CC - Item 5A - Rosemead Blvd Relinquishment Study•
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL At, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JUNE 22, 2005
UJ
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."
COUNCO"IL A i2'v'a A
JUN 26' 2005
ITEM rto.A
June 22, 2005
Page 2
E
0
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 STUDY
Prepared for the
City of Rosemead, California
June 2005
Willdan
15191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746
(562)90b-6200
RELINQUISHMENT STUDY
R05EMEAD BOULEVARD
CITY OF R05EMEAD, CALIFORNIA
Table Of Contents
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
1
II. EXECUTIVE 5UMMARY
2
III. DACKGKOUND
4
IV. A55E55MENT OF EXI5TING CONDITION5
5
A. Pavement
5
B. Concrete in Perimeter AreaS
13
G. Storm Drain Elements
17
D. Traffic Circulation Elements
22
E. Parkway Trees
26
F. Utilitie5
27
G. Administrative/Engineering
27
V. 5UMMARY OF REHABILITATION PLAN
29
A. Pavement
30
B. Perimeter Concrete
30
C. Storm Drain Element5
30
D. Traffic Circulation Elements
30
E. Parkway Trees
31
F. Utilitie5
32
G. Administrative/Engineering
32
VI. C05T E5TIMATE
33
APPENDICE5
A. Aerial Photos of Existing Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk
B. Deflection Analysis Report
C. Parkway Tree and Sidewalk Conditions
13512/3000106-155 R01
• • Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
' 1. INTRODUCTION
This Study was conducted for the City of Rosemead in preparation for discussions with
the California Department of Transportation (CaltranS) regarding the 5tate'S proposed
relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City.
This Study was prepared in accordance with 5ection 73 of the California 5treeto and
Highways Code which outlines the 5tate'S highway relinquishment procedures. 5ection
73 states, in part, that "the (California Transportation) Commiooion Shall not relinquish
to any county or city any portion of any State highway until the Department (Caltrano)
r has placed the highway in a State of good repair." The intent of this study is to conform
to this criteria and provide a coot-effective rehabilitation plan that will bring about a
reasonable condition State.
This study documents the current conditions on Rosemead boulevard. The extent of the
r damages or deficiencies i5 delineated on aerial photos (Appendix A) and located by
address or other Site-specific description. In addition, a Summary discussion of the
existing conditions io provided. A thorough field investigation was performed to identify
the damages and/or 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 roil. Non-destructive deflection testing was
performed in all travel lance. 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 coot estimate.
AS-built Street and Storm drain piano obtained from Caltrano and the Loo Angeles
County Department of Public Works were thoroughly reviewed. The City also reviewed the
adequacy of the existing drainage System based on historical performance and Street
drainage capacity calculations.
• • Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In preparation for relinquishment diocu55ion5 with Caltrano, the City of Rosemead
conducted this Study to aogcoo the existing condition of Rosemead Boulevard within the
1 City's territorial limits. There i5 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.
1 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 addrese the Severely damaged pavement
and corresponding traffic loading in the slow lanes. The bur, 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 bur, traffic in the new lane and also a
pavement joint of dissimilar materials, which will be driven acrooo frequently by bus and
truck traffic. To avoid the same problems at the pavement joint with the fast lane, it is
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 Same 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.
1 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 our-Face
improvements are being replaced. The coordinated construction was factored into the
overall rehabilitation plan and resultant cost estimates.
' The total cost 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
I
I
1
1
• Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
111. BACKGROUND
Rosemead Boulevard from the South City limit just north of Garvey Avenue to the 10
Freeway (approximately 0.6 miles) io a 3-lane arterial on each Side, with a 6-foot-wide
median island, that server, a5 a link between the 60 and 10 Freeways and the
neighboring citier, to the north. Only the western half of this roadway (the Southbound
lanes) is within the City of Rosemead'o boundaries. The other aide of the roadway, or
northbound lanes, io 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
io a heavily traveled 4-lane arterial with two otriped lanes in each direction, a 16-foot-
wide median island, and curbside parking in moot areao. The peak ruoh-hour commute iS
constantly congested aS the average daily traffic generally exceedo 50,000 vehicleo,
with growth expected to continue. Traffic oouth of the 10 Freeway tends to be less
congested due to the 3-lanes in each direction. The posted maximum opeed limit io 35
mileo per hour north of the 10 Freeway and 45 MPH oouth of the 10 Freeway. The
properties adjacent to Rosemead Boulevard are a mixture of residential apartmento,
induotrial and commercial developmento, with otorefronto adjacent to the Sidewalk
between Valley Boulevard and MiSOion Drive.
The following general areao of deficiency on Rosemead Boulevard have been noted in the
past:
• Moot of the existing roadway ourface io in extremely poor condition.
• The existing otreet lighting lo very old and outdated.
• Curb ramps are frequently either miSSing or do not meet current Americans with
Dioabilitieo Act (ADA) otandardo.
• The oidewalke are aged and broken at numerouo locations.
• Curb and gutter lo eooentially miooing on the Segment from the oouth City limit
to the 10 Freeway.
• The gutter north of Valley Boulevard io not monolithic with the curb and,
therefore, iS failing in many locationo.
• The traffic oignal
i commonly applied
deteriorated.
oyotem does not meet current City Standards or other
national otandardo, and in come oopecto io very old and
4
1 • 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 is also indicated, along with locations where curb
ramps do not conform to current ADA requirements. Other appendices include the
Deflection Analysis Report (Appendix D), and Parkway Tree and 5idewalk Conditions
' (Appendix C). The extent of the deficiencies on Rosemead Boulevard le 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
is 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 PCC pavement at the very north end of Rosemead Boulevard, the conditions are
similar.
1. From the south City limit to the 10 Freeway, the pavement in the No. 2 and No. 3
lanes iS 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 lance will be alligator cracked
' within a few years, with the No. 2 and 3 lance 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.
L
1
i •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
2. From the 10 Freeway to Valley Boulevard, a relatively thin maintenance blanket
overlay war, 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 oven
reflecting through the chip Seal, and potholer, and patches are evident in many
areas along the pavement ae 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 i5 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.
6
Figure 1- Typical Failing Overlay South of 10 Freeway
•
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
MINN
Y
y Fi9ure 3 - Typical Pavement South of Valley Blvd.
7
Figure 2 - Typical Pavement 5outh 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 1-1/2-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 21/z-inches of AC overlaid on 21/2-
inch AC with no base material, yields deflections demanding an overlay
' approaching Six inches thick.
I
I
L
1 8
Figure 4 - Typical Failing Pavement North of Valley blvd.
t
• •
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
4sk-.
Figure 5 - Typical Failing Pavement North of Valley i lvd.
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 iS a Short Segment
consisting of four lanes of PCC pavement with asphalt concrete Shoulders as
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 Shouldere,
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 traffic.
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 exiete at the top of the western embankment adjacent to
Rosemead Boulevard Frontage Road. The rail needs to be replaced with Standard
guardrail.
9
• Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Structural Evaluation
5tructural-5ection
Deflection studies and pavement cores indicate the need for exceroive overlay
thickne5Se5, generally four to six inches on all 5egment5 with existing AC pavement. All
of the medians have reduced curb heights from past overlays. Cold milling to maintain
the median height will only weaken the Structure back to the original highly deteriorated
2'/2 to 3-inch AC Section and increase the overlay req,uiremento Substantially.
10
Figure 6 - Typical Pavement South of North City Limit
0
• Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
It to 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 io 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 resistance to crack reflection on this Small area of
pavement, will likely yield a coot approaching the cost 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 producto for crack reflection in this
Small area would increase coots dramatically.
The decision, therefore, iS between reconstruction with FCC pavement or AC pavement.
It io widely accepted that a FCC pavement can be designed to provide an excellent
Service life under the Severe traffic conditions on Rosemead boulevard. Thio roadway lo a
major truck and bus highway route, and the concept of a truck/buo 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,
1 11
Figure 7 - 51ab 5yotem Breakup South of North City Limit
' • • Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
eo both the No. 2 and No. 3 lance will need the Same basic Structural Section. During
' off-peak hours, trucks will use the No. 2 lanes. The uniformity of materials in there 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 came stability concerns exist if a
joint were created between the No. 1 and No. 2 lance. Furthermore, the maintenance
issues involved in sustaining a joint between the AC No. 1 lane and PGC truck and bur
' lane are also difficult.
Basically, the No. 2 and No. 3 lanes will constitute the truck/bur lance, or bueco will
drive across the joint between lanes frequently, ae well as trucks to some extent. Heavy
bus and truckload deformations along the joint would occur on the AC side in general.
' Diecontinuitice 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 coots and inconvenience of sealing and
maintaining the joint, and ride quality issues. 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.
I
1
The roadway width for travel will need to be increased to six lance, since traffic already is
extremely congested during some periods. The roadway is already six lance 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 it 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 lance, 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 ae a pedestrian refuge. Basically at intersections,
there would only be a 2-foot-wide strip of raieed concrete along the left-turn pockete.
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
came lane configuration as south of Valley Blvd.
The resulting 2-foot median along left-turn pockets is not really adequate for a
pedestrian refuge at moot intersections, and ie not ideal for motor vehicle eafety.
12
• • Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Experience has Shown that such 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 such locations (on the side of the street with the pocket).
A Special Situation exists at Mission Drive, which is adjacent to Rosemead High School.
(See discussion under Medians, below.) The large number of young pedestrians at that
location makes 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 this intersection to accommodate
pedestrian capacity.
' Proposed Rehabilitation
' The proposed FCC 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 cost estimate is provided in Section A
' B. CONCRETE IN PERIMETER AREAS
Curbs
The existing FCC curbs alon9 Rosemead Boulevard appear to be in fair condition, except
' for the non-monolithic curb north of Valley Boulevard constructed in 1938. 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.
1
1
13
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Figures 8 and 9 - Failing non-monolithic 3-foot gutter
South of the 10 Freeway, curb and gutter i5 miSSino on moot of the length. There i5
existing AC berm in moot areas, with Some rolled gutter as well. 5ome 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 just
South of the freeway. A continuous curb and gutter would provide effective uniform
drainage and traffic control along the edge of the outside lane.
' Crooo 9utter repairs will be needed at 5ome locations due to Settlement and crackin9,
' ao indicated in Appendix A.
Sidewalk
The Sidewalk has numerous areas of breakage and Settlement. The amount of
displacement ranged from '/2-inch up to 2 inches. 5ome locations were temporarily
' patched with asphalt. In general, a displacement greater than '/2-inch in a high-volume
pedestrian way iS considered a tripping hazard. These displacements tend to increase
over time.
The areas of damaged Sidewalk are Shown in Appendix A.
Experience has Shown that inotallino curb and gutter without replacing the contiguous
Sidewalk leads to the problem of matching the top of curb with the existing Sidewalk.
Persistent 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 a5 the most effective
' and efficient option north of Valley Boulevard. One other factor Supporting the efficiency
of full Sidewalk replacement iS the coat 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 scorelinco. 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
5outh 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 moot northerly Segment, just South of the north City limit, has only a 21/2-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 21/2 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 21/2 feet closer to the median. New 5-foot Sidewalk Should then
be installed. The existing median could remain ao is at 6-foot width to provide a 6-lane
' configuration, the Same ao to the South.
Driveways
5ome of the driveway "X's" and portions of adjacent curb were damaged due to vehicles
repeatedly running over them, especially heavy delivery vehicles. Many of the "X's" also
are Substandard in width, especially for commercial entries. In addition, moot of the
driveways do not provide adequate ADA-compliant pedestrian paooage, aS Shown in
' Figure 10.
1 15
w
• Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
J
y
' Figure 10 - ADA noncompliant driveway apron.
Driveways pose all of the Same problems presented for 5idewalk5, i.e. damage and grade
matching, but moot important for driveways i5 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 5olve5 all of the problems at once. Basically, all driveways
' north of Valley Boulevard will need to be replaced, a5 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 interoection5 must be cotabliohed.
Curb ramps at many locations were either missing or did not meet ADA minimum slope
' requirements, a5 shown in Figure 11.
I The substandard curb ramps are shown in Appendix A.
1 16
0
1 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 5oulevard consists of the
following:
1. Caltrans Drains. As part of the State Highway improvements for Rosemead
Boulevard between Garvey Avenue and Valley boulevard constructed in the early
1950'5, Caltrans 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 basins 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.
• Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
17
Figure 11- 5ubotandard curb ramp.
1
1
1
1
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 streets
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 Street and
Ralph Street) along the way. A total of 17 catch barin5 within Rosemead
Boulevard and the immediate Side 5treet5 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 Issue.
The drain runs from west to east in Valley Boulevard, croooco 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 Miosion Drive.
4. Project No. 524, Line "A". The LACFCD constructed this drain a5 part of the
1958 Storm Drain Bond looue. The drain runs from west to east in Mi55ion Drive,
crosses Rosemead Boulevard, and outlets to the Eaton Wash approximately one
mile southeast. Six catch basins located at the intersection of Mi55ion Drive and
Rosemead Boulevard capture Storm runoff generated between Mi55ion Road and
Lower Azusa Road.
5. Rudell Pump Station. A5 part of the State Highway improvements for Rosemead
Boulevard in the vicinity of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing
constructed in the late 1930'e, Caltran5 built the Rudell Pump Station. The pump
station i5 designed to drain the Sump area below the UPRR crossing, also known
a5 the Rudell Underpass (see Figure 13). Storm runoff i5 generated from the
areas immediately north (City of Temple City) and south (City of Rosemead) of
the underpass. The pump Station comoloto of two catch baoimo at the underpass
and a pump house located atop the roadway embankment in the City of Temple
City (See Figure 14).
18
Figure 12.
•
• Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Typical Galtrano catch basin along Southbound Rosemead Boulevard adjacent to
Rubio Wash.
19
1
•
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
20
Figure 13. Rudell Underpass (northbound Rosemead Boulevard at UPRR crossing)
Figure 14. Rudell Pump Station (in the City of Temple City)
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Historically, the storm drain system in Rosemead Boulevard has performed adequately.
' The City of Rosemead has experienced few incidents of street flooding during the life of
the system. Caltrans and LACDPW have provided routine maintenance of their
respective storm drains. With the exception of one damaged catch basin north of
Mission Drive (see Figure 15), all the catch basins are in relatively good condition.
1
1
Y
Upon the 5tate's relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard to the City of Rosemead, the
City intends to transfer all former Caltrane drains to LAMM for maintenance.
However, the Caltrans-built storm drains do not meet LACDPW o current design
standards, as required for acceptance of maintenance. 5pecifically, 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 access. Furthermore, in compliance with NPDE5 Permit
requirements, each catch basin along Rosemead boulevard (43 counted) should be
outfitted with a filter insert (or similar BMP) 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 Mission Drive
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Given the fact that the drainage system in Rosemead Boulevard has performed
' Satisfactorily and the catch basino 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 lateralo
branching off of Project Noo. 6801 and 524 would not be required.
Catch Basins
' The drainage on Rosemead Boulevard historically has been satisfactory. Evidently the
catch baoin5 and olope5 are Such that drainage including from Side Streets i5 managed
quite well. A5 a result, an extensive investigation of hydraulics and hydrology was not
performed.
D. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
r Traffic Signals
' The traffic Signals were evaluated from field observations and the following deficiencies
were identified.
The existing 170 controllers installed in 1978 should be replaced with 2070 controllers.
The current City Standard for new installations i5 the 2070 controller or equivalent.
When the City takes over maintenance it expects a controller with IT5 and major
communicationo capabilitieo that will Serve the City's future citywide traffic Signal
System until the year 2020. The controllero 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 standards with 35 to 40' mast arms to accommodate protected left-turn Signals
and through-movement signals. The median-mounted signals can then be removed along
with the Type 1-A and Type 17 poles. It io accepted practice on new intersections to place
all left-turn signals on the overhead mast arm. This has become the Standard due to
median-mounted 5ignal5 being damaged or destroyed by traffic accidento and for better
visibility. Therefore the City would like to bring the intersection up to current design
' 5tandard5. Further, all existing 8" signals Should be replaced by 12" 5ignal5 a5 all
modifications in recent years in the City have provided. All of the combination 8" and 12"
' 5ignal5 are presently being replaced by all 12" sectiono under separate contract leaving
1 22
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
1
three 8" 5ignal5 to be replaced. The Street name 5ign5 and luminaires should be replaced
due to age.
Both the internally illuminated Street name eigne and luminaires are at least 38 years
old and have faded Sign panels and degraded refractors in the luminaires which would
require immediate maintenance or replacement.
1
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 5tandarde. Further, any existing 8" 5ignal5
Should be replaced by 12" 5ignal5. The combination 8" and 12" signals are presently being
reconfigured to all 12" Sections under Separate contract leaving five 8" 5ignal5 to be
' replaced by 12" 5i0nal5. The Street name Signs 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 panele and degraded refractors in the luminaires.
r
All pedestrian pushbuttons Should be removed from median locatione for Safety reaoon5.
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 standards 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 System using marbelite poles with underground feed and 150 W HP5 Street
lights installed on both Sides of the Street at regular intervals. The present lighte with
the exception of 3 locatione 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 Uniotrut to round Steel
poles to meet the City of Rosemead round pole Standard. Approximately 42 sign polee
' 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 is resurfaced. The
striping will match the existing Striping at Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard.
Everything ie thermoplastic except for the Detail 9 Skip lines, the Detail 25 left edge
I lines and the 50' otripee at each intersection at the end of the Skip line.
Medians
The high level of traffic, much of it non-local and pass-through towards the 10 and 60
Freeways, which is anticipated for this roadway, demands attention to any means
available to mitigate the potential for accidents caused by confused or reckless drivers
in these crowded conditions. The traffic calming effect, Separation of opposing traffic
and Solidly defined traffic flow patterns are extremely beneficial attributer, provided by
the raised medians. Fully functional mediano Should be a part of the establishment of
' an acceptable roadway for relinquishment due to the extreme demands to be made on
the roadway and on those responsible for providing safety for the traveling public.
' There ie also much to be gained in terms of pedestrian Safety at croeeinge, where
median noses provide important refuge for wayward pedeotriane in a busy wide Street
ouch ae Rosemead Boulevard. This io one reason why providing medians including a
minimum width along left-turn pockets ie crucial. The other reason io to maintain
through circulation near crowded interoectiono 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
lost footing or balance along the edge. A fall into traffic could be disastroue. However,
considering the generally low volume of pedestrian traffic, this should Suffice, except at
the intersection of Mieeion Avenue adjacent to Rosemead High School. The high volume
of young pedestrians makes a wider 4-foot pedestrian refuge important at that
location.
r The median widthe South of the 10 Freeway and at the moot northerly Segment at the
north City limit are 6 feet. This doer, 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 Segments is possible, while maintaining the 3-lane configuration and the perimeter
' concrete improvements. The northern segment would be widened one foot on each side
Symmetrically. The Segment south of the 10 Freeway should be widened on the west side
I by 2 feet. The City of El Monte may eventually widen the other half of the median when
1 24
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
they accept relinquishment of the northbound side, but in the interim, the median can be
made the equivalent of a standard facility.
Striping and Marking
The present condition is that traffic striping is worn and no longer visible at certain
locations. Regardless, new traffic striping and marking will be necessary after the
pavement surface is rehabilitated. For uniformity of materials for maintenance and
reasonable lifespan expectations, the City considers the materials used by Caltrans at
present to be appropriate. This is thermoplastic except the lane line skip lines, skip line
solid extensions at intersections, and the striping along the median perimeter. Also, to
' provide a reasonable level of safety for striping on the new PCC surfacing, raised
pavement markers will be necessary on the lane line striped pattern.
1 Painted curbs will need to be repainted along with parking limit bars, as they are worn
and faded.
Traffic Signage
Traffic re9ulatory si9n5 will have to be replaced durin9 rehabilitation activities as needed.
Some signs are damaged. There are also some signs missing that need to be installed
to conform to normal standards. Provisions should also be made for refacing any Signs
with low reflectivity levels. This is estimated to be 70 percent of the signs on the
' project.
' Streetlights
The Streetlight system on Rosemead Blvd needs to be replaced with a more adequate
' System using marbelite poles with underground feed and 150 W HP5 streetlights
installed on both sides of the street at regular intervals. The present lights with the
exception of 3 locations are all on the east side of the street mounted on wood power
' poles. This creates deficient lighting due to the width of the street and the center
median divider. The present lighting does not provide sufficient illumination beyond the
median.
The streetlighting is clearly very old, mounted on wooden power poles when that was
common practice. The system uses the old series circuitry, which is no longer used in
new or rehabilitated systems. The system must have parallel circuit type wiring with
' underground conduits as part of the installation. Fortunately, installation of new
conduits will be a very low-cost item due to placement while the sidewalk is removed
1 25
1
1
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
north of Valley and South of the 10 Freeway. Luminaires and ballasto 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 trees. There is easily room
for 60 trees ao noted on the field Survey by our arborist. This would certainly be
considered a deficiency in an urban environment, ae Rosemead Boulevard io today. It
appears that Since 1950, when construction war, completed, lack of street trees was
not recognized ar, 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 standarde 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 i5 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. Such 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 i5 removed.
F. UTILITIES
The electric utilities in Rosemead 1oulevard 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.
1
1
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 set 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. Still,
27
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
elements ouch ao traffic Signal plans or plans for other facilities not fully rehabilitated
' will need to be researched and acquired or drafted. Estimates of these costs need to be
included to provide for relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard as a facility, just as
elements of a commercial building are documented to provide effective maintenance.
Reconciliation of On-Going Permits
' It is 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 administratively and
procedurally. The administrative work will be quite significant and the coots of
inspection to catch up with current circumstances will be duplicative of the work already
performed by Caltrans.
Design Engineering/Surveying
The cost of design survey and engineering will be approximately 12 percent of the
construction cost. Quality construction plans and specifications are crucial to
obtaining solid low bids and avoiding change orders during construction.
Construction Engineering
r
~I
Construction Surveying, construction management, testing and inspection will also be
coots incurred in the rehabilitation construction. These costs will tend to be at least 15
percent of the construction coots. The quality and durability of the rehabilitation work
will depend on good construction engineering.
28
0 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 i5 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
e
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.
5. 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 lance 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 fast lanes and install pavement section and conduit croooinee.
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 cut and patch strategy for sidewalk deficiencies. The costs are dramatically
reduced for removal and construction by allowing the continuous, uniform operation by a
contractor's workforce. Items such as conduits and root control devices can be easily
29
h
~7
i •
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 as a quick
reference in understanding the plan and cost estimate.
A. PAVEMENT
Reconstruct with 9 inches of PCC on 5 inches of Lean Treated Base (LTB) on 7 inches of
aggregate base over full width.
0. 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 Los 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 UP5's,
wired for Opticom and fiber optics multi-circuit interconnect, including modules to
communicate the City's IGONS signal coordination master system software.
t
30
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
Retrofit traffic Signals 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 5ignal5 to 12-inch with red, yellow, and green LED's, with yellow LED
modules added to all 12-inch traffic 5ignal5, 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 stripes and pavement markings and paint lane lines.
Install raised pavement markers on all stripes.
Traffic Signage
' Install new 5ign5 where missing or different from acceptable Standards.
Install all new Signpoot5.
Replace damaged 5igno.
Reface all Signs with diminished reflectivity (approximately 70 percent of current
Signage).
Streetlights
Install underground Streetlight System with new poles and 150 W HP5 luminaires.
E. PARKWAY TREES
Install all new parkway trees on optimal pattern, including root control meaoure5 and
irrigation.
' 31
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
F. UTILITIES
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
• •
V1. COST ESTIMATE
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
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
a
1
E
•
City of Rosemead
Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment
North City Limit to South City Limit
Estimate of Cost
No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost
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
$50,000.00
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 driveway
16,940
SF
$6.00
$101,640.00
18
Re air 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
Re air 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
Install 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 loo detectors
135
EA
$400.00
$54,000.00
Subtotal:
$287,780.00
1 of 3
1
1
• •
Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment
North City Limit to South City Limit
Estimate of Cost
No.
Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost
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 hardsca a
14,895
SF
$6.00
$89,370.00
42
Curb and utter 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
Sign replacing
119
EA
$200.00
$23,800.00
52
Sign and post (install)
42
EA
$150.00
$6,300.00
Subtotal:
$30,100.00
Street Light ng
53
Conduit/wire installation
13,501
LF
$12.00
$162,012.00
54
150 HPS 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
1
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/F )
66
EA
$400.00
$26,400.00
63
Tree rates
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: $200,000.00
Subtotal Construction Contract: $9,135,964.91
Inflation over 2 ears: 4% $365,438.60
10% contingency: $913,596.49
Subtotal: $10,415,000.00
2 of 3
t
1
1
1
1
• •
Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment
North City Limit to South City Limit
Estimate of Cost
No. Description 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
$65,000.00
$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:
$12,500,00070
3 of 3
1 01
AFFENDIX A
06 Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
1 Aerial f hotoo of Existing Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk
1
1
1
ROSE
Af,
.
4 in; M-1
r
Lv
W
x
3
2 OF 18
•
46 -
' ' f' f''~ y ads 1
A& AL
2m Dm
® & O M
6YU 1 TTYI
® SIDEWALK
o :-wTTu
C MD DAM
• • / •
OSEMEAD
FLAIR
BLVD.
DR.
4
3 OF418
r
a
t
T 4
^7 .
18
• 0 9 •
a
- - - BLVD.
40
:ter
DR.
5 OF 18
OR.
r
r
A101--,
18
MRW
r
ffo
as
0 • •
Ap~
r i
8OF18
1
1
4
• • 0
Mm
0 anmAr N
® om 1 MITTU
~ A"
u.
W
Q
t -
r
W
J
F W
W
F
W
it
ktv, I
x~
• • • •
SE
1
,
1
w
LEGEN
D
o
®
DRIVEWAY
Gun ' wTTi
'
®
WDEWALK
p
x-wTTm
®
OWNS Raw
'
4
0
R0
-
C-
D
DRIVEWAY
®
axaN A WTTEN
®
SonALx
'
o
x Surrur
0802 MAIN
I
~A
dwr
AOL
Z,S
mgp
OULEVARD
xrs
T
15 OF 18
i
R
r
a
Q
16 OF 18
is
• • •
i
L
a
I
N
I
1
1
1
Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
AF ENDIX B
Deflection Analyoio Keport
0 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
e
n
1
•
May 29, 2003
Mr. Ken Rukavina
Willdan
13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746
Subject: Pavement Investigation Report
Rosemead Boulevard
Rosemead, California
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6
Dear Mr. Rukavina:
L
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,
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting of Georgia, Inc.
Thomas Kirk, P.E.
Senior Engineer- Pavements and Construction
Illosongeles-91Groupsl'rojectsl70131 Geotechl1001-projV0359 WilldanlRosemd Relinq Pvmt-171Deliverables[Roseniead
Bl Pvmt Report.doc
1
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11
Page
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
1
3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS
2
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
............................................................3
5.0 REHABILITATION METHODS
............................................................8
6.0 DEFLECTION TEST RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9
7.0 STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
13
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
13
9.0 BASIS OF REPORT
14
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 7. 1 - Structural Section Recommendations - Reconstruction 13
Table 7. 2 Structural Section Recommendations - Overlay North 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
0
Wildan - Pavement Investigation Report May19, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page I
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 WORK
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.
I
• •
Wildun - Puveurent Investigation Report May29, 1003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 3
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 sea] 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.
Ifildan - Puvement Investigation Report May19, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 4
4.1 Rio HONDO 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.
I Core Results
Based on cores, overlays have been installed on the original section as follows:
A single overlay of 2'/,- to 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 to the No. 3 right wheel paths. The
left wheel path is in slightly better condition but very similar.
I The same situation exists on the No, 2 lane, where conditions are somewhat better, but alligator
1
9 0
Wildan - Pavement Investigation Report May29, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 5
cracking still exists in both wheel paths.
The No. I 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
I years.
t
L
4.2 10 FREEWAY TO VALLEY BOULEVARD
Existintz 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 11/2-inch overlay that was on a wet,
disbonded and badly decomposed layer 1 '/2-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.
IFildon - Pavement Investigation Report May29, 2003
MACTECPt ject 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. 1
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 seal 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.
4.3 VALLEY BOULEVARD TO 500 FEET NORTH 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 l l -foot width of 6%-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 segment. 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 the gutter 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-
11
0 •
Wildon - Paveinent Investigation Report May29, 2003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 7
length and an overlay of asphalt rubber hot mix was added on the membrane on the southbound side
in 1988. The AR}1M 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'/2-inch
layer 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 Y2-
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 mix 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 3'/,-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 pariially in both lanes, the asphalt
appears to be seriously cracked. Again, the asphalt rubber chip sea] generally masks the cracks, but
they are still visible. There are very severely cracked areas in the wheel paths adjacent to the median
I • •
Wildan - Pavemenu Investigation Report Ma}+19, 2003
Page 8
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page 8
I
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
I 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 LOWER AZUSA ROAD TO CITY LIMIT
I Existing Structural Section
The pavement in this area was constructed as a quite different structural section overall than south of
I 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 total 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 I-foot drain
away gutter in the center of the roadway. There is a 3-foot gutter on each side of the roadway.
Visual Structural Condition
' The travel lanes are slabs average I 1 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
I 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
I It should be noted that a wide range of possible methods were considered to provide an overlay for
the purposes of structural rehabilitation:
0 Pavement fabric was considered, but has potential flushing under heavy traffic with resultant
I 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
f
1
t
•
N'ildan - Pavement Investigation Report
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6
•
May29,1003
Page 9
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
I 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'/s 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. I lane was overlaid in the last project and the median curb face height was dramatically
f
t
t
f
• 0 Ma 19. 1003
N'ildan - Pavement Investigation Report Y
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
I Northbound
u
J
The northbound No. 2 lane requires a 4'/2- to 51/2-inch overlay.
Northbound No. 1 lane has a similar pavement structure with lesser deflections and lesser overlay
requirement.
Southbound
Southbound No. 1 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 1 %s 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
1
II
• •
Wildan - Pavement lnvestigarion Report May29, 1003
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6 Page I1
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 VALLEY BOULEVARD TO PCC NORTH OF LOWER AZUSA AVENUE
Northbound
1
e
The northbound No. 2 lane deflection results indicate need for an overlay of 4'h 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 %2- 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. I and No. 2 lanes both show the need of an overlay, even though
both of these lanes received an extra I'/2-inch overlay of asphalt rubber hot mix, which is uncracked at
present. Indications are that the underlying support for the ARHM overlay is the same as on the
northbound side, as confirmed by core information. The excessive rutting in these lanes means the
ARHM 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 '/z-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
1
r • •
2003
N'ildon - Paven.em In estigwion Report Moy49,
Page 12
11
MACTECProjecr 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 DmIT
r 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
r 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
r 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.
r Recommendations
r 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
r 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
r 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
r 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
r reflection to occur cannot be accurately estimated. The 41/2-inch overlay system as discussed above
would consist of joint filling., a %z-inch leveling course, an ARAM interlayer, and a 31/2-inch asphalt
r 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
r 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
r study. This may actually prove to be the most cost effective approach, considering the small
quantities of ARHM and ARAM interlayer and the need to reconstruct the median. Economy of scale
r 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
1
1
• •
Ifildan - Pavement Investigation Report
MACTEC Project 7013110359-6
May29, 2003
Page 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 1l
extended the following structural sections using the Caltrans design procedure outlined in the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual.
Table 7. l - Structural Section Recommendations - Reconstruction
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
RECOMMENDED STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
PCC PAVEMENT AC PAVEMENT
TI = 10.5
PCC = 9" AC = 8"
LCB = 5" AB = 6"
TI = 11
PCC = 9" AC = 8.5"
LCB = 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
TI = 10.5 or 11
STRUCTURAL SECTION
ARHM OVERLAY
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD -
ARHM = 3.5"
PCC SEGMENT NORTH
ARAM INTERLAYER
OF LOWER 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 modern time frame, lends 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 Report May29, 2003
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 currently practicing under similar conditions and similar localities. No other warranty is
expressed or implied.
I
t • •
1~
Ll
7
APPENDIX A
DEFLECTION RESULTS
Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
emits: SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
irection: NORTHBOUND
Lane: 1
Project No. 29666
eet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio Proj RRl TD on 1 Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 1 NORTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
+00 SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
+01 ON PCC Median RAISED
2+00
33
31
26
0.94
37
4.25
+40
+00
39
38
26
0.97
56
5.7
+10
6+00
47
40
31
0.85
52
7.63
9 +35
+30
+00
117
79
45
0.68
139
24.5
10+00
41
31
20
0.76
48
6.18
1+00
2+00
1
43
29
18
0.67
47
6.66
2+85
14+00
43
30
18
0.7
50
6.66
6+00
6+80
1
81
59
37
0.73
94
15.82
8+00
18+10
62
49
33
0.79
73
11.24
8+25
q
9+00
0+00
68
48
30
0.71
77
12.69
• 20+30
0+85
1
2+00
77
63
39
0.82
102
14.86
• 22+75
3+30
2
4+00
1
81
57
33
0.7
98
15.82
4+65
e25+60
6+00
6+70
9
109
74
43
0.68
127
22.57
7+55
• 28+00
12
11
10
0.92
12
-0.81
8+50
0+00
1
12
11
10
0.92
12
-0.81
1+40
• 32+50
14
13
12
0.93
14
-0.33
2+95
3+80
0
4+00
75
52
30
0.69
90
14.38
• 34+65
5+15
6+00
+95
96
60
35
0.62
103
19.44
• 6
• 37+90
+00
124
89
42
0.72
189
26.18
f08+80
+00 0
49
35
23
0.71
53
8.11
• 40+20
11+10
Median RAISED/PLANTED
BEGIN LTP
Lateral Cracks
End PCC BEGIN AC
CL of GLENDON WAY
Alligator Cracks
Longitudinal Cracks in LWT
BEGIN LTP
Near Traffic Sensors
CL of MARSHALL STREET
Lateral Cracks
Lateral Cracks
CL of DE ADALENA STREET
Lateral Trench
Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of EDDA VILLA DRIVE
BEGIN LTP
Lateral Cracks Slight Raveling
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT
Lateral Cracks
BEGIN LTP
CL of GUESS STREET LEFT
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT
BEGIN LTP
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
CL of NEVADA STREET
Begin PCC
BEGIN LTP CL of STEELE STREET
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
Test Taken in LWT
End PCC
BEGIN LTP
Lateral Cracks Test Taken in LWT
CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
Alligator Cracks in LWT Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
CL of NEWBY STREET
Test Taken in LWT Lateral Cracks Slight Raveling
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
CL of LAWRENCE STREET
•
• Not Included in Summary
04/2003 D A T A S H E E T
,,,eet,
ROSEMEAD BO
ULEVARD
(
,rats:
SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO
NORTH C
ITY LIMIT
irection: NORTHBO
UND
aiie:
1
eet X 100
RRl
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on 1
41+45
42+00
46
36
23
0.78
56
7.39
43+60
44+50
59
42
27
0.71
65
10.52
46+00
111
78
45
0.7
135
23.05
48+00
68
26
15
0.38
45
12.69
50+00
35
32
26
0.91
39
4.74
52+00
38
35
29
0.92
42
5.46
52+35
53+95
54+50
45
31
26
0.69
37
7.14
56+00
38
28
23
0.74
34
5.46.
'57+45
58+00
31
28
23
0.9
34
3.77
60+00
77
60
34
0.78
106
14.86
61+25
'
62+00
50
43
34
0.86
54
8.35
• 64+00
51
48
38
0.94
61
8.59
165+75
1
1
I • Not Included in Summary
/04/2003
•
Project No. 29666
Comments
BEGIN LTP
Test Taken in LWT
CL of MISSION DRIVE
Test Taken in LWT
Test Taken in LWT Alligator Cracks in LWT
Test Taken in LWT Slight Alligator Cracks LWT
Slight Lateral Cracks
Slight Alligator Cracks LWT
BEGIN LTP
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD
Slight Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks
Slight Alligator r_.F.?&s Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks in
LWT
BEGIN LTP
Alligator Cracks Lateral Cracks
Begin PCC
CL of NORTH CITY LIMIT
DATA SHEET
Street:
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
,Limits:
SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH C
ITY LIMIT
Direction: NORTHBOUND
Lane:
2
keet X 100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Pro' RRI
~
TD on 1
0+00
0+01
1+00
44
40
34
0.91
47
6.9
00
41
39
33
0.95
46
6.18
00
U5+
40
38
32
0.95
45
5.94
30
6+75
108
78
46
0.72
132
22.33
7+25
9+00
38
38
23
1
63
5.46
11+00
42
33
20
0.79
54
6.42
• 12+85
13+50
1
103
67
38
0.65
118
21.12
14+25
15+00
73
52
36
0.71
75
13.89
16+75
17+00
9
94
71
46
0.76
110
18.95
18+00
• 18+10
19+00
66
57
41
0.86
79
12.21
'
20+30
20+75
21+00
55
40
25
0.73
64
9.55
123+00
23+30
58
38
25
0.66
58
10.28
24+65
25+00
94
68
38
0.72
122
18.95
26+70
127+00
204
115
35
0.56
378
45.46
27+50
•28+60
28+90
29+00
131+40
18
16
14
0.89
18
0.64
• 32+90
33+05
109
80
43
0.73
149
22.57
~
34+60
35+00
170
80
44
0.47
145
37.27
• 35+10
37+00
129
69
35
0.53
136
27.39
37+85
• 38+75
39+00
100
53
26
0.53
108
20.4
'41+00
61
38
23
0.62
63
11
43+50
45+00
116
61
33
0.53
113
24.26
47+00
83
42
24
0.51
74
16.3
9+00
t
48
37
28
0.77
49
7.87
i +00
55
38
28
0.69
52
9.55
*51+45
3+00
50
30
22
0.6
41
8.35
93+90
i
Project No. 29666
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 2 NORTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO NORTH CITY LIMIT
ON PCC
Lateral Cracks
Lateral Cracks
End PCC
CL of GLENDON WAY
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
Rutting RLWT Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of MARSHALL STREET
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
Curb and Gutter
Alligator Cracks Potholes Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of DE ADALENA STREET
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Lateral Trench
EDDA VILLA STREET
Slight Alligator Cracks
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT
Slight Lateral Cracks Potholes
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of GUESS STREET LEFT
CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of NEVADA STREET
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Begin PCC
CL of STEELE STREET
BEGIN RTP
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
End PCC
Alligator Cracks
CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT
Slight Alligator Cracks
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of NEWBY STREET
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
Alligator Cracks
CL of LAWRENCE STREET Rutting
CL of MISSION DRIVE
Alligator Cracks Rutting
Alligator Cracks Rutting
Alligator Cracks Rutting
Alligator Cracks Rutting Slight Lateral Cracks
BEGIN RTP
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD
• Not Included in Summary
~i04/2003 DATA S H E E T
t
treet:
ROSEMEAD BO
ULEVARD
units:
SOUTH CITY LIMIT TO
NORTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: NORTHBOUND
ane:
2
eet X 100
RRI RR2 RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on 1
55+00
116 74 46
0.64
119
24.26
'57+00
91 68 39
0.75
119
18.23
59+00
98 62 35
0.63
110
19.92
61+00
23 19 15
0.83
24
1.84
61+20
'63+00
50 44 38
0.88
51
8.35
65+00
40 32 27
0.8
38
5.94
• 65+75
• Not Included in Summary
04/200=
•
Project No. 29666
Comments
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Alligator Cracks
Slight Lateral Cracks
Begin PCC
CL of NORTH CITY LIMIT
DATA SHEET
I 1 • •
1
Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
units: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
irection: SOUTHBOUND
ta ne: 1
Project No. 29666
eet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio Proj RRI TD on 1 Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 1 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
0+00 NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
0+01 ON PCC Median RAISED/PLANTED
• 1+00
67
66
59
0.99
74
12.45
3+00
47
43
35
0.91
53
7.63
~5+00
47
41
28
0.87
60
7.63
5+10
7+00
55
39
26
0.71
58
9.55
+00
F
32
30
23
0.94
39
4.01
+60
11+00
31
29
24
0.94
35
3.77
• 12+35
13+00
60
38
23
0.63
63
10.76
115+00
32
28
22
0.88
36
4.01
17+00
29
28
24
0.97
33
3.29
19+00
95
61
36
0.64
103
19.2
x0+00
1+00
77
49
29
0.64
83
14.66
• 22+70
23+50
66
44
26
0.67
74
12.21
5+00
9
70
46
27
0.66
78
13.17
5+25
• 26+75
7+00
54
40
25
0.74
64
9.31
t7+55
8+45
29+00
86
58
33
0.67
102
17.03
0+25
1+00
1
78
50
29
0.64
86
15.1
1+15
*31+35
1+65
3+000
0
1
14
11
10
0.79
12
-0.33
3+10
• 34+90
5+60
12
12
10
1
14
-0.81
6+85
0
7+00
102
72
43
0.71
121
20.88
• 37+75
91+00
60
44
27
0.73
72
10.76
IF
9+60
41+00
55
38
22
0.69
66
9.55
•41+65
13+00
48
35
22
0.73
56
7.87
• 44+35
45+00
37
27
17
0.73
43
5.22
5+50
1
6+00
47+00
67
47
31
0.7
71
12.45
8+00
8+30
1
End PCC
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Potholes
BEGIN LTP
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
Test Taken in LWT
CL of MISSION DRIVE
Test Taken in LWT
Test Taken in LWT
CL of LAWRENCE STREET
BEGIN LTP
Test Taken in LWT
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
CL of NEWBY STREET
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
Test Taken in LWT
CL of BENTERL STREET LEFT
Begin PCC
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
Test Taken in LWT
BEGIN LTP
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
End PCC
Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of STEELE STREET
Slight Alligator Cracks
CL of NEVADA STREET
Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of GUESS STREET LEFT
CL of GUESS STREET RIGHT Slight Lateral Cracks Longitudinal C
racks in LWT
BEGIN LTP
Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT
Slight Lateral Cracks
Change in Pavement
Lateral Trench BEGIN LTP
* Not lnciuded in Summary
104/2003 DATA S H E E T
1
Street:
ROSEMEAD BO
ULEVARD
t t►nits:
NORTH CITY LIMIT TO
SOUTH CITY LIMIT
irection: SOUTHBOUND
ane:
1
eel X 100
RRI RR2 RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on 1
49+00
40 31 22
0.77
44
5.94
9+50
0+75
51+00
38 31 23
0.82
42
5.46
3+45
5+00
(
67 49 30
0.73
80
12.45
7+00
93 69 41
0.74
116
18.71
• 59+00
+50
:
57 48 35
0.84
66
10.04
+45
(
6 i+GO
70 68 58
0.97
80
13.17
3+00
41 39 34
0.95
45
6.18
5+00
1
37 36 33
0.97
39
5.22
6+30
*71+25
F +60
+75
2+90
0
Not Included in Summary
1/04/2003
0
Project No. 29666
Comments
DE ADALENA STREET
BEGIN LTP
CL of MARSHALL STREET
Slight Alligator Cracks Slight Lateral Cracks
CL of GLENDON WAY
Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks Longitudinal Cracks in LWT
Begin PCC
CL of 10 FREEWAY
End PCC
BEGIN LTP
CL of WHITMORE STREET
CL of SOUTH CITY LIMIT
DATASHEET
I 1 • •
I
Street: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
tmits: NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
Direction: SOUTHBOUND
Lane: 2
Project No. 29666
eet X 100 RRI RR2 RR3 Ratio Proj RR1 TD on I Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 2 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
0+00 NORTH CITY LIMIT TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
i0+01 ON PCC Curb and Gutter
• 2+00
49
45
36
0.92
56
8.11
4+00
45
40
31
0.89
52
7.14
5+10
6+00
42
39
32
0.93
48
6.42
8+00
82
60
35
0.73
103
16.06
10+00
56
45
27
0.8
75
9.8
11+70
74
51
29
0.69
90
14.13
12+a0
14+00
51
36
25
0.75
58
8.59
16+00
66
41
25
0.62
67
12.21
18+00
1
48
29
19
0.6
44
7.87
20+00
73
45
26
0.62
78
13.89
22+60
24+00
64
41
24
0.64
70
11.72
' 25+25
26+00
61
36
21
0.59
62
11
• 27+50
~28+00
52
34
21
0.65
55
8.83
28+40
30+00
98
55
28
0.56
108
19.92
•31+15
31 +35
t
31+65
• 32+00
16
15
13
0.94
17
0.16
32+20
134+00
14
12
11
0.86
13
-0.33
34+90
e36+00
13
13
11
1
15
-0.57
36+80
137+65
8
8+00
75
52
31
0.69
87
14.3
• 39+55
0+00
38
29
20
0.76
42
5.46
1+65
t2+00
36
29
19
0.81
44
4.98
• 42+90
4+00
5+50
t
50
37
22
0.74
62
8.35
5+95
46+00
76
59
42
0.78
83
14.62
8+00
8+15
!
40
32
24
0.8
43
5.94
48+30
• 49+55
+00
35
29
22
0.83
38
4.74
+00
F2
33
31
22
0.94
44
4.25
+40
54+30
~5+80
40
37
26
0.92
53
5.94
• Not Included in
Summary
End PCC
Slight Alligator Cracks Longitudinal Cracks
Slight Lateral Cracks
Rutting
CL of LOWER AZUSA ROAD
Longitudinal Cracks
Rutting
Rutting Longitudinal Cracks
CL of MISSION DRIVE
CL of LAWRENCE STREET
CL of NEWBY AVENUE
CL of NEWBY STREET
Rutting
CL of BENTEL STREET LEFT
Begin PCC
CL of BENTEL STREET RIGHT
Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks
BEGIN RTP
CL of VALLEY BOULEVARD
End PCC
CL of STEELE STREET
Alligator Cracks Lateral Cracks Alligator Cracks in LW i
CL of NEVADA STREET
Lateral Cracks Longitudinal Cracks
CL of GUESS STREET
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT Lateral Cracks
CL of GUESS STREET
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of RALPH STREET LEFT
CL of RALPH STREET RIGHT
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Lateral Cracks
CL of EDDA VILLA DRIVE
Lateral Trench
CL of DE ADALENA STREET
Rutting
CL of MARSHALL STREET
BEGIN RTP
1/04/2003 DATA S H E E T
1
Street:
ROSEMEA
D BO
ULEVARD
Limits:
NORTH CITY LIMIT TO
SOUTH CI
TY LIMIT
Direction:
SOUTHBO
UND
Lane:
2
Feet X 100
RRl
M
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on I
' 56+00
58+00
38
33
32
26
22
18
0.84
0.79
47
38
5.46
4.25
• 59+00
60+00
74
49
33
0.66
73
14.13
• 60+45
t 962+00
52
40
35
0.77
46
8.83
• 64+00
42
33
30
0.79
36
6.42
• 66+00
43
39
32
0.91
48
6.66
68+00
40
38
32
0.95
45
5.94
'
• 70+00
41
38
30
0.93
48
6.18
*71+25
72+00
44
37
26
0.84
53
6.9
74+00
45
36
25
0.8
52
7.14
76+00
48
32
20
0.67
51
7.87
78+00
48
34
21
0.71
55
7.87
80+00
56
41
27
0.73
62
9.8
82+00
52
44
27
0.85
72
8.83
• 82+25
84+00
45
31
21
0.69
46
7.14
86+00
94
68
36
0.72
128
18.95
• 86+30
88+00
51
35
21
0.69
58
8.59
90+00
74
58
37
0.78
91
14.13
92+00
66
44
28
0.67
69
12.21
94+00
46
38
27
0.83
53
7.39
• 94+65
*95+00
96+00
101
71
45
0.7
112
20.64
'
98+00
79
61
38
0.77
98
15.34
• 98+95
•103+00
I
a Not Included in Summary
'04/04/2003
•
Project No. 29666
Comments
Slight Lateral Cracks
Rutting RLWT
CL of GLENDON WAY
Lateral Cracks Tranverse Crack
Begin PCC
End PCC
Slight Alligator Cracks
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
CL of TELSTAR AVENUE
Change in Pavement
Alligator Cracks in LWT
Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT
Change in Pavement
CL of WHITMORE STREET
Slight Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
Alligator Cracks in LWT Slight Alligator Cracks
Begin Bridge Change in Pavement
End Bridge Change in Pavement
DATASHEET
1
•
•
1
Project No. 29666
Street:
ROSE
MEA
D BO
ULEVA
RD
emits:
IL
10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
" irection: SOUTHBO
UND
ane:
3
(
et X100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on I
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 3 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
10+00
0+01
Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter ON PCC
• 1+00
40
34
27
0.85
43
5.94
2+30
BEGIN RT ONRAMP
3+00
115
34
28
0.3
41
24.02
5+00
End FCC
5+10
42
34
24
0.81
48
6.42
00
51
40
27
0.78
59
8.59
00
U
47
35
23
0.74
53
7.63
Slight Alligator Cracks
End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
60
11+00
129
89
49
0.69
162
27.39
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
11+70
END Curb and Gutter FLOOD CHANNEL WALL
,12+50
Begin AC Berm
13+00
186
113
52
0.61
246
41.13
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
15+00
185
105
53
0.57
208
40.88
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
16+05
CL of TELSTAR AVENUE
'
17+00
69
53
34
0.77
83
12.93
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
19+00
201
122
65
0.61
229
44.74
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
20+10
Change in Pavement
121+00
137
94
55
0.69
161
29.32
Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT
22+45
End AC Berm Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter
23+00
106
78
47
0.74
129
21.85
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks In LWT
25+00
52
44
28
0.85
69
8.83
Slight Alligator Cracks
t26+60
Begin Patch
6+90
End Patch BEGIN BUS PAD
*27+90
END BUS PAD
28+45
Change in Pavement
t8+70
CL of WHITMORE STREET
9+00
60
50
33
0.83
76
10.76
31+00
68
50
29
0.74
86
12.69
32+50
End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
132+75
Begin Bridge Change in Pavement
36+80
End Bridge Change in Pavement
I
• Not Included in Summary
~i04i2003 DATA S H E E T
'
•
0
Street:
ROSEMEA
D BO
ULEVARD
Project No. 29666
emits:
W
10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LI
MIT
irection: SOUTHBO
UND
Lane:
3
1
eetX100
RRI
RR2
RR3
Ratio
Proj RRI
TD on I
Comments
BEGIN TESTING LANE 3 SOUTHBOUND ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
00
t
10 FREEWAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT
ol
Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter ON PCC
01+00
40
34
27
0.85
43
5.94
+30
BEGIN RT ONRAMP
+00
115
34
28
0.3
41
24.02
+00
End PCC
5+10
42
34
24
0.81
48
6.42
+00
51
40
27
0.78
59
8.59
+00
47
35
23
0.74
53
7.63
Slight Alligator Cracks
+60
End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
11+00
129
89
49
0.69
162
27.39
Alligator Cracks Alligator Crar*., in L WT
1+70
END Curb and Gutter FLOOD CHANNEL WALL
2+50
1
Begin AC Berm
3+00
186
113
52
0.61
246
41.13
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
15+00
185
105
53
0.57
208
40.88
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
6+05
CL of TELSTAR AVENUE
07+00
69
53
34
0.77
83
12.93
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
9+00
201
122
65
0.61
229
44.74
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
• 20+10
Change in Pavement
1+00
137
94
55
0.69
161
29.32
Slight Alligator Cracks RLWT
2+45
1
End AC Berm Begin Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter
3+00
106
78
47
0.74
129
21.85
Alligator Cracks Alligator Cracks in LWT
25+00
52
44
28
0.85
69
8.83
Slight Alligator Cracks
6+60
Begin Patch
6+90
End Patch BEGIN BUS PAD
7+90
END BUS PAD
•28+45
Change in Pavement
8+70
CL of WHITMORE STREET
19+00
60
50
33
0.83
76
10.76
31+00
68
50
29
0.74
86
12.69
2+50
End Rolled PCC Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter
2+75
1
Begin Bridge Change in Pavement
6+80
End Bridge Change in Pavement
t
o Not Included in Summary
104/2003
DATA SHEET
•
TABLE ONE
Measured
Deflection
`T'
'
Street & Limits
R.R. T.D.
TL
(ft.)
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD:
South City Limit to North City Limit
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 Notch City L
imit
NORTHBOUND-1
2+00 to 26+00
88 17.5
10.5
11.0
0.36
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 Limit
SOUTHBOUND-1
7+00 to 11 +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+0(11,,1,5+01
75 14.4
10.5
0.42
'
11.0
0.42
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD;
North City Limit to South City Li
mit
SOUTHBOUND-2
6+00 to 30+00
77 14.9
10.5
0.42
'
11.0
0.42
38+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
11.0
0.42
0.42
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD:
10 Freeway to Sout
h City Limit
SOUTHBOUND-3
5+10 to 31+00
152 32.9
10.5
0.42
'
11.0
0.42
1 10 Year Design Period
,No Growth Factor
LaBelle Marvin, Inc.
Allowable
Reduction
Required
Deflection
Required
C.E.
A.C
NSL
R.R. T.D.
('Y)
Or)
(ft.)
(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
a
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
STATION MAP
0+00 North City Limit I r 65+75
60+00
10+00-
Lower Azusa Rd
50+00
20+00 Test Line
Mission 'Dr
II<~
LaarrricA St
40+00
wve
Newbyy St
30+00 I
Bentel St (L)Bentel St (R)
Valley I I Blvd
I 30+00
Steele St
II
40+00 Nevada St
Guess St (L)
Guess St (R)
reet: Rosemead Boulevard
t
Date: April 2003
E
,
: North Cite Limit- ±c ~outfCit, Limits
Pro iect No: 29666
L.6111cllc 0 A11:119~,fili
50+00 -
St L I X
Ralph ( )Ralph St (R)
I n
Edda Villa Dr
De Adalena St
20+00
Test Line
60+00 -
Marshall St
Glendon Wy
10 Fr
70+00
80+00
T
Test
90+00 -
100+00
103+00
y
Ave
Whitmore St
South City Limit
-10+00
-0+00
Street: Rosemead Boulevard
Date: Ap
ril
2003
From: North City Limits to South City Limits
Pro I'ect
No:
29666
L-01110Ic 0 A11:ll•vin
n
APPENDIX C
CORES AND SOIL TESTS
1
Y
V
J
1 O
d
0
c
N
N
a7
a1
a
(n
Y)
Y
m
R
f-
m
A
F-
0
a1
a
E
C
`LO
0
O
pa
E
C
C7
a1
a
E
~
m
N
a
EE
t
~
m
N
c
O
Z
c
O
Z
O
N
U
W
m
U
io
O
D
-
N
r
p
O
-
N
r
o
O
r
r
m
c
O
Z
d
c
O
Z
V
r
d
c
Z
y
O
U
y
N
m
m
~
m
Qf
a
y
N
1p
m
L
CD
of
a
ci
N
(a
m
Q1
M
a
of
N
b
m
m
rn
a
hi
N
10
m
i
Q7
a
ci
N
16
m
m
cm
a
ai
N
10
m
C1
a
0
N
10
m
L
01
01
a
ai
N
/v
m
Q1
Of
a
m
N
10
m
Of
Q1
a
m
N
(0
m
V
Ql
a
U
N
r
_
~
I
Q
p
O
N
_
(V
ch
c
v
N
O
Q Q
< r
Q N
60
M
O
Q _
Q
b
c'~
(V
~
_N _
c
O
~
in
O
E
Q 0
N
O
O
Q
¢
O y
C
O
r y
_
Q N
Q
CV
r 'fl
N
C C
O L
N
~
N ~
m
u e'7
N
= .
a
CN
r Q
r
~
s
C
O
N y
Q M
N
r
a
U
C
J
it
p
L
co
L
a-
L
C
J
3t
O
L
j
(n
L
d
L
C
J
#
O
L
7
U)
L
O
J
c
J
N
7
O
t
to
0)
Y
L
(O
Z
C
J
r
O
L
C
O
Z
L
C
J
N
O
L
r
O
Z
'
C
J
N
O
L
'C
O
Z
L
-
L
C
J
r
O
L
O
Z
L
D.
al
J
C
J
O
L
j
p
End
~C
0_
J
C
J
O
L
O
Z
-
a
r
L
c
J
qt
L
O
~
w
d
a1
J
o
V
J
in
N
a)
Q
c0
m
E
O
N
c7
E
N
N
Q
m
m
E
O
(~D
N
t7
E
to
N
Q
O
'
a)
m
O
O
E
O
LY
~
m
m
a)
E
O
~
m
m
a)
E
O
aD
M
m
U
(O
w
E
O
m
>
O
~
j
m
-0
(O
a]
E
O
v
m
a10i
E
N
O
N
~
v
E
N
0
Q
.
m
O
w
O
0:
N
v
O
O
N
Q
m
p
m
w
E
N
p
r
(O
E
N
Q
m
U
Lo
O
r
O
Z
(mn
J
m
C7
to
co
'o
m
a)
E
a~
N
O
0=
m
'D
10
a)
E
a~
N
O
D:
m
'0
fO
a)
E
a~
(n
O
D:
m
'0
m
N
E
a)
(n
O
m
M
m
N
E
W
N
O
Q:
m
v
m
a)
E
aD
N
O
of
m
'a
(0
a7
E
~
N
O
R'
m
'D
(O
a)
E
a)
rn
O
~
m
"D
(O
a)
E
a~
N
O
m
~
m
a>
E
a)
N
O
m
O
N
N
E
N
N
O
0!
iI
O
e-
N
N
(D
ti
GO
~
r
r
r
U
' Mai 28 03 02:08p
i
1
PROJECT NUMBER
1
Steven Marvin
•
R - VALUE
29697
l'J141 54b-Z) tl41
•
DATA SHEET
P.c
Core #11
BORING NUMBER: Rosemead Blvd.
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Slightly Silty Sand
Item
SPECIMEN
a
b
c
Mold Number
4
5
6
Water added, rams
44
24
31
Initial Test Water; al
10.0
8.2
8.8
Compact Gage Pressure, psi
130
350
350
Exudation Pressure, psi
109
422
259
Height Sample, Inches
2.58
2.50
2.52
Gross Weight Mold, rams
3298
3271
3292
Tare Weight Mold, rams
2120
2117
2122
Sample Wet Weight, rams
1178
1154
1170
Expansion, Inches x IOex -4
0
3
0
Stability 2,000 lbs (160psi)
22 /
47
13 / 26
16 / 32
Turns Displacement
5.32
4.10
4.41
R-Value Uncorrected
53
76
69
R-Value Corrected
55
76
69
Dr Density, pcf
125.8
129.2
129.3
D
ESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Traffic Index Assumed:
4.0
4.0
4.0
G.E. b Stability
0.46
0.25
0.32
G. E. b Expansion
0.00
0.10
0.00
72
Examined & Checked: 3
/26/ 03
Equilibrium R-Value
by
EXUDATION
Gf =
1.25
2.5%
Retained on the
REMARKS: 3/4"
Sieve.
.R,: yhar i.R E
30659
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
Staff of ralifnrnin Materials & Research Test Method No. 301
ortation
T
.
,
ransp
1
no -)r;nZ i it ' 17
Le-11101C • A 116%vin
714 546 5841 PAGE.02
Mai 28 03 02:08P Steven • Marvin [7141 546-bti41
1
R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATIOIQ
'
PROJECT
NO. Z9(,09?
.
400
ji-A 4c--T
;
350
BORING NO.~~~~Ler~,~v~. o[C~~ ~
J
300
C
DATE
- -
N
200
1
TRAFFIC
INDEX
ex
a
100
R-VALUE
BY EXUDATION '7 Z
O
u
cx
Q
f
0
'
R-VALUE
BY EXPANSION
u
800
700 600
500 400 300 200 100
_
-4: rig
- 21
-arc
-
1. =
:ILL
tL'
F-i
100
90 rl
80
Q
A
70
W
60 0
50
W
40
fn
CA
30
20
a
10
U
0
' 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION, FT.
1
R-VALUE vs. EXUD. PRES.
EXUD. T vs. EXPAN. T
A A w
' REKARKS
1.:ilkgkh • /A1:11' in
P OFESS10NAL PAVEMEWT ENGINEEFLMG
MAY 28 2003 14:19
P•J
r
4
-T
'I
7, 1:
.
-L
.t'
_
t tom:
- i
li
'1
-
t L!
1_t~
I
iAR
li.
is
-
MOISTURE AT FABRICATION
Z
t
-
-
- -
l't
~z
r_
-
-
li t
- a
_rt:
ll:
f ai'
i :t:?
8.0
4.0 10.0
Y MOISTURE
T by EXUDATION
T by EXPANSION
?14 546 5841
PAGE. 03
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
,May 28 03 02:08p Steven Marvin
R - VALUE DATA
I
PROJECT NUMBER 29697
' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown Sand
M
(714) 546-5841
SHEET
p.4
Core #2 Lane#3
BORING NUMBER: Rosemead Blvd.
Item
SPECIMEN
a
b
c
Mold Number
7
8
9
Water added, rams
38
30
24
Initial Test Water, o
9.2
8.5. •
7.9
Compact Gage Pressure,psi
350
350
350
Exudation Pressure, psi
156
255
356
Hei ht 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 10ex -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
Dr Density, cf
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
r„ Ess
- O~y
EXUDATION
-
Gf =
1.25
5
0.0 o
Retained on the
s
REMARKS: 3/4"
Sieve,
S
'aryya!
30659
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
Transportation, State of California. Materials & Research Test Method No. 301
.
Lialtellc • Marvin
MAY 28 2003 14:18
714 546 5841
PAGE. 04
Mai 28 03 02:05p Steven Marvin l'/141 b4b-5tl41
f• LUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION
'
PROJECT NO.
7~
7
.
400
'
h
r
BORING N 0 .~i cSFt•[s>~ S~ V~-/Lo ~e L` 3
n
350
300
DATE 3 Z~o - 03
W
200
1
w
N
A
TRAFFIC INDEX 4.0
rY
C
100
VALUE BY EXUDATION
O
F--
¢
0
R-
c
0
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION
1
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
m
X 1,
iar_
100
90 w
z
60 °
H
6
A
70
r~
60 0
rn
50
W
40 to
30
1-4
20
a
10 0
U
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION, FT.
i
R-VALUE vs. EXUD. PRES
' EXUD. T vs. EXPAN. T
REMARKS
P. Z)
X14'
::-i
-
P
'
[
h
.
i~
rtr -
fir
.;c r-
is
:Zi.ct;
cf
c
L
~
~l
'
MOISTURE AT FABRICATION
q
:i-
m:-
77:
77-
:
rF
-
- -
-77
--^f
-
:li
:1:i
.
-
7777
I
:r'
tt
-i .ri
t
:
-
YX
17 L-
8.0 s•4
z MOISTURE
T by EXUDATION
~K w w T by EXPANSION
I •L5
INllmk.: • Atilnill
PROFESSIONAL PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
MQY ::)A :*V7 1d: 1q
714 546 5841 PAGE.05
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
6
N. 0
1
e
• • Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study
AFFENPIX C
Parkway Tree and Sidewalk Conditions
t •
•
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD CONCRETE REPAIR QUANTITIES (foot units)
dress/Location
C&G
Sidewalk
Sidewalk SM
Sidewalk ST
Driveway
S
pandrel
Igth
Igth
wdth
area
Igth
w dth
area
19th
wdth
area
Igth
wdth
area
Igth
wdth
area
40. CITY LIMIT RR
00
00
1500
16
10
5
6
80
60
36
10
WER AZUSA
nthes Field
8
'anthes Field
8
hool
30
10
300
hool
7
10
70
")chool
6
6
36
hool
6
6
36
SSION
42
10
6
60
1242
46
10
460
24
8
3
24
24
13
10
130
1226
31
10
310
16
15
7
105
WBY
1134
13
3
39
34
27
10
270
16
0
9
7
63
16
3
10
30
3ENTEL
18
16
1016
18
6
108
16
27
10
10
160
270
LLEY
nk at Sw Corner
15
7
105
3ank at Sw Corner
15
3
45
nk at Sw Corner
9
3
27
nk at Sw Corner
O
12
7
84
ank at Sw Corner
5
3
15
nk at Sw Corner
15
7
105
EELE
40 0
10
4
40
3940
30
10
300
30
40
10
400
130
6
10
60
3930
20
10
200
30
9
5
45
ESS STREET
10
6
60
3848
12
5
60
PH
'
12
3
36
8
to
16
10
160
ADELENA
16
8
128
3714
8
5
40
RSHALL
006
f606
15
4
60
10
12
120
67
6
402
U6-
;LENDON
1351213000106-155/Misc01
1 1 •
.-,--kArAM onii~ rVADm rnmrRFTF RFPAIR QUANTITIES (foot units)
dress/Location
KVJ
C&G
CIVICHL/ovv~.~rr
Sidewalk
~vv
Sid
ewalk SM
Sid
•
ewalk ST
•
Driveway
S
pandrel
19th
Igth wdth area
Igth
wdth area
Igth
wdth area
Igth wdth area
Igth
wdth area
' rner of Glendon
14
14
196
20
12
240
3
3
4
5
20
3 33
33
12
396
3
7
9
63
3
4
5
20
36
12
432
3643
30
12
360
075
RSHALL
27
12
324
3715
027
51
12
612
3
18
6
108
16
12
192
39
12
468
3803
16
12
192
1
19
12
228
7
t
24
12
288
1
RALPH
59
13
12
156
MESS STREET
24
12
288
3907
19
12
12
144
28
12
336
19
NEVADA
39
16
6
96
30
12
360
39
39
8
6
48
19
12
228
55
55
9
12
108
60
54
12
648
VALLEY
41
17
697
17
16
12
192
17
36
12
432
4017
17
45
NTEL
05
12
12
144
WBY
Da Adventist
16
6
96
Da Adventist
16
4213
69
39
9
351
13
WRANCE
UHAUL
42
42
9
378
AUL
SSION
4315
18
6
108
33
12
396
15
28
12
336
25
0
34
12
408
25
25
6
6
36
31
12
372
25
1
05
21
3
63
A
4423
1
19
3
57
-
13512/3000/06-155/Misc01
n^iII CVAOn rnmrOPTF PFPAIR OIJANTITIES (foot units)
Wress/Location
C8G
Sidewalk
Sid
ewalk SM
Sidewalk ST
Driveway
S
pandrel
Igth
Igth
wdth
area
Igth
wdth
area
Igth
wdth
area
Igth
wdth
area
19th
wdth
area
34
12
408
3
39
12
468
3
3
10
7
70
40
12
480
441
1
33
12
396
40
12
480
1
OWER AZUSA
15
6
90
.
WER AZUSA
43
12
516
f g
15
6
90
509
42
12
504
9
39
12
468
9
11
12
132
I 9
37
12
444
119
L
34
12
408
(CITY LIMIT)
=
-
188
3,692
349
591
15,990
180
1
1 13512/3000/06-155/M isc01
• 0
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD - POSSIBLE TREE PLANTING SITES
1 South of Glendon Way - 1-10 - no planting
East Side
Constraints
OH Lines
Spaces
Glendon Way north to Shopping Center Drive
5' s/w @ curb
0
Shopping Center Drive to Marshall
2
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
3' pk , 5' s/w in front of 3812 and south
1
8' s/w
4
Ralph north to Guess
3' k , 5' s/w
3
Guess to Steele
3' k , 5' s/w
4
Steele to Valle Boulevard
8' s/w
0
Valle Boulevard to Bentel
9' s/w
0
Bentel to Newby
9' s/w (3' pk 4124)
3
Newby to Mission
2
Mission to Lower Azusa Road
9' s/w
9
Lower Azusa Road to RR
wa ends at RR U/C
5
TO IFAL EAST SIDE
35
Overhead lines over entire walk/parkway. Some utilities noted in
parkway.
West Side
ons rain s
OH Lines
Spaces
Glendon Way to Marshall
2
Marshall to Edda Villa
OH @ 3788
north
0
Edda Villa to Ralph
1
Ralph to Guess
3
Guess to Nevada
U.G. utilities
3
Nevada to Valle Boulevard
2
Valle Boulevard to Bentel
0
Bentel to Newby
0
Newby to Lawrence - 3' pk . to 100' north of Newby
3
Lawrence to Mission
0
Mission to Lower Azusa Road
10
Lower Azusa Road to Frontage Road - heavy planting in setback
1
TOTAL WEST SIDE
25
TOTAL
60
' TK:mh (06-155)
1351213000/Miso0l .xls