The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 6E - Rosemead Blvd Relinquishment• 171 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2007 SUBJECT: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD RELINQUISHMENT SUMMARY Recently, members from the City Council have asked staff to research the possibility of relinquishing Rosemead Boulevard from the State of California. A similar request was made of staff in February 2002 after Caltrans approached the City to discuss the possible relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City. As part of that request, Willdan and Associates prepared a relinquishment study that analyzed the current condition of the road including any corrective measures that must be reconciled prior to the City's acceptance of relinquishment of the roadway. Rather than duplicating the information from the initial staff report dated June 22, 2005, it is attached to this report for the City Council's reference (Attachment A). The original Rosemead Relinquishment Study prepared by Willdan dated June 2005 is also attached to this report (Attachment B). The June 22, 2005 staff report to the City Council provides a brief summary of the relinquishment study and a detailed analysis of the overall relinquishment process. If it is the City Council's desire to proceed with the relinquishment process, a formal resolution acknowledging the City's interest must be brought back for City Council approval at a future meeting. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding the relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard. LEGAL REVIEW The agreement has been reviewed as to form by the City Attorney. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: 0 • • City Council Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Sub ' d by: B n Saeki Assistant City Manager Attachment A: June 22, 2005 Staff Report to the City Council Attachment B: Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 0 0 0 0 staf fepor TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEME,AD CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL CR WE, CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 22, 2005 RE: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD RELINQUISHMENT STUDY Attached for City Council's review is the Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study. This is a physical study of the Boulevard that documents current conditions, damage and deficiencies, including - general substandard conditions, and other corrective measures, that must be reconciled prior to the City's acceptance of relinquishment of the roadway should that be the City Council's desire. This study was commissioned by the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency in February 2002, after Caltrans staff approached the City to discuss the possible relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard from the State to the City. Upon reviewing all considerations, staff determined that a relinquishment study should be performed, as there are considerable advantages to locally controlling the operation and maintenance of Rosemead Boulevard, a highway that bisects the heart of the City's central business district. The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has an ongoing program whereby the State relinquishes the jurisdiction over local highways to the local agencies. Local agencies benefit from this program in that they have complete control over development along that route and future improvements do not have to comply with Caltrans standards but can satisfy local standards. In addition, it no longer becomes necessary for the local agency to obtain a Caltrans permit to construct improvements along the affected highway. However, relinquishment would not proceed until Caltrans and the cities involved agreed on an amount of funds to be paid by Caltrans for necessary repairs or rehabilitation of the highway leaving the highway in a "state of good repair." JUN 2 3 -20-05 T" cy4 A 1~:- { . E lias ~ o. • • June 22, 2005 Page 2 As shown in the Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study, it would cost approximately $12.5 million to bring Rosemead Boulevard up to City standards. This would include reconstructing the roadway, upgrading traffic signals, adding sidewalk and parkway trees, installing street lights, and narrowing medians in certain areas to allow for a third lane of travel should that be necessary in the future, and ADA and storm drain improvements. There will likely be debate between Caltrans and City staff as to what constitutes improvements to bring the boulevard up to a "state of good repair". It has been learned that Caltrans generally uses a figure of $100,000 per lane mile as their starting point in negotiating a settlement offer. For Rosemead Boulevard, that amounts to approximately $856,000. Other cities have been able to negotiate settlement offers at least as much as $500,000 per lane mile. For Rosemead Boulevard that amounts to amounts to approximately $4,300,000. Until staff negotiates with Caltrans, settlement numbers are only speculative. Relinquishment Process The relinquishment program generally proceeds on two fronts: the legislative process that has to be followed in Sacramento and the cooperative agreement entered between Caltrans and the local agency. In the legislative process, the City would involve its state representative or senator to draft the necessary state legislation that allows Caltrans to delete this portion of Rosemead Boulevard from the State Highway system. However, the jurisdiction would not actually transfer to the City until a cooperative agreement is entered into between Caltrans and the City. The City Council must pass a resolution indicating that there is at least an interest in pursuing the relinquishment process. Such a resolution would not in any way commit the City as far as following through with the process. Once the legislation is passed, the City could proceed with the relinquishment process. Passing this resolution merely keeps the City's options open on the relinquishment issue. On State highways deleted by legislative enactment, Caltrans places the highway in a "state of good repair" prior to the date the relinquishment becomes effective, however, the city or county may elect to pay for improvements whose costs exceed what is required to place the existing facility in a "state of good repair." Such relinquishment becomes effective upon the first day of the next calendar year or fiscal year, whichever first occurs after the effective date of the legislative enactment. The City must prepare a project report for a State highway deleted by legislative enactment and include specific recommendations for placing the existing highway in a "state of good repair" prior to relinquishment. Rehabilitation work proposed as a condition of relinquishment must be justified. In no case is the pavement rehabilitation design life to be in excess of 10 years. Prior to completion of the project report involving rehabilitation of distressed asphalt concrete pavement, a pavement deflection study should be performed to determine the June 22, 2005 Page 3 need for an overlay and/or other pavement rehabilitation treatment. It will be used for project scope and cost estimating purposes in the project report. Following receipt of the deflection study recommendations and before completion of the project report, a joint field review with Caltrans should be conducted to eliminate any misunderstandings and to resolve any differences usually due to Caltrans' denial of requested improvements. An attempt is made to reasonably accommodate the concerns of the City through contact with the City's decision makers. A solution to a protest or potential protest is preferable at this time. Section 73 of the Streets and Highway Code, requires that the relinquishment of roads, streets or highways must be made by a California Transportation Commission (CTC) resolution. Relinquishment action is required by Caltrans when a route location is deleted from the State Highway System by legislative enactment and includes collateral facilities that were acquired or built as part of a project. These would include frontage roads, relocated streets, new streets to maintain service, cul-de-sac adjustments, and bicycle and pedestrian trails. The goal is to get CTC approval and recording of the relinquishment within one year from the usual time of initiating a relinquishment action. Generally, Caltrans will commit to a negotiated amount of money, which, in theory, would be used for improving the section of highway to be transferred to the City. The amount of funds committed by Caltrans would depend on the amount and type of improvements negotiated between the two agencies based on the project report recommendations. Once the agreement is signed, Caltrans would provide a check to the City. These funds would come to the City with no strings attached. As told to you in a previous correspondence, Staff has been in contact with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the City of West Covina, both of whom have been working on the relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard (near Huntington Drive) and Azusa Avenue, respectively. Both have confirmed that the negotiation process with Caltrans was lengthy, but they were able to reach a settlement on the amount of money that the State would provide each jurisdiction to bring the roadways up to a state of good repair. Staff has also been told that Caltrans may not be willing to provide funding for upgrades such as ADA and NPDES in the future. Both the County and West Covina indicated that Caltrans is willing to relinquish the roads, but, due to the ongoing budget crisis, the State may not pay the agencies the settlement amounts that were agreed upon. RECOMMENDATION If it is City Council's desire for staff to proceed with the relinquishment process, direct staff to bring back to City Council, at a subsequent meeting, the necessary resolution formally acknowledging the City Council's interest in the relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard. 0 0 • 0 Rosemead Boulevard RELINQUISHMENT 5TUDY Prepared for the City of Kooemead, California June 2005 Willdan 15191 Cro55road5 Parkway North, Suite 405 Industry, CA 9174-6 (562) 908-6200 0 0 RELINQUISHMENT STUDY K05EMEAD BOULEVAKD CITY OF K05EMEAD, CALIFORNIA Table Of Contents FW V VI. INTRODUCTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 BACKGROUND 4 A55E55MENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 A. Pavement 5 5. Concrete in Perimeter Areas 13 C. 5torm Drain Elements 17 D. Traffic Circulation Elements 22 E. Parkway Trees 26 F. Utilities 27 G. Administrative/Engineering 27 SUMMARY OF REHABILITATION PLAN 29 A. Pavement 30 B. Perimeter Concrete 30 C. Storm Drain Elements 30 D. Traffic Circulation Elements 30 E. Parkway Trees 31 F. Utilities 32 G. Administrative/Engineering 32 C05T ESTIMATE 33 APPENDICES A. Aerial Photos of Existing Curb, Gutter and 5idewalk B. Deflection Analysis Report C. Parkway Tree and 5idewalk Conditions 1351213000106-155 R01 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 1. INTRODUCTION This Study was conducted for the City of Rosemead in preparation for diocussions with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding the State's proposed relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City. This Study was prepared in accordance with Section 73 of the California 5treets and Highways Code which outlines the 5tate's highway relinquishment procedures. 5eotion 73 states, in part, that "the (California Transportation) Commission shall not relinquish to any county or city any portion of any state highway until the Department (Caltrans) has placed the highway in a state of good repair." The intent of this Study is to conform to this criteria and provide a cost-effective rehabilitation plan that will bring about a reasonable condition state. This study documents the current conditions on Rosemead Boulevard. The extent of the damages or deficiencies is delineated on aerial photos (Appendix A) and located by address or other Site-specific description. In addition, a summary discussion of the existing conditions is provided. A thorough field investigation was performed to identify the damages andlor deficiencies in the roadway, including recurring maintenance problems, general Substandard conditions, and other corrective measures, that must be reconciled prior to the City's acceptance of the relinquishment. Some pavement testing was performed to investigate the underlying structure, including coring of the pavement section and sampling of base and soil. Non-destructive deflection testing was performed in all travel lanes. All of this data was compiled and analyzed to determine the need for rehabilitation. This Study provides recommendations for needed rehabilitation, accompanied with a detailed cost estimate. As-built street and storm drain plans obtained from Caltran5 and the Loo Angeles County Department of Public, Works were thoroughly reviewed. The City also reviewed the adequacy of the exioting drainage system based on historical performance and street drainage capacity calculations. • • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In preparation for relinquishment discussions with Caltrans, the City of Rosemead conducted this Study to assess the existing condition of Rosemead Boulevard within the City's territorial limits. There is a need to determine what improvements are required to bring Rosemead boulevard to a "state of good repair," the minimum standard established by State Code. This study identifies the damages and deficiencies in the roadway, and recommends needed rehabilitation. This study establishes a plan to complete rehabilitation in an efficient and cost-effective manner that corresponds to the anticipated construction phasing. These costs may be lesser or greater depending on the integration of all the roadway elements into the overall project. Available record drawings were reviewed. The existing pavement, curb & gutter, driveways, curb ramps, parkway trees, sidewalks, storm drains, utilities, traffic signals, and street lighting were inspected, and detailed data recorded. The deficiencies were documented on aerial photographs for ease of locating and to quantify the extent of the repairs. 5oil investigations and pavement deflection tests were performed to analyze pavement needs. This study determined that the pavement will require full reconstruction. The existing base pavement, which was constructed 50 to 70 years ago, is severely deteriorated. The existing pavement has clearly outlived its usefulness and constructing new pavement over this old pavement is highly impractical with traffic loading about 30 times that in 1950. New bus lanes in both directions are needed to address the severely damaged pavement and corresponding traffic loading in the slow lanes. The bus lanes should be constructed of Portland cement concrete (FCC) to provide the durability required to sustain the bus axle loads, which are now legally exceeding 20,000 pounds. Further, the heavy and increasing traffic is forcing the need for an additional lane in each direction. The new lane adjacent to the curb will also need to be replaced with concrete pavement. This will avoid accelerated deterioration arising from both bus traffic in the new lane and also a pavement joint of dissimilar materials, which will be driven across frequently by bus and truck traffic. To avoid the same problems at the pavement joint with the fast lane, it i5 reasonable to construct the remaining 11-foot fast lane pavement with FCC as well, for a roadway of uniform material. In order to provide sufficient width for the additional lanes, the existing median islands will need to be narrowed and the existing 3-foot-wide gutters north of Valley boulevard 2 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study will need to be replaced with 2-foot gutters. To provide the proper grade to match the existing frontages in the Segment with 3-foot gutters and concurrently repair damaged Sidewalk sections, rehabilitation work must include full Sidewalk replacement in that area. Also, at the major pedestrian crossings, the median island noses provide essential pedestrian refuge. Therefore, additional width will be needed along left-turn pockets at ouch locations. Driveways have the came. grade matching and repair problems, but must also meet ADA accessibility Standards. Most driveways will need to be reconstructed for these reasons. Likewise, the majority of the existing curb ramps do not meet current standards and need replacing. Traffic Signals need considerable improvement to meet acceptable standards for relinquishment, and the existing streetlights are entirely outdated and insufficient. Replacing the old lights with modern energy efficient units is the appropriate measure. Finally, a survey for street trees indicated there were none within the parkway. However, there iS adequate space for approximately 60 trees to be planted north of the 10 Freeway. South of the 10 Freeway, the parkway can accommodate uniform Spacing of an additional 56 trees. The rehabilitation project will Significantly impact traffic flow and commercial Site access during the construction. However, Some of the rehabilitation items may actually facilitate and decrease the costs of other items. For example, underground conduits for traffic signals, streetlighting, and landscape irrigation can be installed when Surface improvements are being replaced. The coordinated construction was factored into the overall rehabilitation plan and resultant cost estimates. The total coot of the improvements is estimated to be $12,500,000. The rehabilitation work will provide the following benefits: • Improved pedestrian and traffic safety, • Reduced liability exposure, • Extended street life, • Optimal traffic circulation, • Reduced need for future repairs and long-term maintenance costs, and • Enhanced use and efficiency of public transportation. 3 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 111. BACKGROUND Rosemead [5oulevard from the South City limit just north of Garvey Avenue to the 10 Freeway (approximately 0.6 miles) i5 a 3-lane arterial on each Side, with a 6-foot-wide median island, that eerve5 a5 a link between the 60 and 10 Freeways and the neighboring cities to the north. Only the western half of this roadway (the Southbound lance) iS within the City of Rosemead's boundaries. The other Side of the roadway, or northbound lanes, iS within the City of El Monte. This study applies only to the relinquiohment of the portion of Rosemead Boulevard within the City of Rosemead. From the 10 Freeway to the northern City limit (approximately 1.2 miles), Rosemead Boulevard i5 a heavily traveled 4-lane arterial with two Striped lanes in each direction, a 16-foot- wide median island, and curbside parking in most areas. The peak rush-hour commute iS constantly congested ae the average daily traffic generally exceeds 50,000 vehicles, with growth expected to continue. Traffic South of the 10 Freeway tends to be less congested due to the 3-lance in each direction. The posted maximum Speed limit i5 35 miles per hour north of the 10 Freeway and 45 MPH south of the 10 Freeway. The properties adjacent to Rosemead Boulevard are a mixture of residential apartments, industrial and commercial developments, with Storefronts adjacent to the Sidewalk between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. The following general areas of deficiency on Rosemead Boulevard have been noted in the past: • Moot of the existing roadway Surface i5 in extremely poor condition. • The existing Street lighting is very old and outdated. • Curb ramps are frequently either mioeing or do not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) etandards. • The 5i4ewalko are aged and broken at numerous locations. • Curb and gutter io essentially missing on the Segment from the South City limit to the 10 Freeway. • The gutter north of Valley Boulevard iS not monolithic with the curb and, therefore, i5 failing in many locations. • The traffic Signal System does not meet current City Standards or other commonly applied national Standards, and in Some aspecte iS very old and deteriorated. 4 • • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND MITIGATIONS A visual inspection of Rosemead Boulevard was conducted and documented on aerial photographs which are included in Appendix A. The aerial photographs Show the damage to perimeter concrete (i.e., curb and gutter, driveways, curb ramps, and Sidewalk, etc.). Missing Sidewalk and curb and gutter io also indicated, along with locations where curb ramps do not conform to current ADA requiremento. Other appendices include the Deflection Analysis Report (Appendix B), and f arkway Tree and Sidewalk Conditions (Appendix C). The extent of the deficiencies on Rosemead Boulevard io discussed in this section, with rehabilitation measures described ao applicable to complete the overall rehabilitation plan. & PAVEMENT Existing Conditions The existing pavement conditions are described in detail in Appendix B. To summarize, it io necessary to divide the length of the roadway into four segments. Each of these segments has a different construction history. With the exception of the short segment of P CC pavement at the very north end of Rosemead boulevard, the conditions are similar. From the south City limit to the 10 Freeway, the pavement in the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes io failing rapidly despite a two-inch overlay that was installed about nine years ago. The wheel paths of these lanes are alligator cracked, and in the No. 3 lane the wheel paths are developing base failure in many areas. Based on this progression, it io estimated that all lanes will be alligator cracked within a few years, with the No. 2 and 3 lanes having high levels of base failure. In Figure 1 we see clear evidence that the underlying pavement structure io weak and badly deteriorated. Core samples revealed three inches of asphalt concrete (AC) on native soil under the overlay. Deflection test results show a six-inch overlay io needed in the No. 3 lane, and with the rapid deterioration, similar demands will develop in the No. 2 lane. 5 • • 2. From the 10 Freeway to Valley Boulevard, a relatively thin maintenance blanket overlay was installed about 25 years ago based on a records Search. The original pavement, constructed in 1950, was three to four inches thick. The pavement received an asphalt rubber chip Seal in 1988, which io the primary factor holding the roadway Surface together. Widespread alligator cracking can be Seen reflecting through the chip Seal, and potholes and patches are evident in many areas along the pavement ao Shown in Figures 2 and 3. It io clear that the original pavement was highly deteriorated at the time the maintenance blanket was installed. Again, the underlying base pavement 15 weak and highly deteriorated. The maintenance overlay and chip Seal only extended the Service life without improving the Structure Significantly. Deflection analysis in Some lanes Shows requirements for a five-inch overlay. Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study - 6 Figure 1 - Typical Failing Overlay South of 10 Freeway 0 Ol Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 7 Figure 2 - Typical Pavement South of Valley Blvd. Figure 3 - Typical Pavement South of Valley blvd. Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 3. From Valley Boulevard to 500 feet north of Lower Azusa Road, the conditions are Similar to that South of Valley Boulevard, though considerably worse on the northbound side. On the southbound Side, an additional 1-'/2-inch overlay of asphalt rubber hot mix was installed to protect the asphalt rubber chip Seal, which was being torn apart by hot temperatures and high truck traffic back in 1989. Although this asphalt rubber overlay iS not cracking, it iS rutting Severely, basically becoming too fluid to crack and instead, iS flowing out of the wheel paths. The pavement underlying the asphalt rubber chip Seal in both lanes in both directions is in essentially the Same condition with widespread alligator cracking, and numerous potholes developing along the northbound side. The alligator cracking can be seen in the asphalt rubber chip seal on the northbound side. These conditions are hidden by the fluid asphalt rubber overlay on the southbound Side, but construction records and pavement cores revealed the Same Section and conditions on both sides of the street. The rutting asphalt rubber pavement will need to be removed due to its unstable behavior. Evaluating the stability of the base pavement found on the northbound Side (actually the side with lesser traffic), the highly deteriorated section of 2 to 2'/z-inches of AC overlaid on 2'/2- inch AC with no base material, yields deflections demanding an overlay approaching six inches thick. 8 Figure 4 - Typical Failing Pavement North of Valley 131vd. Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Once again, the underlying pavement io clearly not a viable base for the pavement Structure of a major highway route. 4. From 500 feet north of Lower Azusa to the north City limit io a Short Segment consisting of four lanes of FCC pavement with asphalt concrete shoulders a5 Shown in Figures 4 and 5. Unfortunately, the travel lanes are only 11 feet wide and truck wheel paths generally drift onto or across the joint with the AC shoulders, causing pavement failure along that joint. The concrete pavement was constructed in 1937, and the slabs are breaking down into Smaller Sections after years of increasing traff=ic. North of Lower Azusa Road, Rosemead Boulevard begins to descend down under the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. The bridge does not lie within the City of Rosemead. Concrete embankments line the roadway along the approach to the bridge. The slopes in this area appear stable, with the concrete appearing to be sound. A pipe railing exists at the top of the western embankment adjacent to Rosemead Boulevard Frontage Road. The rail needs to be replaced with standard guardrail. 9 Figure 5 - Typical Failing Pavement North of Valley Blvd. Structural Evaluation 5tr_ucturaL5.ection • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Deflection studies and pavement cores indicate the need for excessive overlay thickncooco, generally four to six inches on all 5egment5 with existing AC Pavement. All of the medians have reduced curb heights from pact overlays. Cold milling to maintain the median height will only weaken the Structure back to the original highly deteriorated 2'/z to 3-inch AC Section and increase the overlay requirements substantially. 10 Figure 6 - Typical Pavement South of North City Limit Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study It i5 simply not viable to consider using an overlay to provide restructuring on pavement constructed in an era of light traffic between 1937 and 1950, and thereafter left to deteriorate to a Severe condition. Therefore, another overlay I5 not an option, except maybe on the FCC Segment at the north City limit. Even there, the construction required to force the pavement Structure into grade conformance with the existing median, and provide reasonable rcoiotance to crack reflection on this Small area of pavement, will likely yield a coot approaching the coot of full reconstruction. The reconstruction would be part of the economy of Scale achieved with the remainder of the roadway, whereas using Specialized asphalt rubber products for crack reflection in this Small area would increase costs dramatically. The decision, therefore, i5 between reconstruction with FCC pavement or AC pavement. it is widely accepted that a FCC pavement can be designed to provide an excellent service life under the severe traffic conditions on Rosemead Boulevard. This roadway is a major truck and bus highway route, and the concept of a truck/bus lane definitely appears to be warranted. Based on traffic counts and growth rates, the roadway will need to be expanded to six lanes, at least during peak hours, in the not too distant future. It is likely that the 6-lane configuration would only be effective during peak hours, 11 Figure 7 - 51ab 5yotem breakup 5outh of North City Limit Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study so both the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes will need the Same basic Structural Section. During off-peak hours, trucks will use the No. 2 lanes. The uniformity of materials in these lance will alleviate the inherent instability that would exist at the joint of dissimilar materials (between the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes). However, the Same Stability concerns exist if a joint were created between the No. 1 and No. 2 lanes. Furthermore, the maintenance issues involved in sustaining a joint between the AC No. 1 lane and PCC truck and bug lane are also difficult. Basically, the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes will constitute the truck/bus lanes, a5 buses will drive across the joint between lanes frequently, as well as trucks to some extent. Heavy bus and truckload deformations along the joint would occur on the AC side in general. Discontinuities of deflection and Support at a joint of dissimilar materials will inevitably lead to nonconforming grades along the joint, structural failure of the AC at the unsupported joint edge, added maintenance costs and inconvenience of Sealing and maintaining the joint, and ride quality igsuco. All of these concerns apply to the No. 1 lane joint as well; therefore, a FCC design Should include the No. 1 lane and extend to the full width of roadway. AdG_Itbj1a1_i-anc9 The roadway width for travel will need to be increased to Six lanes, since traffic already is extremely congested during some periods. The roadway is already six lanes South of 10 Freeway, extending to the 60 Freeway and beyond. To provide continuity through the segment north of the Freeway, which actually carries higher levels of traffic, additional roadway width will be required. The least expensive alternative io to reduce the width of the median to 12 feet. This will provide an additional 4 feet to allow 11-foot-wide No. 1 and No. 2 lanes, and 12-foot-wide No. 3 lane. It Should be noted that the existing 3-foot gutters in the No. 3 lanes north of Valley Boulevard takes away 2 feet of usable roadway width that would be available with 2-foot gutters. Reducing the median width to less than 12 feet essentially eliminates the median along left-turn pockets, which to a large extent eliminates the effectiveness of the median as a traffic control device, and certainly as a pedestrian refuge. Basically at intersections, there would only be a 2-foot-wide Strip of raised concrete along the left-turn pockets. Therefore, north of Valley Boulevard, it will be necessary to remove and replace the curb and non-monolithic 3-foot gutter with a 2-foot curb and gutter in order to provide the same lane configuration ag south of Valley Blvd. The resulting 2-foot median along left-turn pockets is not really adequate for a pedestrian refuge at most intersections, and io not ideal for motor vehicle Safety. 12 • • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Experience has Shown that ouch a narrow median can be deceptive to the motoring public and counterproductive to traffic Safety. To provide a 3-foot median at key pedestrian crossings, the outside curb will need to be widened by 1 foot along left-turn pockets at ouch locations (on the Side of the Street with the pocket). A Special situation exists at Mission Drive, which io adjacent to Rosemead High School. (see discussion under Medians, below.) The large number of young pedestrians at that location makee a 4-foot median essential. The Street will need widening by 1 foot on both Sides along the length of the left-turn pockets at thie intersection to accommodate pedestrian capacity. Proposed Rehabilitation The proposed PCC Section for the roadway as detailed in the pavement report in Appendix B io 9 inches of FCC on 5 inches of Lean Treated Base (LTB). A detailed coot estimate io provided in 5eotion VI. B. CONCRETE IN PERIMETER AREAS Curbs The existing FCC curbs along Rosemead Boulevard appear to be in fair condition, except for the non-monolithic curb north of Valley Boulevard constructed in 1935. Cracked curb damage was not Significant between Valley Boulevard and the 10 Freeway. The curb damage north of Valley boulevard was generally related to failure of the 3-foot non- monolithic gutter that was Severely damaged in many areas. Replacement of the existing 3-foot curb and gutter with a 2-foot curb and gutter to provide the extra 2-foot roadway width and 6-lane configuration, will be necessary north of Valley boulevard regardless, and will Solve both the width and damage problems at once. 13 • • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Figures 8 and 9 - Failing non-monolithic 3-foot gutter 5outh of the 10 Freeway, curb and gutter io misoing on moot of the length. There i5 existing AC berm in moot areas, with Some rolled gutter a5 well. Some curb and gutter was constructed with the intersection improvements at Whitmore Street, and Should be connected with the termination of curb and gutter near the eastbound on-ramp juot south of the freeway. A continuous curb and gutter would provide effective uniform drainage and traffic control along the edge of the outside lane. Crodd gutter repairs will be needed at some locations due to Settlement and cracking, ao indicated in Appendix A. Sidewalk The Sidewalk has numerous areas of breakage and Settlement. The amount of displacement ranged from '/z-inch up to 2 inched. 5ome Iocationo were temporarily patched with asphalt. In general, a displacement greater than '/z-inch in a high-volume pedestrian way io considered a tripping hazard. These displacements tend to increase over time. The areas of damaged Sidewalk are shown in Appendix A. Experience had ohown that installing curb and gutter without replacing the contiguous Sidewalk leado to the problem of matching the top of curb with the existing Sidewalk. PerSiotent minor grade changes in Sidewalk occur over long periods of time due to 14 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study settlement and expansive soil. This factor by itself makes installing curb against existing sidewalk impractical. In addition, all of the cutting and patching required to repair damaged sidewalk amplifies the need for full replacement as the most effective and efficient option north of Valley Boulevard. One other factor supporting the efficiency of full sidewalk replacement is the cost savings from avoiding the cutting and patching of large slab areas that are required for reasonable stability of the sidewalk patches and to match construction joints or scorelines. Installation of streetlight and street tree irrigation conduit and other repairs would require extensive work at much higher costs if the sidewalk was not removed. Removal of the sidewalk will allow for unobstructed installation of streetlight and interconnect conduit in the sidewalk area. The new sidewalks would also replace mismatched, stained, and otherwise old deteriorated sidewalk sections required for a reasonable level of uniformity. Obviously, new sidewalk patches on top of the existing patches as part of relinquishment rehabilitation work would be a severe impact on uniformity. South of the 10 Freeway, there is very little sidewalk. In fact, at one point pedestrians must enter on to the AC shoulder to continue between the freeway and Whitmore Street. It is necessary to construct at least a 5-foot sidewalk to fill in the length, and provide minimum pedestrian access along a transportation corridor, and also satisfy ADA requirements. The most northerly segment, just south of the north City limit, has only a 2'/2-foot sidewalk on each side of the street. This clearly must be rectified for pedestrian safety, .ADA and general viability concerns. The roadway is wide enough for the 6-lane configuration, even if 2'/2 feet is taken to widen the sidewalk on each side. Therefore, the existing 3-foot curb and gutter needs to be replaced with 2-foot curb and gutter with curb face on an alignment 2'/2 feet closer to the median. New 5-foot sidewalk should then be installed. The existing median could remain as is at 6-foot width to provide a 6-lane configuration, the same as to the south. Driveways Some of the driveway 'Wo" and portions of adjacent curb were damaged due to vehicles repeatedly running over them, especially heavy delivery vehicles. Many of the ")Co" also are substandard in width, especially for commercial entries. In addition, most of the driveways do not provide adequate ADA-compliant pedestrian passage, as shown in Figure 10. 15 • • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Driveways pose all of the Same problems presented for sidewalks, i.e. damage and grade matching, but most important for driveways io the need to establish ADA compliance across the backs of those driveways. With the importance of the roadway for both pedestrian and vehicle traffic, ADA compliance is clearly a matter of necessity at driveways. There i5 really no viable patching fix that solves the ADA problem, while full replacement of the driveway solves all of the problems at once. Basically, all driveways north of Valley Boulevard will need to be replaced, as will any non-conforming driveways South of Valley Boulevard. Damaged and ADA substandard driveways are shown in Appendix A. ADA Curb Ramps Naturally, ADA compliant ramps at intersections must be established. Curb ramps at many locations were either missing or did not meet ADA minimum slope requirements, as shown in Figure 11. The substandard curb ramps are shown in Appendix A. 16 Figure 10 - ADA noncompliant driveway apron. Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study C. STORM DRAIN ELEMENTS Storm Drain Pipes In general, Rosemead Boulevard drains in a Southerly direction towards the Rubio Wash and Rio Hondo Channel. The Storm drain system in Rosemead Boulevard consists of the following: 1. Caltran5 Drains. A5 part of the State Highway improvements for Rosemead Boulevard between Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard constructed in the early 1950'5, Caltran5 installed two Storm drains to Serve this reach. One of the drains extends from the Rio Hondo Channel, just north of Garvey Avenue, to the I- 10 Freeway underpass, serving both the City of Rosemead on the west half of Rosemead Boulevard and the City of El Monte on the east half (see Figure 12). The other drain extends from the Rubio Wash, just south of the 1-10 Freeway, to Ralph Street. The two drains combined create a network of 38 catch basins linked in Series by 15- to 36-inch RCP. However, excluding the catch basing in the City of El Monte and on the freeway ramps (and those intercepted by Glenmead Drain described below), only 14 catch basins are actually located within Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Rosemead. 17 Figure 11- 5ubotandard curb ramp. Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 2. Glenmead Drain, Line "A". The Loo Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) constructed this Storm drain in 1995. The drain was designed to capture Storm runoff along Rosemead Boulevard and from Several Side 5treet5 between Marshall Street and Valley Boulevard. The drain outlets to Rubio Wash a few blocks west of Rosemead Boulevard via Marshall Street, intercepting a portion of Caltran5' Storm drain (7 catch basins between Marshall 5treet and Ralph Street) along the way. A total of 17 catch basins within Rosemead Boulevard and the immediate Side streets are connected to the mainline. 3. Project No. 6801, Unit 1, Line "A". The Loo Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) constructed this drain a5 part of the 1964 Storm Drain Bond 155ue. The drain runs from west to east in Valley Boulevard, crosses Rosemead Boulevard, and outlets to LACFCD Project No. 524 approximately a half-mile east. Four catch basins located at the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard capture Storm runoff generated between Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive. 4. Project No. 524, Line "A". The LACFCD constructed this drain a5 part of the 1958 5torm Drain Bond 155ue. The drain runs from west to east in Mission Drive, cro55e5 Rosemead Boulevard, and outlets to the Eaton Wash approximately one mile southeast. Six catch baoin5 located at the intersection of Mio9lon Drive and Rosemead Boulevard capture Storm runoff generated between Mission Road and Lower Azusa Road. 5. Rudell Pump 5tation. A5 part of the 5tate Highway improvements for Rosemead Boulevard in the vicinity of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing constructed in the late 1930'5, Caltran5 built the Rudell Pump 5tation. The pump 5tation i5 designed to drain the Sump area below the UPRR cro55ing, also known a5 the Rudell Underpass (see Figure 13). 5torm runoff i5 generated from the areas immediately north (City of Temple City) and South (City of Rosemead) of the underpa55. The pump 5tation conoiot5 of two catch baoin5 at the underpa55 and a pump house located atop the roadway embankment in the City of Temple City (see Figure 14). 18 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study 19 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Figure 13. '~,IgY1 J.Aw:~9 Kudell Underpaoo (northbound Kooemead boulevard at UrKK croocing) 20 Figure 14. Kudell Pump Station (in the City of Temple City) Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Historically, the Storm drain System in Po5emead Boulevard has performed adequately. The City of Rosemead has experienced few incidents of Street flooding during the life of the System. Caltrano and LACDPW have provided routine maintenance of their respective Storm drains. With the exception of one damaged catch basin north of Mi55ion Drive (see Figure 15), all the catch basins are in relatively good condition. Upon the 5tate'S relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City of Rosemead, the City intends to transfer all former Caltrano drains to LACDPW for maintenance. However, the Caltran5-built Storm drains do not meet LACDPW 5 current design Standards, a5 required for acceptance of maintenance. Specifically, all 15-inch RCP connector pipes would need to be upgraded to 18-inch RCP, and each catch basin Should be connected to a Storm drain "mainline" (minimum 24-inch RCP) that includes several manholes for maintenance acce55. Furthermore, in compliance with NPDE5 Permit requirements, each catch basin along Rosemead Boulevard (43 counted) Should be outfitted with a filter insert (or Similar DMP) to capture and reduce the amount of debris and pollutants entering the Storm drain System. These are Significant considerations for the City in accepting relinquishment. 21 Figure 15. Damaged catch basin just north of Mi55ion Drive Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Given the fact that the drainage system in Rosemead Boulevard has performed satisfactorily and the catch basins and Street Slopes on the Side Streets are functioning, an extensive investigation of the overall hydraulics and hydrology was not performed. An evaluation of the depth of design storm flow in Rosemead Boulevard upstream of both Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive found that storm drain laterals branching off of Project Nos. 6801 and 524 would not be required. Catch Basins The drainage on Rosemead Boulevard historically has been Satisfactory. Evidently the catch basins and slopes are ouch that drainage including from side otreete ie managed quite well. AS a result, an extensive investigation of hydraulico and hydrology wao not performed. D. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS Traffic Signals The traffic oignals were evaluated from field oboervationo and the following deficiencies were identified. The existing 170 controllers inotalled in 1978 ohould be replaced with 2070 controllers. The current City otandard for new inotallationo io the 2070 controller or equivalent. When the City taken over maintenance it expects a controller with IT5 and major communications capabilities that will serve the City's future citywide traffic oignal system until the year 2020. The controllers should continue to run on the coordinated system for Rosemead Boulevard until incorporated into the citywide system. There are a total of 7 locations. The intersection of Rosemead at Lower Azusa Road Should be upgraded with 2 new Type 26 otandarde with 35 to 40' mast arms to accommodate protected left-turn oignale and through-movement oignalo. The median-mounted Signals can then be removed along with the Type 1-A and Type 17 poles. It io accepted practice on new irite roectiono to place all left-turn signals on the overhead maot arm. This hao become the standard due to median-mounted signals being damaged or destroyed by traffic accidents and for better visibility. Therefore the City would like to bring the intersection up to current design standards. Further, all existing 8" signals Should be replaced by 12" signals ao all modifications in recent years in the City have provided. All of the combination 8" and 12" Signals are presently being replaced by all 12" sectiono under separate contract leaving 22 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study three 8" 5ignalo to be replaced. The street name signs and luminaires Should be replaced due to age. Both the internally illuminated Street name signs and luminaires are at least 5,5 years old and have faded Sign panels and degraded refractors in the luminaires which would require immediate maintenance or replacement. The intersection of Rosemead Boulevard at Glendon Way Should be upgraded with 2 new Type 26 standards with 40' mast arms to accommodate protected left-turn 5ignal5 and through-movement 5ignal5. The median-mounted 5ignal5 and 1-A poles would be removed along with the current Type 17 standards. Further, any existing 8" 5ignal5 Should be replaced by 12" 5ignal5. The combination 8" and 12" 5ignal5 are presently being reconfigured to all 12" Sections under Separate contract leaving five 8" 5ignal5 to be replaced by 12" 5ignal5. The Street name 5igno and luminaires Should be replaced due to age. Both the internally illuminated Street name Signs and luminaires are at least 38 years old and have faded Sign panels and degraded refractors in the luminaires. All pedestrian pushbuttons Should be removed from median locations for Safety rea5on5. They Should match the existing conditions at Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard There are approximately 9 pedestrian pushbuttons at 5 locations, which Should be removed. All of the pedestrian pushbuttons on traffic Signal 5tandard5 at all locations will have to be upgraded to ADA mushroom-type pushbuttons and pedestrian ramps installed where required. Generally the rest of the traffic 5ignal5, poles and Signs on Rosemead Boulevard look good and are acceptable. The Street light system on Rosemead Boulevard needs to be replaced with a more adequate oy5tem using marbelite poles with underground feed and 150 W H125 Street lights installed on both 5ide5 of the Street at regular intervals. The present lights with the exception of 3 locations are all on one side of the arterial mounted on wood power poles. This creates deficient lighting due to the width of the Street and the center median divider. The present lighting will not extend beyond the median. There are numerous Sign poles that need to be changed from Uni5trut to round Steel poles to meet the City of Rosemead round pole Standard. Approximately 42 Sign poles have to be changed to round Steel poles. 23 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study The striping and loops will have to be replaced after the street i5 resurfaced. The Striping will match the existing Striping at Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard. Everything i5 thermoplastic except for the Detail 9 Skip lines, the Detail 25 left edge lines and the 50' Stripes at each intersection at the end of the kip line. Medians The high level of traffic, much of it non-local and pass-through towards the 10 and 60 Freeways, which io anticipated for this roadway, demands attention to any means available to mitigate the potential for accidents caused by confused or reckieos drivers in these crowded conditions. The traffic calming effect, Separation of opposing traffic and Solidly defined traffic flow patterns are extremely beneficial attributes provided by the raised medians. Fully functional medians Should be a part of the establishment of an acceptable roadway for relinq,uiohment due to the extreme demands to be made on the roadway and on those responsible for providing Safety for the traveling public. There io also much to be gained in terms of pedestrian Safety at croooingS, where median noses provide important refuge for wayward pedestrians in a busy wide street such a5 Rosemead Boulevard. This is one. reason why providing medians including a minimum width along left-turn pockets to crucial. The other reason is to maintain through circulation near crowded intersections and avoid crossover into on-coming traffic. Two-foot wide median widths along left-turn pockets that will occur without Street widening are very narrow for pedestrian refuge and actually dangerous if a pedestrian loot footing or balance along the edge. A fall into traffic could be disastrous. However, considering the generally low volume of pedestrian traffic, this ohould suffice, except at the intersection of Mission Avenue adjacent to Rosemead High School. The high volume of young pedestrians makes a wider 4-foot pedestrian refuge important at that location. The median widths south of the 10 Freeway and at the most northerly Segment at the north City limit are 6 feet. This does not provide a reasonable space for typical landscape. These medians are considered deficient in this regard. A width of 8 feet is considered the absolute minimum for landscaping to be viable. Widening the median in both oegmento iS possible, while maintaining the 3-lane configuration and the perimeter concrete improvements. The northern segment would be widened one foot on each Side oymmetrically. The segment South of the 10 Freeway Should be widened on the west Side by 2 feet. The City of El Monte may eventually widen the other half of the median when 24 • • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study north of Valley and South of the 10 Freeway. Luminaires and ballasts will also need to be replaced ao part of this work because of non-conforming voltages, the general concern for energy efficiency, and basic compatibility between the old and new hardware. The City has a Standard that includes a photocell on each light. E. PARKWAY TREES Street Trees Over the length of Rosemead Boulevard, there are no Street treee. There is easily room for 60 trees as noted on the field Survey by our arborist. This would certainly be considered a deficiency in an urban environment, as Rosemead Boulevard i5 today. It appears that Since 1950, when construction was completed, lack of Street trees was not recognized as an oversight. It is common to See street trees along similar highway settings throughout Southern California. The City of Rosemead has trees on all of its streets and arterials, and considers it to be an important element in the overall street infrastructure. City standards mandate that street trees be added in any event, when the roadway becomes City right-of-way. A complete listing of available locations, including any relevant interferences is included in Appendix C. In the ongoing battle to forestall upheaval of sidewalks and curbs by tree roots, the City has learned the hard way that only a comprehensive strategy can mitigate the problem to an acceptable level. Otherwise, tree roots inevitably seek the surface where moisture can be found, causing displacement of surface improvements. Even the best root control barriers have proven incapable of resisting this action, though they delay it Substantially. The additional element needed, beyond common root control devices and deep watering, is keeping the predominant soil moisture below ground. This can be accomplished by a technique commonly referred to as structural soil. This is a design soil mix, that is good for roots and tree support, and also quickly percolates water to the bottom strata. It needs to be protected from infiltration of fine particles by using a geotextile fabric. This complete Strategy comes as close to eliminating concrete surface upheaval by roots as is presently possible. The ultimate responsibility to repair damaged sidewalk, which will inevitably occur regardless, will be borne by the City after relinquishment. 5uch responsibility will be acceptable if all reasonable measures are applied to neutralize the problem. 26 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Finally, to ensure the Short- and long-term success for the Street tree planting, an irrigation system will be needed; Something that will not be very costly when installed when the Sidewalk or pavement io removed. F. UTILITIES The electric utilities in Rosemead boulevard are Still overhead on wooden poles. A major administrative effort will be required to achieve underground utilities prior to construction of roadway pavement or Sidewalk. There will also be considerable utility coordination and construction management involved in implementing the proposed utility undergrounding and other utility work, in conjunction with the rehabilitation work. Some utilities will likely desire to upgrade their facilities before surface rehabilitation is completed, so the need for careful coordination is clear. The impacts of utility work in terms of contractor scheduling will likely be significant. Reasonable contingencies for such interference are built into the cost estimates for relevant items. G. ADMINISTRATIVE/ENGINEERING Traffic Control Plans Work area traffic control plans will have to be developed and work area control devices installed before work can commence. The work will involve numerous phases and will be a major design effort; proper advance planning will save major costs as part of an overall rehabilitation plan. Scheduling work in phases while maintaining good traffic circulation is extremely important and must be balanced with the needs of the contractor to expeditiously perform construction. Quality work by a team of traffic and construction engineering specialists will be necessary to optimize the approach. Utility Coordination As discussed in the Utilities section, the utility situation is complicated. There are issues related to the relocation of interfering facilities, scheduling of utility upgrades in coordination with rehabilitation construction work, gathering utility information and disseminating notifications to utilities, and field coordination during construction. As such, utility coordination will be a significant cost. As-Built Drawing Establishment A substantial amount of research will be needed to establish a reasonable Oct of record drawings for the infrastructure in Rosemead Boulevard. Fortunately, most of this will be addressed during the course of preparing plans for the rehabilitation work. 5till, 27 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study elements such a5 traffic signal plane or piano for other facilities not fully rehabilitated will need to be researched and acquired or drafted. Eotimates of these coots need to be included to provide for relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard ao a facility, just as elements of a commercial building are documented to provide effective maintenance. Reconciliation of On-Going Permits It io expected that there will be existing permits either in process or with work underway, which need to be adopted by the City of Rosemead, both adminiotratively and procedurally. The adminiotrative work will be quite Significant and the costs of inspection to catch up with current circumstances will be duplicative of the work already performed by Caltrans. Design Engineering/Surveying The coot of design Survey and engineering will be approximately 12 percent of the construction cost. Quality construction plans and Specifications are crucial to obtaining oolid low bids and avoiding change orders during construction. Construction Engineering Construction Surveying, construction management, testing and inspection will also be coots incurred in the rehabilitation construction. These coots will tend to be at leaot 15 percent of the construction costo. The quality and durability of the rehabilitation work will depend on good construction engineering. 28 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study V. SUMMARY OF REHABILITATION PLAN Based on the thorough evaluation of conditions and necessary remediationS described earlier, a rehabilitation plan evolved that io expeditious and coot-effective in bringing about an acceptable roadway for relinquishment. This plan integrates all aspects into a series of construction procedures that avoids conflicts between elements, and leads to major coot savings by performing each element in a particular Strategy and sequence. Overall Rehabilitation Plan 1. Excavate perimeter concrete north of Valley Boulevard. 2. Install conduits under excavated Sidewalk area and other areas with no Sidewalk at present - Street light, interconnect (by others), irrigation and traffic Signal. 3. Install curb and gutter north of Valley boulevard and where not existing at present (south of the 10 Freeway). 4. Install Structural Soil, root control devices, traffic Signs, and streetlights. 5. Install driveways, Sidewalk and ADA ramps. 6. Excavate Slow loner, and install pavement Section and conduit crossings. 7. Install remainder of conduit under reconstructed roadway pavement along where Sidewalk is to remain. 8. Install reconfigured median and Street trees. 9. Excavate foot lanes and install pavement Section and conduit croooinoo. 10. Install finish central pavement and Striping. 11. Establish record drawings for all facilities. There are many advantages to this plan where full Sidewalk removal occurs, as opposed to a out and patch Strategy for sidewalk deficiencies. The coots are dramatically reduced for removal and construction by allowing the continuous, uniform operation by a contractor's workforce. Items ouch ao conduits and root control devices can be easily 29 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study installed when Sidewalks or pavement are removed, avoiding expensive and extensive patching. Selective sawcutting and over-cutting to Score lines; localized excavations with small, less effective equipment; and isolated construction zones with inefficient access for hauling and delivery are eliminated. A brief Summary of the elements to be constructed is provided below a5 a quick reference in understanding the plan and cost estimate. A. PAVEMENT Reconstruct with 9 inches of FCC on 5 inches of Lean Treated Base (LT5) on 7 inches of aggregate base over full width. B. PERIMETER CONCRETE Reconstruct failed sidewalk, cross gutter and driveways, and construct new curb ramps and driveways to conform to ADA standards between Glendon Way and Rosemead Boulevard Frontage. Install new sidewalk and curb and gutter north of Rosemead Boulevard Frontage and South of Glendon Way, including costs for maintaining safe pedestrian and vehicle access to shops and businesses. C. STORM DRAIN ELEMENTS Construct new catch basins in accordance with American Public Works and Loo Angeles County Department of Public Works standards, including 18-inch RCP laterals. Construct approximately 1,200 linear feet of 24-inch RCP mainline storm drain. Install automatic retractable catch basin screens and filters in all catch basins. D. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS Traffic Signals Install new Econolite A5C-2-2200 Type 2 controllers in Type P cabinets with U1`5's, wired for Opticom and fiber optics multi-circuit interconnect, including modules to communicate the City's ICONS signal coordination master system software. 30 • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Retrofit traffic signalr at Lower Azusa Road and Glendon Way with new poles, mast arms and Signal heads. Install ADA-compliant pedestrian pushbuttons at traffic-controlled intersections. Change 8-inch traffic signals to 12-inch with red, yellow, and green LED's, with yellow LED modules added to all 12-inch traffic signals, and retrofit with hand/man LED pedestrian modules. Medians Narrow the medians between the 10 Freeway and north of Lower Azusa Road. Striping and Marking Install thermoplastic rtripe5 and pavement markings and paint lane liner. Install rained pavement markers on all striper. Traffic Signage Install new rign5 where mir5ing or different from acceptable standards. Install all new 5ignpostr. Replace damaged 5ign5. Reface all Signs with diminished reflectivity (approximately 70 percent of current Signage). Streetlights Install underground streetlight System with new poles and 150 W HF5 luminaires. E. PARKWAY TREES Install all new parkway treer on optimal pattern, including root control meaoure5 and irrigation. 31 • F. UTILITIES • Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study Provide contingencies for construction interference with utility work connected with construction (included in item contingencies). G. ADMINISTRATIVE/ENGINEERING Provide the following work necessary to complete the overall rehabilitation plan: • Prepare Traffic Control Plano • Provide Utility Coordination • Establish Record Drawings • Reconcile On-Going Permits • Provide Design Engineering and Surveying • Provide Construction Engineering, including testing and surveying. 32 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study VI. COST ESTIMATE The total coot of all the recommended improvements io estimated at $12,500,000, including engineering and other related costs. An itemized coot estimate 15 provided on the following pages. 33 City of Rosemead Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment North City Limit to South City Limit Estimate of Cost No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost :+-rtti e3 . ntea _~dfi , GENERAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $85,000.00 $85,000.00 2 Traffic control 1 LS $135.282.00 $135.282.00 3 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $50,000.00 S50,000.00 4 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Subtotal: $320,282.00 PAVEMENT 5 Unclassified excavation 23,238 CY $35.00 $813,330.00 6 Base material, crushed aggregate base 598 TON $30.00 $17,940.00 7 Lean treated base 471,425 SF $4.00 $1,885,700.00 8 PCC pavement 471,425 SF $6.50 $3,064,262.50 9 Adjust manhole to grade 41 EA $450.00 $18.450.00 10 Adjust value to grade 97 EA $150.00 $14,550.00 11 Guardrail 750 LF $100.00 $75,000.00 Subtotal: $5,889,232.50 PERIMETER CONCRETE 12 Excavation 1,721 CY $45.00 $77,445.00 13 Curb and utter 10.278 LF $20.00 $205,560.00 14 4" thick PCC sidewalk 60,102 SF $4.50 $270,459.00 15 ADA ramps 34 EA $1,500.00 $51,000.00 16 Curb drain 37 EA $300.00 $11,100.00 17 6" commercial drivewa 16,940 SF $6.00 $101,640.00 18 Repair cross-gutter 180 SF $15.00 $2,700.00 19 AC patch behind cross-gutter 270 SF $6.00 $1,620.00 20 Repair sidewalk 1,996 LF $6.00 $11,976.00 21 Repair curb and utter 250 LF $30.00 $7,500.00 Subtotal: $741,000.00 STORM DRAIN 22 Catch basin with lateral (W > 10') 4 EA $10,000.00 $40,000.00 23 Catch basin with lateral W < 10') 10 EA $800.00 $8.000.00 24 24-inch RCP 1,200 LF $120.00 $144.000.00 25 Catch basin screens 43 EA $2,400.00 $103,200.00 26 Catch basin filters 43 EA $1,200.00 $51.600.00 Subtotal: $346,800.00 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS Traffic Signal Upgrades 27 Traffic signal upgrades - Glendon 1 LS $70,000.00 $70,000.00 28 Traffic signal upgrades - Lower Azusa 1 LS $100.000.00 $100,000.00 29 Install 2070 Marshall 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 30 Install 2070 Mission Drive 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 31 Install 2070 Valle Boulevard 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 32 Install 2070 Telstar 1 LS $12,000.00 $12.000.00 33 Install 2070 Whitmore 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 34 Install ADA PPB Marshall 8 EA $210.00 $1,680.00 35 Instali ADA PPB Mission Boulevard 6 EA $210.00 $1,260.00 36 Install ADA PPB Valle Boulevard 4 EA $210.00 $840.00 37 Traffic signal loop detectors 135 EA $400.00 $54,000.00 Subtotal. $287,780.00 1 of 3 0 0 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment North City Limit to South City Limit Estimate of Cost No. ;:n Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost Y'~:3sasukwF:sa.-• -v ar_e~-"' - ~~.~~-.=:~E`+==- L'`~ii"e'~'laiakr~:~ - : ina~? _ hrt.-.,-.:~.,_-4.. Medians 38 Unclassified excavation 1,723 CY $35.00 $60,305.00 39 Median curb 9,130 LF $15.00 $136,950.00 40 Reestablish irrigation heads 1,660 LF $3.00 $4,980.00 41 Reestablish hardscape 14,895 SF $6.00 $89,370.00 42 Curb and gutter (widen strips) 960 LF $20.00 $19,200.00 43 Sidewalk match (widen strips) 8,160 SF $5.50 $44,880.00 Subtotal: $355,685.00 Striping and Markin 44 4" striping (THERMO) (two-coat paint) 1,510 LF $0.10 $151.00 45 Detail 38 (THERMO) 2,740 LF $1.70 $4,658.00 46 Pavement Markings (THERMO) 1,465 SF $4.60 $6,739.00 47 Detail 25 (THERMO 14,614 LF $0.35 $5,114.90 48 12" Striping (THERMO) 3,172 LF $7.75 $24,583.00 49 Detail 09 (THERMO) 34,040 LF $0.20 $6,808.00 50 Red curb painting 990 LF $1.50 $1.485.00 Subtotal: $49,538.90 Traffic Si na e 51 Si n replacing 119 EA $200.00 $23,800.00 52 Si n and post (install) 42 EA $150.00 $6,300.00 Subtotal: $30,100.00 Street Lighting 53 Conduit/wire installation 13,501 LF $12.00 $162,012.00 54 150 HIPS Luminaire 63 EA $575.00 $36,225.00 55 Marbelite Poles 63 EA $3,500.00 $220,500.00 56 Pull boxes 63 EA $300.00 $18,900.00 57 Conduit 12,000 LF $20.00 $240,000.00 58 14 Gauge wire 25,000 LF $0.35 $8,750.00 Subtotal: $686,387.00 PARKWAY TREES 59 Structural soil 624 CY $65.00 $40,560.00 60 Filter fabic 3,165 SY $12.00 $37,980.00 61 Root control barrier 66 EA $225.00 $14,850.00 62 Install street tree (not including S/Fw) 66 EA $400.00 $26,400.00 63 Tree grates 66 EA $600.00 $39,600.00 64 Parkway tree irrigation system 1 LS $64,769.51 $64,769.51 65 Landscape maintenance 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Subtotal: $229,159.51 UTILITY CONTINGENCY 66 Utility contingency 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00 Subtotal: Subtotal Cone struction Contract: $200,000.00 $9,135,964.91 Inflation over 2 years: 4% $365,438.60 10% contingency: $913,596.49 Subtotal: $10,415,000.00 2 of 3 • s Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment North City Limit to South City Limit Estimate of Cost No. Descri tion Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost ADMINISTRATIVE/ENGINEERING 67 Traffic control plan 1 LS $90,000.00 $90,000.00 68 Utility coordination 1 LS $65,00000 $65,000.00 69 Research/establish record drawings 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 70 Reconcile on-going permits 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 71 Design surveying 1 LS $75,000.00 $75.000.00 72 Design engineering 1 LS $850,000.00 $850,000.00 73 Construction engineering 1 LS $850,000.00 $850,000.00 74 Construction surveying 1 LS $130,000.00 $130.000.00 Subtotal: $2,085,000.00 GRAND TOTAL: $12,500,000.00 3 of 3 Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study AFFENDIX A Aerial Fhotoo of Existing Curb, Gutter and 51dewalk • J~ A • ti crj Y Y• .4; el-lim YYY ~ +5y Q co t 3 I: y i T.. W • Q r. t J -1 F • F ~S r LL. O E E T LL O. 0 W40 A 0& mr1ftwu Awl 0 0 saw F s rk AVM ~r # - =,-a, • am" fts! 00 • p ..r mss:=ac i 46 0 I . 's - W O ` I z~ /s k 8~A'sy 4 • t - Y -R:rJ I •F 9 0 R Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study AFFENDIX P> Deflection Analyoio Report, 9 0 PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION REPORT ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: WILLDAN Industry, California prepared by: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc. May 29, 2003 MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 May 29, 2003 Mr. Ken Rukavina Willdan 13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405 Industry, CA 91746 Subject: Pavement Investigation Report Rosemead Boulevard Rosemead, California ]\4ACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Dear Mr. Rukavina: MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc. (MACTEC) has completed an investigation of the conditions on the Rosemead Boulevard within the City of Rosemead, California. This survey was performed in general accordance with MACTEC Proposal 70199-0-0000.2919, dated September 26, 2002. This report presents our findings, and provides strategies and recommendations for pavement structural upgrades. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable construction materials consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. It has been a pleasure to work with you on this project and we look forward to being of continued service to provide bid documents and assistance during construction. if you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely yours, AIACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc. Thomas Kirk, P.E. Senior Engineer- Pavements and Construction tllosangeles-9lGroapslProjecrst70131 GeoiecW001-prnil10359 WilldanlRosemd Relinq Pvmr-17iDeliverableslRosemead B1 Pmt Report. doc TABLE OF CONTENTS • Page 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ] ] 2.0 SCOPE OF '%A'ORK 2 3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..........................................3 5.0 REHABILITATION METHODS 8 FLECTION TEST RESULTS AND RECO1\41\9ENDATIONS 0 D 9 6. E 7.0 STRUCTURAL SECTIONS ] 3 13 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 14 9.0 BASIS OF REPORT LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 7.1 - Structural Section Recommendations - Reconstruction 13 Table 7. 2 Structural Section Recommendations - Overlay Nortb of Lower Azusa 13 APPENDIX A - DEFLECTION RESULTS • TABLE ONE- OVERLAY THICKNESS PROJECTIONS • DEFLECTION DATA • STATION MAP APPENDIX B - CORES AND SOIL TESTS • CORE TABLE • R-VALUES s • Wildan - Pavement Investigation Report Alay29, 2003 MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Rosemead Boulevard extends from the railroad bridge grade separation at the northern city boundary to the Rio Hondo channel bridge located south of the 10 Freeway at the southern city boundary. South of the freeway, the portion of Rosemead Boulevard within the city limits includes only the southbound side of the median. Three lanes exist on this side of the median with a shoulder and no parking. North of the 10 Freeway there are two lanes in each direction with parking in most areas, with the full roadway within the City. The full-length is approximately 1.5 miles, with the portion south of the 10 Freeway approximately 0.6 mile. The purpose of this report is to address the pavement conditions based on coring investigations, soils testing, and deflection testing. A thorough visual assessment of conditions, in conjunction with the data gathered through testing procedures, were very important to this study. The potential for rehabilitation through structural overlay or other structural improvements for an extended service life will be analyzed, with recommendations provided. Traffic data was provided by the City that extended a traffic index (TI) of 10.5 based on about 50,000 vehicles per day, relatively high truck traffic and moderate growth rates. It seems clear that the roadway will need to be increased to three lanes in each direction in the near future. Once these additional lanes are provided, the growth rates are likely to increase quite dramatically. Therefore a TI of 11.0 was also applied as a point of reference. 2.0 SCOPE OF NVORK The work described below is sequential in nature. Work performed in each task may have dictated the steps, which were necessary in subsequent tasks. in some cases, additional tasks, not specifically described in this scope of work, may have become required as a result of preceding work. The following is a detailed description of the originally proposed services: l) Mark core locations appropriate to determine existing structural sections and provide a log of locations for coring crew and exhibit for Caltrans permit. 2) Provide coring and 3 R-value tests. 3) Prepare a detailed log of core results. 4) Coordinate deflection testing for selected wheel paths in various lanes, based on core information and evaluation of field conditions. • Wildan - Puvemenr Invesrigarion Reporr MACTEC Proiecr 7013110359-6 May2 9, 200-3 Page 2 5) Perform deflection testing at 50-foot intervals in lanes with evident weakness and 100-foot intervals in other lanes. 6) Provide graphical representations of deflections in the various lanes. 7) Provide typical photographs of conditions on various segments in similar condition, and describe the conditions on the roadway pavement in the various segments. 8) Calculate overlay requirements for AC and ARAM strategies, based on Caltrans Method 356. 9) Prepare tables showing development of overlay requirements and a summary of recommended strategies for structural upgrade. 10) Provide structural sections for concrete and AC reconstruction sections. 11) Provide descriptions of overlay or reconstruction strategies appropriate to the pavement conditions, including general information (not precise locations; only example locations) about areas requiring reconstruction. 12) Prepare recommendations for miscellaneous preparation measures, such as crackfrlling, leveling course, etc. 13) Compile the report into appropriate sections, including appendices of all data used in the analysis. 14) Provide two copies of a preliminary draft, and four copies of the final report after requested revisions, plus a reproducible unbound original. 3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS Rosemead Boulevard in the City of Rosemead has provided an arterial route for the region since at least the early 1920s. Some of that original roadway section still exists as the base layer of pavement in the nor-them area of the City. In 1937, the portion North of Valley Boulevard was widened, with one lane in each direction constructed of concrete, with the original AC pavement in the middle of the roadway, and wide AC shoulders were added on each side of the street. Medians were added in this segment probably around 1950. The segment south of Valley Boulevard was fully reconstructed in 1950. The portion of this segment south of the 10 Freeway had shoulders constructed sometime thereafter to allow for three lanes in each direction. In all of these cases, the original pavements, whether constructed in l 920s, 1937 or 1950, still exist as the base layer of pavement. The thicknesses of those original AC base pavements are generally 3 Alay29, 1003 Wildun - Puvetnent Investigation Report Page 3 mACTEC Project 7013110359-6 inches or less, predominantly on local native soil without any base material. In some areas an overlay was placed, but these reached a state of high fatigue long ago. An asphalt rubber chip seal was provided to protect the deteriorating pavement north of the freeway in 1988, but now potholes are developing in many locations on that segment. The first overlay was placed on the portion south of the freeway fairly recently, most likely within the past five years, but appears to be failing quite rapidly at this time. The most important general finding is that the asphalt pavement structure is so thin and deteriorating that it cannot support the demands placed on this roadway under the present traffic loading. The one obvious exception of course is the portland cement concrete (PCC) intersection at the Valley Boulevard, which is a recent addition and is in excellent condition. There is also a segment of concrete pavement at the north end of the project, which was constructed in 1950. It is quite narrow for 2-lane traffic in each direction, and the outer truck wheel paths tend to encroach into the AC shoulder. The concrete slab system is well along into a gradual breakup into smaller pieces. In summary, the asphalt pavement is in poor condition with two exceptions. The number one lane of the three lanes south of the freeway is not cracked, however it was overlaid only about five years ago. All the other lanes in this segment are failing rapidly. The other segment is the southbound lanes north of Valley to just north of Lower Azusa Road, which has an asphalt rubber hot mix overlay on the asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane. However, the overlay is severely rutted and will continue to worsen in this regard as a time passes. Rutting pavement is so fluid that the cracks underneath do not reflect up, however, the underlying deterioration still exists, and the rutted areas will need to be removed, since it is unstable pavement. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions of the pavements were based on close visual assessment and core sampling at locations selected based on the appearance typical of the overall pavement in the area. R-values for soils are relatively constant at approximately 70 over the length of the street. s • Moti 29, 2003 Ifildan - Pavement Inve.vigo/ion Repon Page 4 MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 4.1 RIO RONDO BRIDGE TO 10 FREEWAY Existing Structural Section Aside from a segment of transitioning in the vicinity of the on/off ramps at the 10 Freeway, the street consists of a narrow 6-foot median and three lanes of pavement on either side. The median appears to be part of the original construction with a 2-percent cross slope indicated on the original as-built drawings. An AC shoulder of variable width exists along the edge of the travel way with no parking. On the southbound side, a V-gutter exists at the edge of the shoulder from the bridge north to about halfway between the two cross streets, Telstar Avenue and Whitmore Street. North of the V-gutter is an asphalt berm. The roadway was widened to the present 3-lane configuration from the original two lanes sometime in the past. All wheel paths are encompassed by the original pavement section of 3 to 3 '/.-inches of AC on native material, shown on the original as-built plans, dated 1950. These original plans indicate cement treated base, but evidently the soil was of such good quality at this location near the Rio Hondo River alluvial zone, that the cement treated base was not used along this length of the roadway. This structural section extends 36 feet out from the median curb on both sides of the median. The additional width was added at a later time to create a shoulder. The shoulder is in good condition. Core Results Based on cores, overlays have been installed on the original section as follows: A single overlay of 2'/.- to 21/2-inch thickness was placed on the 3 to 3'/.-inch original AC pavement. The same section was encountered in both No. 2 and No. 3 lanes. The overlay appears to have been placed fairly recently, most likely within the past 5 years. Unfortunately, the overlay seems to not be well bonded to the existing original surface, since the core in the No. 2 lane was completely disbonded and very wet at the interface between the layers. The median curb face was reduced in the last overlay. Visual Structural Condition The existing condition has severe alligator cracking developing in the No. 3 right wheel paths. The left wheel path is in slightly better condition but very similar. The same situation exists on the No. 2 lane, where conditions are somewhat better, but alligator • i N''ildan - Pavement lnvestigatinn Report May19, S MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 5 cracking still exists in both wheel paths. The No. 1 lane is essentially free of cracks at present. All of the cracking is reflecting through the relatively recent overlay, placed within the past 5 or 6 years. 4.2 10 FREENVAY TO VALLEY BOULEVARD Existing Structural Section This segment of roadway has two lanes in each direction with parking on both sides. Originally a 16- foot median was constructed with 32 feet from median curb to a 2-foot curb and gutter on both sides. The original median configuration and curb and gutter are still in place. Basically, the same original structural section appears on the as-built drawings, dated 1950, as for the pavement south of the 10 Freeway, i.e., 4-inches AC on 8-inches cement treated base. However, in this case, some cement treated base was actually installed, but only on the southbound side based on the cores. The addition of cement treated base corresponds with what appears to be a slightly lesser quality of soil north of the freeway. Core Results There is a difference in pavement section on the roadway based on core sampling as follows: Both sides of the street have an asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane on the surface that was installed in 1988. The southbound side had a pavement thickness of 5 to 5'/. inches, most likely with an overlay that was difficult to discern. It is possible that the overlay was so well bonded and of the same mix type, so that the interface was not detectable. Based on as-built plans, the general pavement section in other areas, and the reduction in curb face, it seems clear that an overlay was actually performed. This pavement was placed on 6 inches of cement treated base. The northbound side had a '/.-inch wear course on 1'/2-inch overlay that was on a wet, disbonded and badly decomposed layer l '/z-inch thick in the No. 1 lane. The core in the No. 2 lane was a 3-inch overlay on a 2-inch layer of AC. Both of these pavements were placed on 12-inch decomposed granite sub base. • 0 Moy29, 2003 14 ildun - Pavement lnvestigution Report AdACTEC Pro/ect 7013110359-6 Page 6 Visual Structural Condition All wheel paths in all lanes have relatively severe alligator cracking. The cracking tends to be more extensive and more severe in the No. 2 lanes. Potholes are developing and have been patched in numerous locations. The severity of cracking is at least as bad if not worse in the northbound No. I lane as in the northbound No. 2 lane, possibly due to median irrigation water intrusion. The southbound lanes are in better condition than the northbound side. The severity of existing cracking is to a great extent masked by the asphalt rubber chip sea] membrane that was installed in 1988. In most areas except near potholes, the cracks are visible, but have healed over due to the high percentage of asphalt rubber binder in the membrane. 43 VALLE), BOULEVARD TO 500 FEET FORTH OF LOWER AZUSA ROAD Existing Structural Section North of Valley Boulevard, medians did not exist in the first overlay section constructed in 1937. Medians were added about 1950. The central 28 feet of pavement was originally constructed, prior to the structural upgrade performed in 1937. In 1937, the plans called for the central 28 feet to be overlaid with 2 inches of AC along with construction of the outer 23 feet of pavement on either side of this central strip. These outer areas consist of an 11-foot width of 61/2-inch concrete with edges thickened to 9 inches over the outer 2 feet of the slab on both sides. Dowels were installed on joints. The concrete strips were installed adjacent to and on both sides of the central 28-foot strip, which are shown on the original plans to be placed at matching grades to the top of the 2-inch AC overlay over the central strip of AC. Cores revealed a change that was made as discussed under Core Results below. The outer strips of pavement on both sides of the street consist of an approximately 12-foot width of 3-inch AC on native subgrade, originally constructed with the concrete pavement in 1937. A 14-foot median was later installed on this se-ment. This created the present lane configuration of number one lanes with left wheel paths on AC next to the median and right wheel paths comfortably within the concrete pavement strip. The No. 2 lanes have left wheel paths well within the concrete area with the right wheel paths fully on the AC strip between thegutter and the concrete strip. Core Results Cores indicate that the street was constructed generally corresponding with original plans with some significant changes. An asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane was installed on both sides full- • Wildun - Puventent Investigurion Report MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 • May29, 2003 Page 7 length and an overlay of asphalt rubber hot mix was added on the membrane on the southbound side in 1988. The ARHM overlay was terminated at the north and of the left turn pocket north of Lower Azusa Road. The cores revealed the following underlying pavement structure: A core in the area between the concrete strip and the median northbound revealed a 2%z-inch laver on another 21/2-inch layer, which were disbonded from each other and wet at the interface. This corresponds with the as-built plans of the original pavement overlaid at the time of the placement of the concrete strip. A core in the No. 2 northbound lane outside of the concrete strip revealed 2-3/8-inch pavement, again corresponding with the as-built plans for widening adjacent to the concrete strip. A third core in the concrete strip in the No. 1 lane southbound revealed that a 2 3/8-inch overlay had been placed on the PCC indicating that the entire width received a 2 3/8- to 2'/2- inch lift at the time of completion of the PCC strip. The PCC was evidently constructed on grade with the previously existing central roadway, rather than on grade with the top of the overlay elevation. A core in the southbound No. 2 lane north of the left turn pocket at Lower Azusa Road had the asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane on a 11/2-inch AC overlay on 7-inch thick PCC, corresponding with the original as-built plans, with the addition of the AC overlay and membrane. The asphalt rubber hot nvx overlay was evidently terminated north of Lower Azusa Road. This short segment also had one other difference, because it was constructed with the top of the PCC strips on grade with the top of the AC constructed in the same project, corresponding to the plans for the project in 1950. The AC overlay was installed sometime later apparently for uniformity with the southerly segment, which had a full asphalt surface. This condition exists in a short segment beginning about 500 feet North of Lower Azusa to the beginning of this segment of PCC pavement described in the next segment below. This 120 feet of transition segment was actually constructed with the PCC segment, but is included here to minimize confusion by keeping it with adjoining pavement of the same basic type. Another core, in the No. 2 lane (right wheel path) northbound north of Lower Azusa, was a disbonded 2'/.-inch overlay on 33/-inch original pavement over 12-inch decomposed granite sub base, a similar section to the northbound near Valley Boulevard. This original pavement appears to have been constructed with the project described in the previous core. Visual Structural Condition Northbound, with the exception of the l 1-foot strip of concrete partially in both lanes, the asphalt appears to be seriously cracked. Again, the asphalt rubber chip seal generally masks the cracks, but thev are still visible. There are very severely cracked areas in the wheel paths adjacent to the median • Wildun - Pavement Investigation Reporl MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 • Mai 29, 2003 Page 8 where irrigation water has saturated the subgrade. Potholes are developing in these areas. On the southbound side, the asphalt rubber overlay on the asphalt rubber interlayer has largely resisted cracked reflection. There is severe rutting developing, however. Some PCC joints are beginning to reflect through the surface layers. Median curb height has been reduced by previous overlays. 4.4 500 FEET NORTH OF LONVER AZUSA ROAD TO CITY LimiT Existing Structural Section The pavement in this area was constructed as a quite different structural section overall than south of this length, and is PCC pavement in all travel lanes (except for the 120-foot transition segment described with the previous two cores). The travel lanes Iota] less than 21 feet in width on either side of the median. This has pushed the right wheel paths in the No. 2 lanes over onto the shoulder for much of the truck traffic. There is a variable width shoulder of AC pavement 3-inches thick constructed on native material, based on the as-built plans. There is a 6-foot median with 1-foot drain away gutter in the center of the roadway. There is a 3-foot gutter on each side of the roadway. Vistial Structural Condition The travel lanes are slabs average l I feet in width and length. The shoulder is block cracked with alligator cracking along the joint with the PCC central pavement. This alligator cracking is failing, as truck wheel loads are drifting onto the shoulder. The PCC slab system clearly is approaching the end of its lifespan, since approximately one-third of the slabs have broken into smaller pieces. 5.0 REHABILITATION METHODS It should be noted that a wide range of possible methods were considered to provide an overlay for the purposes of structural rehabilitation: • Pavement fabric was considered, but has potential flushing under heavy traffic with resultant rutting and skid resistance problems. If not enough binder is used, on the other hand, the pavement has a tendency to delaminate in the latter part of its lifespan. Basically, the advantages did not outweigh the uncertainties for this product. Also, to be effective, a • May29, 2003 Wildun - Pavement lnvesrigurion Report Page 9 MACTEC Projeci 7013110359-6 leveling course is necessary, which creates increased cost and difficulties with grade constraints. • Glassgrid is a fairly stiff network of fiberglass plastic netting used between an overlay and a leveling course. There was some potential for use of this treatment, but the cost of the Glasgrid plus a leveling course was prohibitive. Properly applied, Glasgrid is effective in preventing reflection of alligator and block cracks. • Asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) was considered, and is recommended as a potential strategy in selected areas. • Asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane (ARAM) interlayer was considered, and is recommended as a potential strategy in selected areas • Paveprep, a thick rubberized mastic with woven fabric on both sides is highly effective on singular joints and cracks. It was considered as an option in lieu of an asphalt rubber and aggregate membrane, but was cost prohibitive. • Special asphalt mixes were considered, and a special asphalt rubber mix was also considered as the base layer for reconstructed pavement. This mix would have an increased binder content to make the bottom layer more flexible to extend the lifespan before cracking. It is recommended that if the roadway is reconstructed with AC pavement, the bottom lift be such a material. 6.0 DEFLECTION TEST RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 SOUTH OF 10 FREEWAY Southbound This segment has 3 inches of AC in the original section on native soil. The original pavement was evidently highly deteriorated when the roadway was overlaid with 2'/2 inches about 4 or 5 years ago. This is indicated by the wet interface between the generally disbonded original pavement and the overlay in the No. 3 lane. Deflections are very high on the No. 3 lane requiring an overlay approaching 6 inches. On the No. 2 lane, conditions are a little better, but the overlay requirement still is approaching 5 inches. Recommendations Alligator cracking is rapidly returning to the No. 2 lane, and is well progressed in the No. 3 lane with indications that base failure is beginning to occur in many areas of this lane. This is a clear indication that overlay of this pavement is not really practical. The underlying original pavement of a highly deteriorated 3 inches on native soil is just not an adequate base for pavement on this major arterial. The No. 1 lane was overlaid in the last project and the median curb face height was dramatically Wildan - Pavement Invesrigurion Report Ma 29, 2003 MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 10 reduced in the process. Additional overlay in this lane would not be possible, if curb height and cross fall drainage were to be sustained. The entire roadway would need to be profiled and this would take the pavement back to the original highly deteriorated 3-inch AC constructed in 1950. Again, this is not viable for an arterial roadway of modern traffic volume. Therefore, we recommend reconstructing this segment of the roadway in all lanes. 6.2 VALLEY BOULEVARD TO 10 FREEWAY Northbound The northbound No. 2 lane requires a 4'/2- to 51/2-inch overlay. Northbound No. I lane has a similar pavement structure with lesser deflections and lesser overlay requirement. Southbound Southbound No. I lane has a much larger requirement for overlay than the No. 2 lane. This is likely caused by the need to limit overlay thickness along medians to sustain cross fall. As a result, the outer lane has a thinner section recommended for overlay and lesser deflections. The overlay requirements register at 11/2 inches in the No. I lane and about '/z inch the No. 2 lane. Recommendations On the northbound side, the pavement consists of two layers or more with a total thickness of 4 to 5- inches placed on decomposed granite. Based on cores, some of the original or bottom layer is actually decomposing, since its construction in 1950. As indicated by as-built plans and cores, an overlay was installed, which has reduced the median curb height. Basically, to install a sufficient overlay would not be possible under these conditions. On the southbound side, due to a cement treated base layer, the deflections are substantially less than on the northbound side. Still, the need for an overlay is quite significant, and the concept of cold milling enough depth to provide relief from reflective cracking and also make up for the thickness removed by milling is not really viable. Potholes developing in many areas where the cement treated base is evidently breaking down are scattered along the length of various wheel paths. As a result, reconstruction repairs of such areas are not practical. The deflection readings did not generally • 0 May19, 2003 Wildon - Pavement Invest4ofinn Report Page 11 MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 coincide with these locations, but the structural weakness is quite evident. The extra thickness that is supporting the No. 2 lane would be removed in a uniform profiling and the median provides a rigid constraint, since curb height is already diminished. Due to the frequency of alligator cracking and potholes in the No. 2 lane and the very significant overlay requirement in the No. 1 lane, such an approach is unlikely to be successful on this roadway with its heavy traffic loading. Naturally, matching grades with the reconstructed northbound side is also a complication, and therefore we recommend reconstruction of the southbound side. 6.3 VALLE), BOULEVARD TO PCC NORTH OF LOWER AZUSA AVENUE Northbound The northbound No. 2 lane deflection results indicate need for an overlay of 4'/z inches or more. This would be entirely impractical to implement, because previous overlays have already decreased the median curb height and have left thick edges above the edge of gutter. The northbound No. 1 lane generally requires a 1'/s- to 2-inch overlay based on the deflection analysis. There is severe deterioration and some potholes that indicate a very weak condition. Southbound Deflections in the southbound No. 1 and No. 2 lanes both show the need of an overlay, even though both of these lanes received an extra l''/z-inch overlay of asphalt rubber hot mix, which is uncracked at present. Indications are that the underlying support for the ARM overlay is the same as on the northbound side, as confirmed by core information. The excessive rutting in these lanes means the ARNM overlay and interlayer will need to be removed, which will result in the pavement section and condition being similar to the northbound lanes. Recommendations Overall, adding overlay thickness is not possible on this segment without deep cold milling, which would leave the pavement section at approximately the thickness that existed for the original nominal 2 '/s-inch pavement placed in 1950 without any aggregate base. Based on reflective cracking in both northbound lanes, the potholes, which are occurring in the northbound No. 2 lane, and the high deflections on the northbound side, the original pavement is in highly deteriorated condition. Since it is clearly inadequate to support the demands of this major arterial, which has evolved as the • 0 Mav?9, 2003 Wildan - Pavement lnve.vigalion Report Pace 17 MACTECProjeci 7013110359-6 Rosemead Boulevard of today, it will be necessary to reconstruct this roadway segment. 6.4 PCC NORTH OF LON'G'ER AZUSA TO NORTH CITY Lim IT As discussed in Section 4.0, Existing Conditions, a central PC concrete slab system exists, which is narrow with the outside wheel paths of the truck lanes on the AC shoulder joint. The slab system is 53 years old and is gradually breaking up. There exist two methods to upgrade the. pavement structural system, either by overlay or by reconstruction. In any case, the shoulders will need reconstruction to support the left truck wheel paths and to also provided for the future third lanes, which as previously indicated will be needed for the heavy and increasing traffic volumes. Recommendations With the joint between shoulder and the central slab system in the No. 2 lane wheel paths, any overlay would need to provide special measures to avoid the effects of differential support across the joint, and prevent joint reflection tendencies in general. Reconstruction of this shoulder with dowels along the joints would be the most dependable way to eliminate differential support difficulties. This would leave the full roadway as a slab system, with the general need to provide for elimination of joint reflection through the overlay provided to strengthen the central area. Unfortunately, an overlay structure with enough stability to resist joint reflection would be a little over 4 inches thick. This would reduce the curb height on the median to about 2 inches. Reconstruction of the median is a viable option to raise the curb height to accommodate the overlay. In any case, the time for joint reflection to occur cannot be accurately estimated. The 4'/2-inch overlay system as discussed above would consist of joint filling, a '/s-inch leveling course, an ARAM interlayer, and a 31/2-inch asphalt rubber hot mix overlay. This system could provide many years of service (possibly up to 20) without reflective cracking based on past experience with similar circumstances, but this is difficult to determine with any degree of certainty. There exist no direct quantification methods to evaluate the tendency for PCC joint reflection through an overlay. The other option is reconstruction as recommended for the remainder of Rosemead Boulevard in this study. This may actually prove to be the most cost effective approach, considering the small quantities of ARM and ARAM interlayer and the need to reconstruct the median. Economy of scale will apply if the same approach of reconstruction is applied as for the remainder of the roadway, but the inverse will impact the costs of asphalt rubber materials and mobilizations. In other words, the 0 • N'ildun - Pavement Investigation Repon May29, 3 MACTECProjeci 7013110359-6 Page e 1 13 small quantity of asphalt rubber materials could increase their unit costs, such that the cost of overlay is close to the cost of reconstruction. 7.0 STRUCTURAL SECTIONS Project site subgrade R-value of minimum 70 was determined and Traffic Index of 10.5 and 11 extended the following structural sections using the Caltrans design procedure outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Table 7. 1 - Structural Section Recommendations - Reconstruction ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD TI = 10.5 PCC = 9" AC = 8" LCB = 5" AB = 61- TI=11 PCC=9" AC=8.5" 1 ru = 5" AB = 6" As discussed in Section 6.0 Deflection Test Results and Recommendations, overlay of pavements is generally not feasible except for the segment of PCC pavement north of Lower Azusa, which could be overlaid as outlined below, assuming the shoulder was reconstructed in PCC pavement as described in Section 6.0. Table 7. 2 Structural Section Recommendations - Overlay North of Lower Azusa 5 or 11 TI = 10 STRUCTURAL SECTION . ARHAI OVERLAY ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD - AR.HM = 3.5" PCC SEGMENT NORTH ARAM INTERLAYER OF LOA'D'ER AZUSA ROAD LEVELING COURSE AC = 0.5" 8.0 CONCLUSIONS The age and condition of the roadway in conjunction with the high traffic loads that must be sustained by the pavement in the modem time frame, ]ends itself strongly to full pavement reconstruction. The original underlying pavement and limited base layers are simply insufficient to provide support for an upgrade of the structure by overlay. The recommendations for full structural section replacement outlined in Table 7.1 should by used in designing the roadway structural improvement. Wildon - Pavement Investigation Reporl May19, ?003 MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 14 The importance of providing quality asphalt concrete mix and good compaction for overlays cannot be overstated. This is a matter of some basic materials approvals and testing. It is, therefore, highly recommended that basic compaction testing and plant inspection be performed. Nonconformance with specifications in either of these crucial areas can dramatically shorten the time before cracking occurs in the pavement and could possibly lead to other deleterious performance. Likewise, basic PC concrete testing is necessary to verify a quality product for concrete pavement. Cylinder breaks for compression, and verification of mix and slump are minimal requirements for these purposes. 9.0 BASIS OF REPORT The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information and on our interpretation of the data collected during our site visit. We have made our recommendations based on experience with similar conditions, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and Flexible Pavement Construction Section Design Guide and information provided by Willdan. The recommendations apply to the specific project at the time of preparation of the report. All work performed was consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession cun•ently practicing under similar conditions and similar localities. No other warranty is expressed or implied. 0 APPENDIX A 9 DEFLECTION RESULTS Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT Direction: NORTHBOUND Lane: 1 Feet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio 0+00 0+01 2+00 33 31 26 0.94 2+40 4+00 39 38 26 0.97 • 5+10 6+00 47 40 31 0.85 6+35 7+30 8+00 117 79 45 0.68 10+00 41 31 20 0.76 11+00 12+00 43 29 18 0.67 e12+85 14+00 43 30 18 0.7 16+00 81 59 37 0.73 16+80 • 18+00 18+10 62 49 33 0.79 18+25 19+00 20+00 68 48 30 0.71 .20+30 20+85 22+00 77 63 39 0.82 • 22+75 -23+30 24+00 81 57 33 0.7 24+65 • 25+60 26+00 109 74 43 0.68 26+70 -27+55 e28+00 12 11 10 0.92 ?8+50 30+00 12 11 10 0.92 9 31 +40 • 32+50 14 13 12 0.93 32+95 33+80 34+00 75 52 30 0.69 *34+65 i5+15 i6+00 96 60 35 0.62 .36+95 e37+90 ;8+00 124 89 42 0.72 .8+80 40+00 49 35 23 0.71 ~d0+20 1+10 I • Not Included in Summary c 04/2003 • Project No. 29666 Proj RRI TD on I Coirwi its BEGIN TESTING LANE 1 NORTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT ON PCC Median RAISED 37 4.25 Median RAISED/PLANTED 56 5.7 BEGIN LTP 52 7.63 Lateral Cracks End PCC BEGIN AC CL of GLENDON WAY 139 24.5 Alligator Cracks 48 6.18 Longitudinal Cracks in LWT BEGIN LTP 47 6.66 Near Traffic Sensors CL of MARSHALL STREET 50 6.66 Lateral Cracks 94 15.82 Lateral Cracks CL of DE ADALENA STREET Lateral Trench 73 11.24 Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT CL of EDDA VILLA DRIVE BEGIN LTP 77 12.69 Lateral Cracks Slight Raveling CL of RALPH STREET LEFT CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT 102 14.86 Lateral Cracks BEGIN LTP CL of GUESS STREET LEFT 98 15.82 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT BEGIN LTP 127 22.57 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes CL of NEVADA STREET Begin PCC 12 -0.81 BEGIN LTP CL of STEELE STREET 12 -0.81 CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD 14 -0.33 Test Taken in LWT End PCC BEGIN LTP 90 14.38 Lateral Cracks Test Taken in LWT CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT 103 19.44 Alligator Cracks in LWT Test Taken in LWT BEGIN LTP CL of NEWBY STREET 189 26.18 Test Taken in LWT Lateral Cracks Slight Raveling CL of NEWBY AVENUE 53 8.11 Test Taken in LWT BEGIN LTP CL of LAWRENCE STREET DATASHEET • Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT Direction: NORTHBOUND Lane: 1 • Project No. 29666 Feet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio Proj RRI TD on 1 Comments .41+45 BEGIN LTP 42+00 46 36 23 0.78 56 7.39 Test Taken in LWT CL of MISSION DRIVE •43+60 44+50 59 42 27 0.71 65 10.52 Test Taken in LWT 46+00 111 78 45 0.7 135 23.05 Test Taken in LWT Alligator Cracks in LWT 26 15 0 38 45 12.69 Test Taken in LWT Slight Alligator Cracks LWT 48+00 50+00 68 35 32 26 . 0.91 39 4.74 Sliaht Lateral Cracks 52+00 38 35 29 0.92 42 5.46 Slight Alligator Cracks LWT .52+35 BEGIN LTP CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD .53+95 3 26 0 69 37 7.14 Slight Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks 54+50 45 1 3 . 0 74 34 46 5 Slight Alligator Cr?&s Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks in 56+00 38 28 2 . . . LWT .57+45 BEGIN LTP 58+00 31 28 23 0.9 34 3.77 Alligator Cracks Lateral Cracks 60+00 77 60 34 0.78 106 14.86 .61+25 Begin PCC .62+00 50 43 34 0.86 54 8.35 e64+00 51 48 38 0.94 61 8.59 CL of NORTH CITY LIMIT ,65+75 • Not included in Summary 4/04/2003 DATA S H E E T Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT Direction: NORTHBOUND Lane: 2 Feet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio r0+00 • 0+01 1+00 44 40 34 0.91 3+00 41 39 33 0.95 5+00 40 38 32 0.95 • 6+30 6+75 108 78 46 0.72 o7+25 9+00 38 38 23 1 11+00 42 33 20 0.79 •12+85 13+50 103 67 38 0.65 .14+25 15+00 73 52 36 0.71 X16+75 17+00 94 71 46 0.76 ,18+00 • 18+10 19+00 66 57 41 0.86 ,20+30 .20+75 21+00 55 40 25 0.73 23+00 58 38 25 0.66 .23+30 24+65 25+00 94 68 38 0.72 .26+70 27+00 204 115 35 0.56 • 27+50 • 28+60 28+90 ,29+00 18 16 14 0.89 931+40 • 32+90 33+05 109 80 43 0.73 34+60 35+00 170 80 44 0.47 o35+10 37+00 129 69 35 0.53 37+85 • 38+75 39+00 100 53 26 0.53 41+00 61 38 23 0.62 43+50 45+00 116 61 33 0.53 47+00 83 42 24 0.51 49+00 48 37 28 0.77 51+00 55 38 28 0.69 *51+45 53+00 50 30 22 0.6 53+90 • Not Included in Summary 1/04/2003 • Project No. 29666 Proj RRI TD on I Comments BEGIN TESTING LANE 2 NORTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT ON PCC 47 6.9 Lateral Cracks 46 6.18 45 5.94 Lateral Cracks End PCC 132 22.33 CL of GLENDON WAY 63 5.46 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes 54 6.42 Rutting RLWT Slight Lateral Cracks OL of MARSHALL STREET 118 21.12 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes Curb and Gutter 75 13.89 Alligator Cracks Potholes Slight Lateral Cracks CL of DE ADALENA STREET 110 18.95 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Lateral Trench EDDA VILLA STREET 79 12.21 Slight Alligator Cracks CL of RALPH STREET LEFT CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT 64 9.55 Slight Lateral Cracks Potholes 58 10.28 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT CL of GUESS STREET LEFT CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT 122 18.95 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT CL of NEVADA STREET 378 45.46 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Begin PCC CL of STEELE STREET BEGIN RTP 18 0.64 CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD End PCC 149 22.57 Alligator Cracks CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT 145 37.27 Slight Alligator Cracks CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT 136 27.39 Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks CL of NEWBY STREET CL of NEWBY AVENUE 108 20.4 Alligator Cracks 63 11 CL of LAWRENCE STREET Rutting CL of MISSION DRIVE 113 24.26 Alligator Cracks Rutting 74 16.3 Alligator Cracks Rutting 49 7.87 Alligator Cracks Rutting 52 9.55 Alligator Cracks Rutting Slight Lateral Cracks BEGIN RTP 41 8.35 CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD DATA SHEET • Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Limits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT Direction: NORTHBOUND Lane: 2 r'eet X 100 RRl RR2 RR3 Ratio 55+00 116 74 46 0.64 57+00 91 68 39 0.75 59+00 98 62 35 0.63 61+00 23 19 15 0.83 - 61 +20 63+00 50 44 38 0.88 65+00 40 32 27 0.8 e65+75 Proj RRI TD on 1 Continents • Project 1Vo. 29666 119 24.26 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 119 18.23 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 110 19.92 Alligator Cracks 24 1.84 Slight Lateral Cracks Begin PCC 51 8.35 38 5.94 CL of NORTH CITY LIMIT • Not Included in Summary /04/2003 DATA S H E E T • Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Limits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT Direction: SOUTHBOUND Lane: 1 Feet X 100 RR1 RR2 RR3 Ratio ~0+00 ,0+01 •1+00 67 66 59 0.99 3+00 47 43 35 0.91 5+00 47 41 28 0.87 .5+10 7+00 55 39 26 0.71 9+00 32 30 23 0.94 9+60 11+00 31 29 24 0.94 12+35 13+00 60 38 23 0.63 15+00 32 28 22 0.88 17+00 29 28 24 0.97 19+00 95 61 36 0.64 20+00 21+00 77 49 29 0.64 .22+70 23+50 66 44 26 0.67 25+00 70 46 27 0.56 25+25 • 26+75 27+00 54 40 25 0.74 27+55 28+45 29+00 86 58 33 0.67 -30+25 31+00 78 50 29 0.64 -31+15 .31+35 31+65 33+00 14 11 10 0.79 -33+10 e34+90 35+60 12 12 10 1 36+85 37+00 102 72 43 0.71 *37+75 39'+00 60 44 27 0.73 39+60 41+00 55 38 22 0.69 •41+65 43+00 48 35 22 0.73 • 44+35 45+00 37 27 17 0.73 45+50 46+00 47+00 67 47 31 0.7 -48+00 48+30 . Not Included in Summary 1/04/2003 • Project No. 29666 Proj RRI TD on 1 Comments BEGIN TESTING LANE 1 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT ON PCC Median RAISED/PLANTED 74 12.45 53 7.63 60 7.63 End PCC 58 9.55 39 4.01 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes BEGIN LTP 35 3.77 CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD 63 10.76 36 4.01 33 3.29 103 19.2 Test Taken in LWT BEGIN LTP 83 14.86 Test Taken in LWT CL of MISSION DRIVE 74 12.21 Test Taken in LWT 78 13.17 Test Taken in LWT CL of LAWRENCE STREET BEGIN LTP 64 9.31 Test Taken in LWT CL of NEWBY AVENUE CL of NEWBY STREET 102 17.03 Test Taken in LWT BEGIN LTP 86 15.1 Test Taken in LWT CL of BENTERL STREET LEFT Begin PCC CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT 12 -0.33 Test Taken in LWT BEGIN LTP CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD 14 -0.81 End PCC 121 20.88 Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT CL of STEELE STREET 72 10.76 Slight Alligator Cracks CL of NEVADA STREET 66 9.55 Slight Lateral Cracks CL of GUESS STREET LEFT f GUESS STREET RIGHT Slight Lateral Cracks Longitudinal C CL 56 7.87 o racks in LWT BEGIN LTP 43 5.22 Slight Lateral Cracks CL of RALPH STREET LEFT CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT 71 12.45 Slight Lateral Cracks Change in Pavement Lateral Trench BEGIN LTP DATA SHEET • Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD ;units: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT ,7irection: SOUTHBOUND 1 ane: 1 • Project Alo. 29666 r'eet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio Proj RRI TD on I Comments 49+00 40 31 22 0.77 44 5.94 DE ADALENA STREET 49+50 BEGIN LTP 50+75 51+00 38 31 23 0.82 42 5.46 CL of MARSHALL STREET -53+45 49 30 73 0 80 12.45 Slight Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks 55+00 67 . 57+00 93 69 41 0.74 116 18.71 CL of GLENDON WAY e59+00 teral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks Longitudinal Cracks in LWT L 59+50 57 48 35 0.84 66 10.04 a Begin PCC .60+45 6 i+iio 70 68 58 0.97 80 13.17 63+00 41 39 34 0.95 45 6.18 55+00 37 35 33 0.97 39 5.22 CL of 10 FREEWAY • 66+30 End PCC •71+25 BEGIN LTP 79+60 CL of WHITMORE STREET 94+75 CL of SOUTH CITY LIMIT *102+90 • Not Included in Summary 1/04/2003 DATA S H E E T Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Limits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT Direction: SOUTHBOUND Lane: 2 . 'eet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio 9 0+00 0+01 e2+00 49 45 36 0.92 .4+00 45 40 31 0.89 5+10 6+00 42 39 32 0.93 8+00 82 60 35 0.73 10+00 56 45 27 0.8 11+70 74 51 29 0.69 12+a0 14+00 51 38 25 0.75 16+00 66 41 25 0.62 18+00 48 29 19 0.6 20+00 73 45 26 0.62 • 22+60 24+00 64 41 24 0.64 25+25 26+00 61 36 21 0.59 *27+50 28+00 52 34 21 0.65 28+40 30+00 98 55 28 0.56 • 31+15 31+35 31+65 • 32+00 16 15 13 0.94 32+20 34+00 14 12 11 0.86 34+90 •36+00 13 13 11 1 • 36+80 37+65 38+00 75 52 31 0.69 • 39+55 40+00 38 29 20 0.76 11+65 12+00 36 29 19 0.81 • 42+90 14+00 50 37 22 0.74 15+50 .45+95 46+00 76 59 42 0.78 t8+00 40 32 24 0.8 18+15 • 48+30 *49+55 k+00 35 29 22 0.83 i2+00 33 31 22 0.94 *53+40 54+30 40 37 26 0.92 6+80 9 Not Included in Summary /04/2003 Project No. 29666 Proj RRI TD on 1 Comments BEGIN TESTING LANE 2 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT ON PCC Curb and Gutter 56 8.11 52 7.14 End PCC 48 6.42 103 16.06 Slignt Alligator Cracks Longitudinal Cracks 75 9.8 Slight Lateral Cracks 90 14.13 Rutting CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD 58 8.59 67 12.21 Longitudinal Cracks 44 7.87 Rutting 78 13.89 Rutting Longitudinal Cracks CL of MISSION DRIVE 70 11.72 CL of LAWRENCE STREET 62 11 CL of NEWBY AVENUE 55 8.83 CL of NEWBY STREET 108 19.92 Rutting CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT Begin PCC CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT 17 0.16 Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks BEGIN RTP 13 -0.33 CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD 15 -0.57 End PCC CL of STEELE STREET 87 14.38 Alligator Cracks Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LVv i~ CL of NEVADA STREET 42 5.46 Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks CL of GUESS STREET 44 4.98 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Lateral Cracks CL of GUESS STREET 62 8.35 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT CL of RALPH STREET LEFT CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT 83 14.62 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 43 5.94 Lateral Cracks CL of EDDA VILLA DRIVE Lateral Trench CL of DE ADALENA STREET 38 4.74 44 4.25 Rutting CL of MARSHALL STREET 53 5.94 BEGIN RTP DATA SHEET • Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Limits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT Direction: SOUTHBOUND Lane: 2 Feet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio 56+00 38 32 22 0.84 58+00 33 26 18 0.79 • 59+00 60+00 74 49 33 0.66 • 60+45 • 62+00 52 40 35 0.77 • 64+00 42 33 30 0.79 • 66+00 43 39 32 0.91 • 68+00 40 38 32 0.95 • 70+00 41 38 30 0.93 o71+25 72+00 44 37 26 0.84 74+00 45 36 25 0.8 76+00 48 32 20 0.67 78+00 48 34 21 0.71 80+00 56 41 27 0.73 82+00 52 44 27 0.85 • 82+25 84+00 45 31 21 0.69 86+00 94 68 36 0.72 • 86+30 88+00 51 35 21 0.69 90+00 74 58 37 0.78 92+00 66 44 28 0.67 94+00 46 38 27 0.83 o94+65 • 95+00 96+00 101 71 45 0.7 98+00 79 61 38 0.77 • 98+95 *103+00 • Not Included in Summary 04/04/2003 Proj RRI TD on I Comments Project No. 29666 47 5.46 Slight Lateral Cracks 38 4.25 Rutting RLWT CL of GLENDON WAY 73 14.13 Lateral Cracks Tranverse Crack Begin PCC 46 8.83 36 6.42 48 6.66 45 5.94 48 6.18 End PCC 53 6.9 52 7.14 51 7.87 55 7.87 Slight Alligator Cracks 62 72 9.8 8.83 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT CL of TELSTAR AVENUE 46 7.14 128 18.95 Change in Pavement 58 8.59 91 14.13 Alligator Cracks in LWT 69 12.21 Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT 53 7.39 Change in Pavement CL of WHITMORE STREET 2 64 20 Slight Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 11 . 15 34 Alligator Cracks in LWT Slight Alligator Cracks 98 . Begin Bridge Change in Pavement End Bridge Change in Pavement DATA SHEET • 0 0 Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Project No. 29666 Limits: 10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT Direction: SOUTHBOUND Lane: 3 Feet X 100 RRl RR2 RR3 Ratio Pro' RRI TD on I Comments BEGIN TESTING LANE 3 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD , 10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT 0+00 Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter ON PCC .0+01 • 1+00 40 34 27 0.85 43 5.94 BEGIN RT ONRAMP 2+30 3+00 115 34 28 0.3 41 24.02 End PCC •5+00 5+10 42 34 24 0.81 48 6.42 7+00 51 40 27 0.78 74 59 53 8.59 7 63 Slight Alligator Cracks 9+00 47 35 23 0. . End Rolled FCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter 09+60 9 162 27 39 Alligator a 11+00 129 89 49 0.6 ' FLOOD CHANNEL WALL E ND Curb and Gutter 11+70 70 Begin AC Berm 12+50 246 13 41 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 13+00 186 113 52 0.61 7 208 . 40 88 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 15+00 185 105 53 0.5 . CL of TELSTAR AVENUE 16+05 83 12 93 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 17+00 69 53 34 0.77 1 229 . 74 44 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 19+00 201 122 65 0.6 . Change in Pavement -20+10 21+00 137 94 55 0.69 161 29'32 Cracks RLWT Eln ht C I G t r A u ter tl gin Rolled PCC Curb and Be Berm 22+45 4 74 0 129 21.85 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 23+00 25+00 106 52 78 44 7 28 . 0.85 69 8.83 Slight Alligator Cracks Begin Patch 26+60 End Patch BEGIN BUS PAD 26+90 END BUS PAD *27+90 Change in Pavement -28+45 CL of WHITMORE STREET 28+70 29+00 60 50 33 0.83 76 10.76 31+00 68 50 29 0.74 86 12.69 End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter 32+50 Begin Bridge Change in Pavement 32+75 End Bridge Change in Pavement .36+80 • Not Included in Summary d04/2003 DATA S H E E T 0 0 Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Project No. 29666 .units: 10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT Direction: SOUTHBOUND Lane: 3 eet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio Proi RRI TD on 1 Comments BEGIN TESTING LANE 3 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD • 0 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT )+00 1 Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter ON PCC )+01 01+00 40 34 27 0.85 43 5.94 BEGIN RT ONRAMP +?+30 1+00 115 34 28 0.3 41 24.02 End FCC i+00 5+10 42 34 24 0.81 48 6.42 1+00 51 40 27 0.78 59 8.59 t+00 47 35 23 0.74 53 7.63 Slight Alligator Cracks End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter J+60 129 89 49 69 0 162 27.39 Alligator Cracks Alligator Crark.c in L WT 11+00 . END Curb and Gutter FLOOD CHANNEL WALL '1+70 Begin AC Berm 2+50 61 246 41 13 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 13+00 186 113 52 0. 208 . 40 88 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 15+00 185 105 53 0.57 . CL of TELSTAR AVENUE 16+05 7 83 93 12 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 17+00 69 53 34 0.7 29 . 44 74 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT 19+00 201 122 65 0.61 2 . Change in Pavement •20+10 1+00 137 94 55 0.69 161 29.32 Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT tt er End AC Berm Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gu 12+45 74 129 21 85 Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in L1NT 23+00 25+00 106 52 78 44 47 28 0. 0.85 69 . 8.83 Slight Alligator Cracks Begin Patch ,6+60 End Patch BEGIN BUS PAD '6+90 2 END BUS PAD 7+90 • Change in Pavement • 28+45 CL of WHITMORE STREET !8+70 19+00 60 50 33 0.83 76 10.76 31+00 68 50 29 0.74 86 12'69 End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter . 32+50 Begin Bridge Change in Pavement 12+75 End Bridge Change in Pavement 16+80 • Not Included in Summary c 04/2003 DATA S H E E T 0 0 TABLE ONE Measured Deflection 'T' Sneer & Liuiiu R.R. T.D. T.I. (ft.) ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD: South City Limit to North City Li mit NORTHBOUND-2 1 +00 to 27+00 113 23.5 10.5 0.48 11.0 0.48 33+05 to 53+00 126 26.7 10.5 0.48 11.0 0.48 55+00 to 61+00 116 24.3 10.5 0.48 11.0 0.48 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD: South City Limit to North City Li mit NORTHBOUND-1 2+00 to 26+00 88 17.5 10.5 0.36 11.0 0.36 34+00 to 52+00 96 19.4 10.5 0.36 11.0 0.36 54+50 to 60+00 65 12.0 10.5 0.36 11.0 0.36 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD: North City Limit to South City Li mit SOUTHBOUND-1 7+00 to I 1 +00 51 8.6 10.5 0.5 11.0 0.5 13+00 to 31+00 83 16.3 10.5 0.42 11.0 0.42 37+00 to 65+00 75 14.4 10.5 0.42 11.0 0.42 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD; North City Limit to South City Limit SOUTHBOUND-2 6+00 to 30+00 77 14.9 10.5 0.42 11.0 0.42 3F+00 to 60+00 62 11.2 10.5 0.42 11.0 0.42 72+00 to 98+00 77 14.9 10.5 0.42 11.0 0.42 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD: 10 Freeway to Sou th City Limit SOUTHBOUND-3 5+10 to 31+00 152 32.9 10.5 0.42 11.0 0.42 ` 10 Year Design Period No Growth Factor I. Allowable Reduction Required Defeuion Required G. F_ A.C A'SL R.R. T.D. 00 Of) (years) 62 11.3 52 .69 .36 0 59 10.6 55 .75 .39 0 62 11.3 57 .79 .42 0 59 10.6 60 .86 .45 0 62 11.3 53 .71 .37 0 59 10.6 56 .77 .41 0 70 13.2 24 .16 .08 2 67 12.4 29 .21 .11 1 70 13.2 32 .23 .12 1 67 12.4 36 .33 .17 1 70 13.2 0 .00 •00 10+ 67 12.4 0 .00 .00 10+ 62 11.3 0 .00 .00 10+ 59 10.6 0 .00 .00 10+ 66 12.3 25 .17 .09 2 63 11.5 29 .21 .11 1 66 9.9 31 .23 .12 1 63 9.2 36 .33 .17 1 66 12.3 17 .08 .04 3 63 11.5 22 .13 .07 2 66 9.9 12 .04 .02 1 63 9.2 18 .09 .05 1 66 12.3 17 .08 .04 3 63 11.5 22 .13 .07 2 66 12.3 63 .92 .48 0 63 11.5 65 .97 .51 0 Project No. 29666 LaBelle Marvin, Inc. 0 9 APPENDIX C CORES AND SOIL TESTS L cc C1 7 O m m a) d N O cc d d N O w O U O R V O J Aft d 0 c N N d V Q N N c ~ O C O C y co 'O CD f- C d U N co CD C d U C d N O E O U Q N d N oa E O U O iV C N 00. E O u 0 ~ O Z _ O Z c0 O d y °a E O m ~ C C Z N a) Df C`) O Z y U) m a) Z y N co rn a d ld m rn d l0 m m m r d A m ' m a r d in m L: a r y A co ` am) a N t6 co C) en a N m m Q1 CD a d N m m C) a ei N m m 01 a a a a U N T j~ ) U d cD Q N C O CO m Y) V Q r 04 c O Q Q w r ;5 C O Q - cc: in co i--5 CV N T r = C O 0) c+) .9 f O Q O iy C O co C O Q C 'D O N -0 C r .00 r N 70 < cr r Q - _ r N N 'd C O O D N O_ ac) V m N Q.' ` Q r2 Q r O e) CO N .a - N Cl) r r q Q . CD wl 0 C J C'4 it c c 7 cif L fo a C J m c c O U) = m _a C J N tt c c O UJ L . y J C J N l c 7 L c!) _ Y M a Z C J r ; c 3 L p Z L m n- ) C J N ;t C O O Z L m a- - ) O J C4 * _0 C p L O Z C m a L O ~ J r C O c O Z L N a J C co J N O L O cA L f6 a S J C m J N O L O Z L a L C J r 0 c L O Cn _ L a J m m 0 V O -3 N N a 'O a 4] ~ Q) O m N E O N N U m _0 m N O Cf) CD N E O N N O U o j C L.L m O QE) D 0~ LO co o 10 QE) 0 w Q) U*) (30 7 Ei 0 W- pp D Oj aEi 0 w t9 O O j m 0 co d aEi 0 CD q v m (1) E N m v o y O Q m O N O N Cl) v O h N Q Q) p O E O N w o H O` Q o N U O 0 O Z C ~ Q Q Cl) co t7 J . l m m m ca C CD m a~ N 0 CD co E N O m m N o ~ m m E N o m .O m E N O co E N O m D E N O CO m y E O Ct] cc f° ai E m O cn cr- 0 o r 1 O N ~ ~ t.f) CD ~ m ~ U Mai 28 03 02:08p PROJECT NUMBER IVen Marvin R - VALUE 29697 DATA I V 1 4 1 59b-~tl41 0 SHEET P. c Core #11 BORING NUMBER: Rosemead Blvd. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Slightly Silt Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RAI- ~ Item a b c Mold Number 4 5 24 6 31 Water added, rams 44 8 2 8.8 Initial Test Water; 10.0 . 350 350 Compact Gage Pressure, psi 130 422 259 Exudation Pressure, psi 109 50 2 2 52 Height Sample, Inches 2.58 . 3271 3292 Gross Weight Mold, rams 3298 2 2122 Tare Weight Mold, rams 2120 1 1170 Sample Wet Weight, rams 1178 0 Expansion, Inches x l0ex -4 0 3 126 ;3/ 16 / 32 Stability 2,000 Ibs (160psi) 22 / 47 4 4.41 Turns Displacement 5.32 7 69 R Value Uncorrected 53 69 R Value Corrected 55 76 3 129 Dr Densit cf 125.8 DESIG 129.2 N CALCULATION . DATA Assumed: 4.0 Traffic Index - 4.0 1 4.0 32 0 77 G.E. b Stability 0.46 0.25 10 0 . 0.00 G. E. Expansion . 0.00 72 Examined & Checked: 3 /26/ 03 Equilibrium R-Value by EXUDATION , Gf = 1.25 - S 2.55 , Retained on the w - ~t> REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve. R;.;M@r ue 4,•' EE 30659 . / - The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as 'received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisi ons to Department of r . - :r_:- R. QPCP r rh Test Method No. 301. i ransporiauufj, vl4LG i.aBelle • A1461I-Vill 714 546 5941 P~u~.02 Mai 28 03 02:08P PROJECT NO. 14) 546-5a41 5t0en Marvin (70 R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTA71ON J++~~` tT IcL_ i~6J ~ ~yd. nt~~ BORING NO. DATE 2CO -O TRAFFIC INDEX R-VALUE BY EXUDATION R-VALUE BY EXPANSION 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 - - -c L% 1:1:; r:r: r. : :1L : .ILL =EE - - _ J MILL 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION, FT. VALUE vs. EXUD. PRES. EXUD. T vs. EXPAN. T REFARKS jAjj l,gjCk o jjUjj-%yuj ppocES.S1oNAL PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 400 d 350 J 300 C N 200 100 0 v 0 G c- m: C) U 2 0 H E-r C Q X W z 0 x W iG cn rn rH_ H ~W O U P. -d 777 . . - :ill . . :I 171. { tic ice- 7- '1.:: - t: " is ~-i E c~c :r. l - r in MOISTURE AT FABRICATION 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0 g.~ I 4.0 10.0 I MOISTURE T by EXUDATION T by EXPANSION I Q 714 546 5941 PAGE. 03 Mai 28 03 02:08p PROJECT NUMBER Seen Marvin R - VALUE 29697 DATA 546-5841 SHEET p.4 Core #2 Lane#3 BORING NUMBER: Rosemead Blvd. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Sand Item !6 tUimr.iv a b c Mold Number 7 8 9 Water added, rams 38 30 24 Initial Test Water, % 9.2 8.5 7'9 Compact Gage Pressure,psi 350 350 350 Exudation Pressure, psi 156 255 356 Height Sample, Inches 2.48 2.52 2.52 Gross Weight Mold, rams 3284 3283 3279 Tare Weight Mold, rams 2120 2117 2122 Sample Wet Weight, rams 1164 1166 1157 Expansion, Inches x 10exp-4 0 0 0 Stability 2,000 Ibs (160psi) 17 / 34 14 / 28 11 / 22 Turns Displacement 4.47 4.06 4.00 R-Value Uncorrected 67 74 80 R-Value Corrected 67 74 80 pcf Dr Density 130.3 129.3 128.9 , DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic Index Assumed: 4.0 4.0 4.0 G.E. b Stability 0.34 -0.27 0.20 G. E. b Expansion 0.00 0.00 0.00 76 Examined & Checked: 3 /26/ 03 Equilibrium R-Value by e+`Sr y EXUDATION 0 V Gf = 1.25 0.0% Retained on the REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve. S ~ Marv, , 0659 The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of c+ntc of ralifnrnia MafiPri Als R, Research Test Method No. 301. LaBelle • Marvin 714 546 5841 PAGE. 04 May 28 03 02:09F St0n Marvin t v* :D4b-:nu41 R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION PROJECT NO. n 40 35 0 350 BORING N0.5erea~~v~' ~*z 300 w Of DATE 3 Z~ 03 200 w A TRAFFIC INDEX `fi • Of Cl-- 1 0 0 c F- R-VALUE BY EXUDATION ¢ 0 c- R-VALUE BY EXPANSION 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 IH w I ¢ Q r I R L- 7 _ T~ - - - 'L• . - - . -r n - - - - err`: 100 90 w 80 H Q 70 w 60 0 Ln SO x w Qa 40 r cn 30 H 20 i a 10 v 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION, FT. R-VALUE vs. EXUD. PRES. ^ w d_EXUD. T vs. EXPAN. T RE, iARKS ~t•LS • A-110%711 PROFESSIONAL PAVEMENT ENGINEE:11140 =TRH =fir: i%tc •t - ilii _•t .r. 8.0 s•4 S MOISTURE P•m T by EXUDATION T by EXPANSION +.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0 714 546 5941 PAGE.05 9.2- S.4 9.19 ro MOISTURE AT FABRICATION Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study AFFENDIX C Farkway Tree and Sidewalk Conditions 0 0 r,,, CVmmn r-nA1rD9=TF REPAIR 011ANTITIES (foot: Units) idresslLocation KVJ C&G 19th CIVIGHLJ Dl LJ L- VP Sidewalk Igth wdth area I %w v- I. -II - • - Sidewalk SM Igth w dth area • Sidewalk ST Igth wdth area Igth Driveway wdth area S Igth pandrel wdth area 40. CITY LIMIT RR - 36 10 00 00 16 5 80 1500 10 6 60 -)WER AZUSA inthes Field 8 'anthes Field 8 30 10 300 -hoot hool 7 10 70 >chool 6 6 36 3rhool 6 6 36 SSION 1,42 10 6 60 46 10 460 1242 24 8 3 24 13 10 130 24 31 10 310 1226 16 15 7 105 :WBY 1134 13 3 39 27 10 270 1134 16 9 7 63 .116 3 10 30 3ENTEL 16 10 160 18 -16 18 6 108 27 10 270 1016 ALLEY nk at Sw Corner 15 7 105 3ank at Sw Corner 15 3 45 '^nk at Sw Corner 3 27 nk at Sw Corner r 7 84 yank at Sw Corner 3 15 3ank at Sw Corner 7 105 EELE -40 10 4 40 3940 30 10 300 40 10 400 30 30 6 10 60 20 10 200 3930 -30 9 5 45 10 6 60 JESS STREET 3848 12 5 60 ALPH 12 3 36 16 10 160 08 is ADELENA 16 8 128 3714 8 5 40 kRSHALL _36 15 4 60 0 1 12 120 1606 67 6 402 ~6 D6 16 8 128 11 3LENDON - 1351213000106-1551M isc01 -.10 0 ONCRETE REPAIR QUANTITIES (foot units) Idress/Location ROS C8G Igth LMt S Igth AD BO idewa wdth ULEVAR lk area D Sid Igth ewalk wdth SM area Sid Igth ewalk wdth ST area Igth Drivew wdth ay area S Igth pandre wdth l area ,nrner of Glendon 14 14 196 20 12 240 J3 ,.,33 4 5 20 33 12 396 3633 33 7 9 63 43 4 5 20 36 12 432 3643 30 12 360 75 _ kRSHALL 27 12 324 3715 51 12 612 "27 03 18 6 108 16 39 12 12 192 468 3803 16 12 192 3811 19 12 228 17 24 12 288 ,.,21 RALPH 59 13 12 156 JESS STREET 1-2 288 3907 - "19 12 12 144 28 12 336 19 NEVADA ia39 30 12 360 39 .Dzj39 8 6 48 19 12 228 3955 155 9 12 108 - 12 648 _ 160 VALLEY 41 17 697 1 7 ; 1 16 2 192 7 - 1 - 36 12 ] 432 4017 ^117 4 5 =NTEL a i 05 12 12 144 NEWBY h Day Adventist -.h Day Adventist 4213 39 9 351 '13 %WRANCE AUL 42 UH 42 9 378 ''HAUL ON S I IS 4 315 33 12 396 4 315 28 12 336 1 L 325 34 12 408 -+.i25 4325 6 6 36 122 a 372 25 4 L 1 3 63 r ~ . 05 - 3 r, 77 5 4423 i 9 C 1351; ROSEMEAD BOULEVA RD CONCRETE R EPAIR QUANTITIES (foot units) l walk ST d wa D S pandre dresslLocation C8G Side al d S 1 e h d wdth area Igth wdth area Igth I th g area h Ig wdth area Igth t w 408 12 423 12 468 ?3 T .23 10 7 70 4 12 480 •441 31 33 12 396 12 480 31 ~ .OWER AZUSA 15 6 90 43 12 516 . "WER AZUSA )9 15 6 90 42 12 504 X509 39 12 468 119 11 12 132 119 37 12 444 Ie19 34 12 408 1619 (CITY LIMIT) 349 591 15,990 180 3,692 188 13512/3000/06-155/Misc01 3 0 0 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD - POSSIBLE TREE PLANTING SITES South of Glendon Way - 1-10 - no planting ons rain s East Side OH Lines Spaces Glendon Way north to Shopping Center Drive 5' s/w curb 0 2 Shoppin Center Drive to Marshall Marshall North to De Adelana 5' s/w and 3' parkway - @ 3712 3714 - gas meters 1 9' s/w 1 De Adelana north to Ralph 5' s/w in front of 3812 and south 3' pkwy 1 , 8' s/w 4 Ralph north to Guess 3 3' pkwy, 5' s/w Guess to Steele 4 3' pk , 5' s/w Steele to Valle Boulevard 0 8' s/w Valley Boulevard to Bentel 0 9' s/w Bentel to Newby 3 9' s/w (3' pkwy @ 4124 2 Newby to Mission Mission to Lower Azusa Road 9 9' s/w Lower Azusa Road to RR 5 wa ends at RR U/C TOTAL EAST SIDE 35 Overhead lines over entire walk/parkway. Some utilities noted in parkway. Constraints West Side OH Lines Spaces Glendon Way to Marshall OH @ 3788 2 Marshall to Edda Villa north 0 Edda Villa to Ralph 1 3 Ralph to Guess utilities U G 3 Guess to Nevada . , 2 Nevada to Valle Boulevard 0 Valle Boulevard to Bentel 0 Bentel to Newby 3 Newby to Lawrence - 3' pkwy. to 100' north of Newby Lawrence to Mission 0 Mission to Lower Azusa Road 10 Lower Azusa Road to rontage Road - heavy planting in setback 1 TOTAL WEST SIDE 25 TOTAL 60 TK:mh (06-155) 13512/3000/Misc0l.xis