1 ,9

.8 n/ a

$3 ,4

.9

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp Gr av el

0.

1.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

Gr av el

$5

.5

$3

.8 n/ a

$8

.3

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp Gr av el

0.

9.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

Gr av el

$1 ,1

.8

$8

.7 n/ a

$1 ,9

.5

0.

II

Co nn ec to r*

0.

9.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,5

.1

$1 ,9

.2

$9 ,4

.4

$1 3, 5.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

9.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,1

.8

$1 ,4

.1

$6 ,9

.5

$9 ,4

.5

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

1.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$5

.5

$6

.6

$3 ,1

.9

$4 ,2

.1

0.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

7.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$5

.1

$7

.1

$3 ,5

.5

$4 ,8

.8

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

2.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$3 ,4

.9

$2 ,4

.8

$1 2, 9.

$1 8, 3.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

1.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$3 ,3

.7

$2 ,4

.1

$1 2, 4.

$1 7, 2.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

.4

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$3

.7

$4

.5

$2 ,1

.3

$2 ,9

.6

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

2.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$2 ,2

.0

$1 ,6

.2

$8 ,0

.8

$1 1, 8.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

6.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$2 ,1

.3

$1 ,5

.9

$7 ,8

.9

$1 1, 7.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

1.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$5

.5

$6

.6

$3 ,1

.9

$4 ,2

.1

0.

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

0.

.3

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$2

.5

$3

.9

$1 ,6

.2

$2 ,2

.7

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

3.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,8

.8

$1 ,3

.8

$6 ,8

.2

$1 0, 3.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

5.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$2 ,0

.1

$1 ,4

.4

$7 ,3

.0

$1 0, 5.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

4.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,9

.9

$1 ,4

.6

$6 ,9

.8

$1 0, 4.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

$4

.2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,6

.9

$1 ,2

.0

$6 ,0

.4

$9 ,0

.3

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

7.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,8

.1

$1 ,3

.5

$6 ,5

.2

$9 ,7

.0

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

.0

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$4

.8

$2

.6

$1 ,4

.6

$2 ,1

.1

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

6.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,3

.6

$9

.7

$4 ,7

.1

$6 ,9

.4

0.

II

Co nn ec to r

Gr av el

0.

0.

$4 .2

$0 .0

$0 .0

Gr av el

$4

.4

$0 .0 n/ a

$4

.4

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

1.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$1 ,3

.1

$9

.1

$4 ,7

.4

$7 ,0

.7

0.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

5.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$2 ,0

.1

$1 ,4

.4

$7 ,3

.0

$1 0, 5.

0.

III

Sp ec Pu rp

0.

5.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$2 ,8

.7

$2 ,0

.7

$1 0, 5.

$1 5, 5.

*A dd

Pa rk

Lo t

0.

4.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$7

.1

$1 ,8

.0

$1 0, 2.

$1 3, 9.

Ad d Bo at Lo op

0.

7.

$4 .2

$2 .0

$2 .0

$1 1.

$9

.4

$8

.2

$4 ,6

.8

$6 ,4

.6

2.

8.

0.

8.

$2

,2

.8

$2 9, 3.

$4 4, 4.

$3

,2

.0

To ta lC on st ru ct io n Co st

Ba se

Co st pe r se gm en t

Su rf ac e Co st pe rs eg m en t Fu nc tio na lC la ss ifi ca tio n

HM

A Co st pe rS yd

To ta lC os tp er se gm en t

N ot e:

Do es no ti nc lu de

PE

CE

Cr us h Sh ap e pl us

3"

LV

SP

M U

SK

AL

LO

N

GE

ST

AT

E

PA

RK

To ta lL en gt h

Su bT ot al Co st

M ob ili za tio n (1 5%

Co nt in ge nc y (1 0%

Tr en ch in g fil lin g

Co st pe rF t

Cr us h an d Sh ap e

Co st pe rS yd

Ba se

Co st pe rS yd Pa ve m en t Tr en ch Fi ll pe rs eg m 't

OTHER OPT�ONS

OPT�ON ��� – Do nothing – problems persist and get worse�

OPT�ON �� – Place double chip seal over the existing material� Concern with the uneven base and potholes that there would be reflective cracking or other deformation of the pavement� �f cost is of primary concern this may be an option but it is not the recommended fix and the outcome would be less predictable�

OPT�ON �� – Strip off the existing pavement and place HMA or double chip seal� Equipment used to strip pavement will dig up the existing base� Additional grading or base material would likely be needed prior to paving�

Other observations and discussions on site visit�

1� �t was mentioned that the existing radii at the ends of the ring roads could be larger to accommodate larger motor homes� The MDNR has work crews that can do rough excavation and grading to construct a new base and new alignment prior to any surfacing work� Other considerations are existing tree and stump locations, underground utilities and park appurtenances�

2� Also mentioned and noted were areas of ponding on the inside of the ring roads were water gets trapped� Raising the pavement elevation would help with drainage off the road� Additional drainage study by MDNR would be needed if drainage work were included in the pro�ect� Currently no drainage work is included in the estimate�