Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Kelly Road PW STREET FILE (2)
MEMORANDUM TO: Liana Ruras, Acting Town Manager FROM: Richard Ryan, Mayor SUBJECT: Kelly Road Development DATE: July 19, 1995 At the recent meeting with the residents of the Kelly Road area and the Town Council, it was clearly indicated that a plan should be developed that improves Kelly Road without significant changes in right-of-ways; and that the concept of Public Works and citizens working to develop a plan is desirable. I realize that we have CRCOG funding for this project. If we cannot get a plan of action within the next 60 days that fits within the requirements of that funding, it would be my intent to advise CRCOG we are withdrawing the funding application. RR: jh cc Michael Gantick, Director of Public Works J1995 J STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION =F ,N„� 2800 BERLIN TURNPIKE, P.O. BOX 317546 ,�� °� OP NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06131-75 tfl,, 1� Phone: 594-3481 i RECEENEO �&\ JanuF r 3 0, 5 -� IiSOUTHWiNCSOR t��0.mn W Town of South Windsor �� IV Mr. Jerry Iazzetta-, Town Engineer g 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Iazzetta: Subject: Reconstruction of Kelly Road (132-HO10) Update Meeting As a result of the January 26, 1995 meeting with Mr. Gantick, Ms. Banach and Mr. Davis from your Town and Mr. Goyette from this office, the following concerns were raised about the Kelly Road design: 1) Can the Town's pavement design be used in lieu of what is proposed by the Project Concept Unit (PCU) and, 2) Can the total roadway width be reduced from 34 feet to 30 feet. Concerning the first point, the Town's pavement design does not compare structurally to the State's standard for a road classified as a collector. Kelly Road must be able to withstand the current and expected volumes of traffic for a collector road. The State's pavement composition of 3" of class I, on 6" of class IV, on 10" of subbase, is based on the roadway classification and a 20 year pavement life. This pavement design was provided by the D.O.T. 's Pavement Management Unit. The second point, reducing the roadway width from 34 feet to 30 feet should not be an issue. The 30 foot width is within the AASHTO specifications for an urban collector. It is not recommended to reduce the width less than 30 feet. 2 - An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper 2 - A revised estimate reflecting the reduced width will be developed and discussed at the P.C.U. 's meeting with the Capitol Region Council of Governments in February. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Joseph Goyette of this office at 594-3486. Very truly yours, Carl F. Bard Supervisor, Project Concept Unit Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations cc: Ms. Sherry Garcia, Capitol Region Council of Governments STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF ENGINEERING AND To ff Lu ur'S HIGHWAY OPERATIONS PROJECT CONCEPT UNIT G��2e2 S '��<C ST P7-/D// -TVCL. SHEET NO. PROJ. NO. COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY TOWN• �D/ ROUTE: f C -L-L`/ MAPPING USED: C+J/U SELU�R COf `I t ITEMS & CONTINGENCIES I. ?✓ �I Z. D INCIDENTALS TO CONSTRUCTION ZI!o Z73• d 00 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 0 UTILITIES 0 RIGHT OF WAY 41joot 95, D6p — �• coo RAILROAD FORCE ACCOUNT TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 80.S000 ESTIMATED BY• CHECKED BY: DATE: SHEET NO. PROJ. NO. l Z '14 DID (�) CONTRACT ITEMS SUMMARY ROADWAY COST Z,'6' 00 STRUCTURE COST O SUBTOTAL / a ZSaa CLEARING & GRUBBING ROADWAY Z if 600 M & P OF TRAFFIC 0-10% (o60 MOBILIZATION ( 3%) ��1aQ 0 TRAFFIC ITEMS 0-6% (2%) Z61 700 MINOR ITEMS 0-15% /. Ot.3�b o CONTINGENCIES 7%<5 MILLION>5% ( 7 %) 17 OU -39 Z j177 CONTRACT ITEMS & CONTINGENCIES SAY �,3 rZgoo S� FUND. SOURCE 77 k o CA) I-M I-MAINTENANCE 90% Interstate, any town NHS NATIONAL HWY SYSTEM 80% NHS functional classification, any town STPE HAZ ELIMINATION 80% Fix Problem, under $500,000 prof . , any town STPX RAILROAD XING 80% RR Crossing, any town STPT TRANS ENHANCEMENT 80% / Bike Path, Plantings, any town �V STPH HARTFORD (H) 80% *, TOWNS 11, 33, 42, 47, 51, 53, 63, 76, 81, 82, 93, 112, 118, 132, 142, 146, 155, 159, 164 STPB BRIDGEPORT (B) 80% *, TOWNS 21 61 15, 36, 45, 50, 83, 84, 107, 124, 126, 138, 144, 167 STPN NEW HAVEN (N) 80% *, TOWNS 14, 25, 37, 43, 59, 61, 79, 92, 98, 100, 106, 114, 131, 148, 156, 167 SIPS SPRINGFIELD (S) 80% *, TOWNS 39, 46, 48, 139, 165, 129 STPW WORCESTER (W) 80% *, TOWNS 141 STPO OTHER URBAN CAPITOL (C) 80% *, TOWNS 4, 11, 42, 47, 51, 53, 63, 76, 93, 118, 128, 132, 142, 146, 155, 159, 164 STPO OTHER URBAN CENTRAL (CE) - 80% *, TOWNS 7, 17, 20, 88, 109, 110, 131 STPO OTHER URBAN CENT. NAUG. VALLEY (CN) 80% *, TOWNS 61 25, 80, 87, 107, 114, 140, 151, 153, 166 STPO OTHER URBAN HOUSATONIC (H) 80% *, TOWNS 91 18, 34, 90, 95, 96, 117, 127 STPO OTHER URBAN SOUTH EASTERN (SE) 80% *, TOWNS 13, 44, 52, 58, 71, 72, 85, 94, 103, 113, 133, 137, 152 STPO OTHER URBAN SOUTH WESTERN (SW) 80% *, TOWNS 351, 56, 89, 102, 135, 157, 158, 161 STPO OTHER URBAN URBAN PLACES (U) 80% *, TOWNS 77, 115, 117, 128, 137, 143, 162, 163 STPB I RURAL 80% *, TOWNS 11 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 49, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 78, 86, 91, 97, 99, 101, 104, 105, 108, 111, 116, 119, 1201 - 121, 122, 123, 125, 130, 134, 136, 145, 147, 149, 150, 154, 160, 168, 169 STPA ANYWHERE 80% *, any town * Functional Classification Higher than a Rural Minor Collector or a Urban Local Road, unless was under Fed Aid Urban TIME SCHEDULE SCOPE PROJECT Determination to do it 1/2 year SURVEY Urban or small < 1 mile 1/2 year or Large > 1 mile 1 year DESIGN TIME Roadway only, structure only, overlay project 1 year or ' Roadway with a structure 1 1/2 year HYDRAULIC 1/2 year RIGHT OF WAY easement, partial take 1/2 year or residential full take 1 year or f commercial full take 2 year VZ PERMIT OR HISTORICAL IMPACT 1/2 year PUBLIC HEARING 1/2 year (new align. or house take) PROCESSING put out to bid. to construction 1/2 year CONSTRUCTION TIME Overlay road only 1 year or Overlay 'road with sturctures 2 year or Small proj . < 3/4 million 1 year or Medium proj . 3/4 to 5 million 2 year or , 2 Large proj . > 5 million 3 year s iz TOTAL PROJECT TIME SCOPE FOR RPM PROJECT NO. 13 Z-kf 61 b TOWN ROUTE DESCRIPTION: Between mile post and mile post IMPROVEMENT CODE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS: Rural Urban . Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local PROJECT STANDARDS: New Construction/Major Reconstruction 4R 3R ( 1/3 max. reconstruction) Spot Improvement ROADWAY ELEMENTS: EXISTING STANDARD PROPOSED Travel lane width Shoulder width Total width Posted speed limit Average speed 85% speed Design Speed ADT Clear zone Other ANTICIPATED WAIVERS: PERMITS: Inland Wetland Coastal Area Management Army Corps Flood Plain Management Other-. ther Stream Channel Encroach Storm Water Discharge RIGHTS OF WAY: A's - Industrial (Factories, etc. ) B's - Commercial (Grocery Stores, Gas Stations, etc. ) C's - Residential (Houses) D's - Partial Takes D's - Easements TOTAL UTILITIES: Underground: Water Sewer Gas Electric Telephone , Aboveground: Electric Telephone Cable TV FORM.RPM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Sheet No. 1 Proj . No. "5I -w5t �1 o PT l�N Quantity Unit Unit Cost Price PAVEMENT mainline 131 /9g SF 3,7� �1g59Z� sideroads_q - �/ l q Y36 t l6� 9 W .31 H (9 SF 3,7$ / j'S 740 mill area SF 0 .33 ' 1 31,19'S DRAINAGE ROADWAY -51 416 total pavement area 'All Newt 6 ���SF or total pavement area 'Upgrade' SF .50 or pipe ( 12"-24" ) LF 50/35/30 catch basins EA 1500/1200/1000 reset catch basins EA 600/550/500 culvert ends ( 12"-24" ) EA 1000/900/800 etc. CURBING BCLC and SI60 0 4- 1100 9-7 O o LF 3.50 2.5 0 2 zzjl-2 J add 1 foot strip pavement X length 9 2oo LF 3,78 concrete curbing LF 24 granite curbing LF 28 EARTHearthWexc. </500-5000/> SaZ 0686 IZ4b4CY 15/7V4 l21104 �9z5 rock exc. </500-5000/> Z S-,S;-Cy 15/10 � borrow </500-5000/>Z� 3 zy1$ CY 15/9/6 5 l q6 q? �'�2 jr du ly �p-rWcL SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Sheet No. 1 Proj . No.=-L7O10 1 Quantity Unit Unit Cost Price SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE GUIDE RAILING R-I or 3 cable ST,4T70NS 0-t�At H7s1(�,p -360 yS0 LF 11 9 .5 /7 g275 R-g LF 18/15/12 Systems 2-6A LF 70/65/55 Anchors 1p EA 650 550 500 33,f�0 Jersey 151lx32" LF 38/35/28 Jersey 241lx32" LF 58/55/50 OTHER FEATURES e z9' SY 69,OOD ^ sidewalk 3800-zzs -377 Vf- 7/5/4 .50 �352 g/T bit driveway SAUPIy 783sy SY 25, 2�0/15 turf establishment —� SY .50/.40/.35 �t _ sod ScETy' y778,f ���ll 5389 SY 7/5 .25� Zlo�C7`1S sedimentation control LF 5/02 TRAFFIC SIGNALS (new/ modified) EA 75,000/20,000 MAJOR CROSS CULVERTS L17 � OTHER HIGH COST ITEMS ROADWAY COST ��� 1ao �2►$� STRUCTURES bridge new SF 175 bridge rehab SF 50 retaining wall (wall face) SF 40 noise barrier wall SF 9 STRUCTURE COST i STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF ENGINEERING AND HIGHWAY OPERATIONS PROJECT CONCEPT UNIT SHEET NO. G PROJ. NO. /3 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY �oES itlOT i�L40C1� I-AblkCL si! TOWN: SO, Co//✓i->s0dQ ROUTE: MAPPING USED: 7-0 i t,4)_ 1!5&-w ca COCT ITEMS & CONTINGENCIES , 367 INCIDENTALS TO CONSTRUCTION Z /6 OO 0 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING D UTILITIES O RIGHT OF WAY 95,oa o RAILROAD FORCE ACCOUNT TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ESTIMATED BY: J O c- Gov Jo-et. (lilt CHECKED BY: -5 DATE: SHEET NO. PROJ. NO. CONTRACT ITEMS SUMMARY ROADWAY COST STRUCTURE COST SUBTOTAL ct, I 0 C) r CLEARING & GRUBBING ROADWAY ( 0) 6-8, /Od M & P OF TRAFFIC 0-10% Z/8 5-40 MOBILIZATION ( 3%) Z / 0 0 TRAFFIC ITEMS 0-6% ( y%) l �,o D MINOR ITEMS 0-15% 0%) '70 6 0 CONTINGENCIES 7%<5 MILLION>5% l� 3 0`71 000 CONTRACT ITEMS & CONTINGENCIES Spy - FUND SOURCE 1 3 Z - 14 b 10 I-M I-MAINTENANCE 90% Interstate, any town NHS NATIONAL HWY SYSTEM 80% NHS functional classification, any town STPE HAZ ELIMINATION 80% Fix Problem, under $500,000 proj . , any town STPX RAILROAD XING 80% RR Crossing, any town STPT TRANS ENHANCEMENT 80% Bike Path, Plantings, any town STPH HARTFORD (H) 80% *, TOWNS 11, 33, 42, 47, 51, 53, 63, 76, 81, 82, 93, 112, 118, 132, 142, 146, 155, 159, 164 STPB BRIDGEPORT (B) 80% *, TOWNS 21 61 15, 36, 45, 50, 83, 84, 107, 124, 126, 138, 144, 167 STPN NEW HAVEN (N) 80% *, TOWNS 14, 25, 37, 43, 59, 61, 79, 92, 98, 100, 106, 114, 131, 148, 156, 167 SIPS SPRINGFIELD (S) . 80% *, TOWNS 39, 46, 48, 139, 165, 129 STPW WORCESTER (W) 80% *, TOWNS 141 STPO OTHER URBAN CAPITOL (C) 80% *, TOWNS 41 11, 42, 47, 51, 53, 63, 76, 93, 118, 128, 132, 142, 146, 155, 159, 164 STPO OTHER URBAN CENTRAL (CE) _ 80% *, TOWNS 71 17, 20, 88, 109, 110, 131 STPO OTHER URBAN CENT. NAUG. VALLEY (CN) 80% *, TOWNS 6, 25, 80, 87, 107, 114, 140, 151, 153, 166 STPO OTHER URBAN HOUSATONIC (H) 80% *, TOWNS 91 18, 34, 90, 95, 96, 117, 127 STPO OTHER URBAN SOUTH EASTERN (SE) 80% *, TOWNS 13, 44, 52, 58, 71,- 72, 85, 94, 103, 113, 133, 137, 152 STPO OTHER URBAN SOUTH WESTERN (SW) 80% *, TOWNS 35, 56, 89, 102, 135, 157, 158, 161 STPO OTHER URBAN URBAN PLACES (U) 80% *, TOWNS 77, 115, 117, 128, 137, 143, 162, 163 STPR RURAL 80% *, TOWNS 11 3, 51. 81 10, 12, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 49, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 78, 86, 91, 97, 99, 101, 104, 105, 108, 111, 116, 119, 1201 - 121, 122, 123, 125, 130, 134, 136, 145, 147, 149, 150, 154, 160, 168, 169 STPA ANYWHERE 80% *, any town * Functional Classification Higher than a Rural Minor Collector or a Urban Local Road, unless was under Fed Aid Urban TIME SCHEDULE / ?7 --1 j/0 SCOPE PROJECT Determination to do it 1/2 year SURVEY Urban or small < 1 mile 1/2 year or Large > 1 mile 1 year Y DESIGN TIME Roadway only, structure only, overlay project 1 year or Roadway with a structure 1 1/2 year HYDRAULIC 1/2 year VZ RIGHT OF WAY easement, partial take 1/2 year or residential full take 1 year or Z commercial full take 2 year PERMIT OR HISTORICAL IMPACT 1/2 year PUBLIC HEARING 1/2 year Anew align. or house take) PROCESSING put out to bid to construction 1/2 year CONSTRUCTION TIME Overlay road only 1 year or Overlay 'road with sturctures 2 year or Small proj . < 3/4 million 1 year or Medium proj . 3/4 to 5 million 2 year or Large proj . > 5 million 3 year S2 TOTAL PROJECT TIME SCOPE FOR RPM PROJECT NO. Z TOWN ROUTE DESCRIPTIO Between mile post and mile post IMPROVEMENT CODE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS: Rural Urban Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local PROJECT STANDARDS: New Construction/Major Reconstruction V 4R 3R ( 1/3 max. reconstruction) Spot Improvement ROADWAY ELEMENTS: EXISTING STANDARD PROPOSED Travel lane width :Z2- 30 y Shoulder width r Total width 3 y wtvri,( Posted speed limit Average speed 85% speed Design Speed ADT - 7500 D 2 °h /9.001 Clear zone Other ANTICIPATED WAIVERS: PERMITS: Inland Wetland Coastal Area Management Army Corps Flood Plain Management Other-./ Stream Channel Encroach v Storm Water Discharge RIGHTS OF WAY: A's - Industrial (Factories, etc. ) B's - Commercial (Grocery Stores, Gas Stations, etc. ) C's - Residential (Houses) D's - Partial Takes D's - Easements TOTAL UTILITIES: Underground: Water 1/ Sewer Gas v1 Electric Telephone Aboveground: Electric /� Telephone c/ Cable TV J� FORM.RPM Ci[GL11"111ILit�1 L.Vr71 r+.7111`41"�1G Sheet No. Proj . No. ►-47, H0/d 6v1VT14 3y Quantity Unit Unit Cost L� 3gvo Price PAVEMENT mainline �� '�I /3 /! ! q $ SF 3,73 y`lSgZF i sideroads d/ SF 3,7d ! Zz 3�3 mill area SF 0.33 DRAINAGE ROADWAY /31, 148 y3, 3 i► `3 L) Z G 6 total pavement area 'A11 New'Avx `25/-3 �SF or ! y 3, t'12IPUIP !b d total pavement area 'Upgrade' ,53�- SF .50 or pipe (12"-24" ) LF 50/35/30 catch basins EA 1500/1200/1000 reset catch basins EA 600/550/500 culvert ends ( 12"-24" ) EA 1000/900/800 etc. CURBING BCLC and 5 � �1&60 ► LF 3 .50 2. /2 Z ! -OD add 1 foot strip pavement X length g-&00 LF 3,,78 3 2 SD g concrete curbing LF 24 granite curbing LF 28 EARTHWORK 5 Al gy76 earth exc. </500-5000/> s Z Z(P86 /Z /4ZCY 15/764) 6q8 1Z�lLZ rock exc. </500-5000/> Z_ s CY ©/ 10 borrow </500-5000/> #3 CY 15/9/6 2-y �8 cy SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Sheet No. Proj . No.t3Z- l-fOfO Quantity Unit Unit Cost Price SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE �// 5 HIR GUIDE RAILING _ R-I or 3 cable S%/�/�Dp Dt25 /fn�L /2 36 U LF 11 9.5 /7 2850 R-B LF 18/15/12 Systems 2-6A LF 70/65/55 Anchors EA 6 5 0/,15-1iRP/5 0 0 ZZOD Jersey 1511x32" LF 38/35/28 Jersey 24"x3211 LF 58/55/50 OTHER FEATURES — q sin@ zs =22S SY %oo j eseepe sidewalk 397 iW 7/57/-4 .50 355Z bit driveway WGfy �83SY 25/0/15 /5l��D turf establishment SY .50/.40/.35 sod -:5t i— I q q778 SY 7/5.'254 Z3 B` 0 sedimentation control o a o LF 5 Q�Y2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS (new/ modified) EA 75,000/20,000 MAJOR CROSS CULVERTS g �4 0 74 OTHER HIGH COST ITEMS G/ DO ROADWAY COST STRUCTURES bridge new SF 175 bridge rehab SF 50 retaining wall (wall face) SF 40 noise barrier wall SF 9 STRUCTURE COST 1%THI FOLLOWING REFLECT THE ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COSTS FOR THIS PROJECT WITH FEDERAL *ND STATE PARTICIPATION AND ACQUISITION BY CONNDOT'S OFFICE OF RIGHTS OF WAY. 1 As of fc.n u a-r y Fed. Prroj. No.: ———— Proj. Location: Ke.f f/. Rooms(, State Proj. No.: 13;L— 1-1010 Town: Sou+tJ Win RELOCATION COSTS: A. Replacement Owner = @ $22,500 = Housing Tenants = @ $5,250 = B. Residential Owner = @ $3,500 = Moving Pmts. Tenants = @ 1,000 = C. Business & Moving = @ $20,000 = Farm Pmts. Search = @ 1,000 = D. Relocation Services Costs @ $600 = E. Other TOTAL RELOCATION RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION — SUMMARY A. Parcel by Parcel 41CO3F'SD Court Awards, 75% of = Admin. Settlements, 25% of!$/& ?s'o = 7J�I 3 Etc. Other Total Land and Bldgs. $2f,OG3 B. Overhead — Complex @ $5,000 = — Simple Q9 @ 2,500 = '7a,s00 — Temp @ 2,000 = — Other Total Overhead 7o215'OD NAk C. Demolition — Res'I @ $5,000 = j�-' {D — Comm'I @ 9,000 = b�� — Ind'I @ 9,000 = — Other Total Demolition ' D. Mon. $ Interstate 0.00 @ $40,000 = $0 Mapping Secondary 0.00 @ 30,000 = 0 (miles) Other 0 1 (State Only) Total Monumenting and Mapping \�} E. Asbestos Res'I @ $2,400 = Inspection Comm'I/Ind. @ 5,000 = Other Total Asbestos Inspection $TOTAL RIGHTS OF WAY ACQUISITION 93,S63 MU riled 4b pS,DOGS Note: These figures are guides only. Adjustments can be made to reflect prbjedt c4aditions. Prepared by Stephen A. Kichuk, Sr. , C.G.A. L�' ` t' N TH FOLLOWING REFLECT THE ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COSTS FOR THIS PROJECT WITH FEDERAL SAND STATE PARTICIPATION AND ACQUISITION BY CONNDOT'S OFFICE OF RIGHTS OF WAY. Asof To-rtuary fS3 Fed. Proj. No.: ———— Proj. Location: Vel tY mac' (. ap+,10ne� State Proj. No.: 13,2-11016 Town: ouch LJ1 n RELOCATION COSTS: A. Replacement Owner = @ $22,500 = Housing Tenants = @ $5,250 = B. Residential Owner = @ $3,500 = Moving Pmts. Tenants = @ 1,000 = C. Business & Moving = (9 $20,000 = Farm Pmts. Search = @ 1,000 = D. Relocation Services Costs @ $600 = E. Other TOTAL RELOCATION RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION — SUMMARY A. Parcel by Parcel Court Awards, 75% of = Admin. Settlements, 25% of $,17,9D0 = ��q 7z- Etc. Other Total Land and Bldgs. B. Overhead — Complex @ $5,000 = — Simple @ 2,500 = f�JOop — Temp @ 2,000 = — Other Total Overhead jp)pp© C. Demolition — Res'I @ $5,000 = — Comm'I @ 9,000 = — Ind'I @ 9,000 = /J — Other Total Demolition D. Mon. & Interstate 0.00 @ $40,000 = $0 Mapping Secondary 0.00 @ 30,000 = 0 V�V (miles) Other 0 �� 0 (State Only) Total Monumenting and Mapping E. Asbestos Res'l @ $2,400 = {� w Inspection Comm'I/lnd. @ 5,000 = b �� Other Total Asbestos Inspection TOTAL RIGHTS OF WAY ACQUISITION • f'ov+1�.cL to ��i5,OQ 0 Note: These figures are guides only. Adjustments can be made to reflect project conditions. Prepared by Stephen A. Kichuk, Sr. , C.G.A. p e + State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE P EPARE PREPARED BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. Q� DES-003 REV 1-93 2 —IV DATE CHECKED CHECKED B 302-06-0225) S14EET NO. COMPUTATION SHEET Ge.l SUBJECT: ,4�E2Y (S'Q x 3)�- ri oo 3 �SD 4( 7y7 X 3`/) CISU 33Sd 1��'i98 i a SlDC S r2�C-7`S� ELMS OJI4199i t7/AiVr 5 DAK GQeACV (E) G�U2�� 5�°/?yC�' Z /7S-t3a 75 = 7875 Z _ �1A01(w) 6cklJ0Z(14 ZS*3o�7; Z- 78 7.� [(z Sit- q 51pr S-, Gp X S - 300 /G0 xy = Gqo Malt., (�Svo X z)f 0 o 7 = 801? c� x .ZD u t Z7 = /377 c y _ �y76 �y DP ,4wa !;utter Sta, S ('0 .;ycled or Recovered Paper • State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREPARED`� PREP RED BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. q 7 �/< DES-003 REV 1-93 1,312 10 DATE CHECKED CHECK COMPUTATION SHEET Qd SHEET NO.Z SUBJECT: ,�--,�2 ram- �� • - ���.�.- ��,!�v�.,G� 3yf�o = y�' Z � Z 5106) y�f0 2Zoo (7-d 1, sn / j100 yS 9fio Ivg0 (Zoo(�yy �- zlq s-)+ z(,s�*�yy(3)� 2�3L] �a© - 7725-cF Z Z ,3t:zs 1sd f (iY 7-S-) 2 io0 t L t7 9a._=__l!q J3 7, s cF Z } /8fro (o+ yy• z + ?jei7U � 2 l2,600 r ►I SLo E(C)4 LyY•Z L Zz Z Sv + 9G t 0 olo = z 3 o y� c F Z Z 7SC"sX30 0) ly,Yoo Z Z3nyo 0rA(55 7q,.006 = 2-7yl cy Z7 c Z6 l6 Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut ' Department of Transportation DATE P E_ AREDg U PREPAF�ED Y Bureau of En inee in&HiREV 1 g3 Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER O. o DATE CHECKED l CHECKED BY COMMUTATION SHEET SHEET NO.�rr�C/ SUBJECT: �j ✓Gr7/147�J'" i kmj L (,VH f-2rf Z) Z'/ S� 7a5 3�.zS rw 4-5. (0) yy�l S) �` Z /•S 200 -t �-70/5 d 20 0 Zt0 z z l��ioo 2 g67-5 94 vo t 90 [6N , 2) f 2(21� z3o t C96 -r0) 270 2 Z l/Gy0 /Z yea /vf o io /5" 6,0 (o + � 7,0 iyo = / z� 9(10 GF Z y Yb �lY'1)lY72(/z)1 /20 4- (H&fD) Cr q6 o Z7`0 /G,5b8 w 7 y�aD 0,9 73bD vyo� zq f� c ' U -7 Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREP PREPARED BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. y GO Cr DES-003 REV 1-93 3Z — 7"0 DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY COMPUTATION SHEET /Q(�/ SHEET NO. SUBJECT: I 5 l�. /7-11AI IIV I -f S T/z/ 41, a),4—Y a�Zt p /2�38 u/ L z o 7 — y7 x /© T is'` = 7d o s = 76 3 Sy 50,0 ERG I-Mis tit (S-11 i7T—*/) Y6,00 Y77 $ Sy 9 Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut DATE PREPARED PREP ED BY Department of Transportation ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations 1 3 Z —H0 d C1 DES-003 REV 1-93 DATE CHECKED CHECRED INY 1 COMPUTATION SHEET SHEET NO. SUBJECT: 30 Gc s 66 x 2- _ 113 z — �� _ o Flz , Hod in z3y 3�,.- 233 Z33 Sr 233 I v t t En 23 f z30 aZ r 2 . ,f 2z8 2z,*; zzb 1 Uzi /Z_J Zz� ZZ7 Z26 . ZZ Zz; .5-v y0 70 zz 2Z 7 / -r [(q47/, sZ zZ 'z -S 1136 �of 7/. 70 t (7L.S+ 4/0 = 393 3.GF 27 c- FWI�Ida z I-VJGTff FROM PCO1:i LACE F� j rd Nod- /,41 LS7. Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREPARED PREP RED BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. 16 Ic DES-003 REV 1-93 132- Q DATE CHECKED CHECKE B (302-06-0225) SHEET N6. �rf COMPUTATION SHEET SUBJECT: Sf - 30 uJc 3Z ao tz 3 2 0 lc. (o v 9' // F K 20 a+Z 7 0 1-18 cy 78 7Zr-)� ; Z7 = T cY S o r cY 91, 5 z GY fc cy � 7 Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREPARED PREPARED BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. G L DES-003 REV 1-93( 3Z-�d�d DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY COMPUTATION SHEET ��/ SHEET NO. 7 SUBJECT: y460 ` 3 t& -. 05 —(7--&) s 31 = .ZS 9 / 4U /z /L LtV6 pvr 7fGv i f (nb o -Zo 3 . Z ZIP z o sy zo�.s sy W- zoxo 1 b0 6.fl 2ao, FV 1 17+7 0 PVC. 144)0 ,(� = fZ �� = '1 =rz-53 t0 V Z"T/6 - Z,& r z Pelt .j Li -70 PVr 70170 zz /Y170_ _$_ 227.E ._ rz O 7.G7,8 z 15t-b R3,_. _. z2g,G ,3 N = o z z z�,6 16 w 17�-1� 2,3 20.9 Zia 17f1od 235.6 3'aZ +► dr = Zr3 Z�3.3 1 + 3.3 Z3(a.f 3 �� z,8 xs�, -11 z 3% o Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut DATE PREPARED PREPARED B Department of Transportation ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. �( Bureau of EDES 003 REV 1 g3 Operations )Z 010 DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY (302-06-0225)COMMUTATION SHEET l�d SHEET NO. d SUBJECT: �J (PVC. 7at90 z ItQo K: _ '•S5} .33 Lnu6[/4 r 41 0-0 �� 2 l ?V T yY 9O "NP 2Z f 4 /0 233 . E d A ,33 - .003 Z;3. A ti t .316 Z33.S �yfo Zia z3z .c Z.t y � " : 1•Y�__� - z3y. l 25 d 3/0 Z3�./ 3•I ' �- �- 3.17 -z S�.3_ Z7f0 ,SS/o Z3141 5/L k 1 ,g,s .737, 7 Z�f9d b o0 Z3d,10 (o z X '� � !l•a$ ----- Z:YL's 4swe 1t PVC 31+70 2-9f00 _ A- b v 3'T 7.y)_ / d/ \ z*70 0 PVC Z-flOo pV]' 3y+yo Cu,e VT- MS. Ezry _ Coy?�t? 6z.C-1/. z9f0 - O- -._ _ zif(ot5- C',z �' /60/ 31 /D zQr? Z53 ,5� Z�� zq�,S 256,0 7.,7y ys,(a 3z�D 300 4570 3.4 K -if 2Y7, � �3tb 00 Z6d.S Y10t, r " Z.7 7tyq.3 3yd T oo 744/'D Printed on Recycled or Recovered'Paper PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT page 1 of 3 TOWN OF f01C ROUTE / ROAD P-TC l9 TEMP. IDENT. # f 32" H o el cI R.P.A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Route / Road Side Roads &;.aA(f A-M P-060 Classification Urban ,- Rural Local Rd. -Collector - Arterial. Limits, Begin 700' Ne2rff Lie- Urban (L.or4() _ End 100' So. of G('J+N�FM RD(CyiST/aU) Proj . Length t�0 ' Existing Rd Width Other Existing Info. CONCERNS: Accidents 3 yr 39 /CDT- P'- iq 300 Capacity DNA / adequate / ro a addr s Substandard Horizontal Geometry Substandard Vertical Geometry Substandard Intersection Bypass Shoulder No Exclusive Left Turn Lanes dud nZ-"OAf'0 No Landing Platforms Inter. Sight Distance k-n ,7R.17-1 Dog leg Other 5r0P10JAN6 516ttr ZtsT Pavement Adequacy DNA / poor /<:L�/ good Pavement Width 36' DNA widen feet Roadway Drainage DNA o roadway floods roject will impact drainage inadequate cross culverts no existing drainage Major Drainage Structure Bridge width adequacy placement Other concerns 3o 3 m D U� T T A4nv GZC C2 o g-z-.Z- y c cc - / 6 51eV7- V,Uz- 6Yngon As wcgg, ;flR scffr Esr,v*rr'" yEIE-TRsr P S CXJ/0/L)1IL 1`D P f"l dJG- RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS_: page 2 of 3 Standards to be used AASHTO State of Conn. cX Overlay Realignment _ Widen Reconstruction Intersection Improvement Roadway Drainage Only New catch basin tops T� basins added and tied into existing system cross culverts will be replace or added entire new drainage system Road width Bridge Width Length Vertical Clearance over rd. new location Other v c (3Z- l 1 g i ro i/u Sic u, j6—FF _ sc/a(A OF STATE- Dt-siGN G+a,LL 77y,1-- 01)sSIAILITY Or- 5101A1G- �l�f `DP-PP U11GE OF prurg--T- /3Z'//$ ' o j4,4A)A« •lHl3 P)ea ,�zr DIFFERENCES: ' Between submission and DOT Recommended Solution 6,2,(,Wa4- C-ACcL-y max ya#T 1W To 3C 0�✓�-tufrY /t1o�eTt�� Ar AYE— . , rNL2�SE A C� R juC OIU k 7-0 I F'1. Co-yll3l U,IIL_'6= 4 yer! G/a ,y/,r wim 2TC Nq �O2i/Vl���� /-c`Tr 1,-,6ftT. Iu21v L,+,v S ADD 7/ P�11,G'.9GE. cu� Ca. �Zt 1 f721 izO NTA /G nc�c A-16 x)r h ixtjo wvE" s 6'# - R,5reVcZ—S . ASSUMPTIONS: COMMITMENTS: MWci l F&iz- Tp p rr-16 C 0A r.�'UL 5/lvA),4L 4r /C)a-y 6k-fn+,*A1 /V 1 -1;Gi I0tj WAS j CLy000 1A T t2C/-P- C' titZ� uii��. ll�iE'— � ��ii:: >>EiE�?l�"//G'L•'� i3f/ CStGQI ANTICIPATED WAIVERS Stopping Sight Shoulder Width Vertical Horizontal Design Speed Clear Zone Other r COST ESTIMATES: PROJECT CONCEPT UNIT TOWN page 3 of 3 CONTR. ITEMS & CONT. t,!5),000 I 1 Z INCIDENTALS �' "� ZZ(/00 173 3 UTILITIES e e z3oB0 p R.O.W. T13D ziSDoo 72 of, TOTAL 1i �lS, oe� �1 ,i6N �Z! (JUGS REASON FOR COST DIFFERENCE Difference in Scope Difference in Quantities Difference in prices Other S f nPr XS .PE . r/�. /�l�G'/2C`55L-5 ,QLL Co7LcCtws To RgouC' Acelo -yr3" NOTE Sidewalks: town will provide 20 of cost 1Jj/¢ _POW t m in * + i i ci U Tflctn i ,..r.n�i l+l e RIGHTS OF WAY: None Possible therefore put in nominal amount in estimate Easements DROW r/Partial Takes Full Takes _ Impacts & Reason Loin MC1eC!/v C. �c ���r Z y -ZWM-CLfT 13y PAe7ZhL ZW � PERMITS Inland Wetland �� ° Dp.AiN/WGC Army Corps Flood Plain Management Stream Channel ci Storm Water Discharge Reason necessary Storm water outlet New Structure grading other UTILITIES• Utility poles will be relocated as a result of project Underground utilities will be disturbed Only minor disturbance to MH cover & Water gates None Other STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF ENGINEERING AND HIGHWAY OPERATIONS PROJECT CONCEPT UNIT SHEET NO. PROJ. NO.l3Z-H00� COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY TOWN: 1+U1 m)SCSI, ROUTE: �T� / �! L MAPPING USED• �'Q VAJ CONTRACT ITEMS & CONTINGENCIES 1075 2-00 �t `I'o 222. �� OVo INCIDENTALS TO CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING l Z°�0 ` I F g , 60 n UTILITIES �� �3., 00 o 38 no RIGHT OF WAY �� =r L ( A 2 t S D O c) RAILROAD FORCE ACCOUNT TOTAL ESTIMATED COST /, 7S 3 000 ESTIMATED BY: Es t. G o`��` �� T,) CHECKED BY: DATE: SHEET NO. PROJ. NO. CONTRACT ITEMS SUMMARY ROADWAY COST STRUCTURE COST SUBTOTAL (O(0 O D CLEARING & GRUBBING ROADWAY ( 6%) D �� M & P OF TRAFFIC 0-10% MOBILIZATION ( 3%) ZSt(00 TRAFFIC ITEMS 0-6% ( 3 $) Z574 00 MINOR ITEMS 0-15% (wg) ciO 700 075 Z o® CONTINGENCIES 7%<5 MILLION>5$ (7 !1) Ji �0,7?�� CONTRACT ITEMS & CONTINGENCIES / fJ�I,DOd SCOPE FOR RPM PROJECT NO. 13 Z ` d og TOWN ROUTE DESCRIPTION: c,012A-"L7-' ----i(l7-�S6Z7— 4L-16 JAfC-;VT 7-0 .T/k P Zoo r.- SSG if T /-/�u 4-�S Between mile post Z,1-( and mile post Z . S IMPROVEMENT CODE 1 D 3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS: Rural Urban Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial ✓Minor Arterial (Major Collector Minor Collector Local PROJECT STANDARDS: New Construction/Major Reconstruction 4R 3R ( 1/3 max. reconstruction) t.-� Spot Improvement p �?y �sHTv ROADWAY ELEMENTS: EXISTING STANDARD PROPOSEDA, gR Travel lana width Shoulder width _ Total width 3 3 � Posted speed limit Average speed t9 p y 3 ! W 8 4 31 Z- 85% speed �/3 y(o.0 ujrl AJ6.1 Design Speed QTr 1R 5-o Ayrg S 3 � ADT `li2 -- /79Z /17 300 ` Clear zone Other L L& x /11 Tunny ANTICIPATED WAIVERS: ZZ PES: Inland Wetland Coastal Area Management Army Corps Flood Plain Management Other r/ Stream Channel Encroach v Storm Water Discharge RIGHTS OF WAY: A's - Industrial (Factories, etc. ) Z B's - Commercial (Grocery Stores, Gas Stations, etc. ) C's - Residential (Houses) 1/ D's - Partial Takes t/ D's - Easements TOTAL UTILITIES: Underground: Water '--I Sewer GasElectric Telephone Aboveground: Electric _1Z Telephone Cable TV v' FORM.RPM L! 1 �— So /�otvr�) i. TU k,P /& , , J 3-2 #00 g FUND SOURCE I-M I-MAINTENANCE 90% Interstate, any town NHS NATIONAL HWY SYSTEM 80� NHS functional classification, any town STPE HAZ ELIMINATION 80� Fix Problem, under $500,000 proj . , any town STPX RAILROAD XING 80% RR Crossing, any town STPT TRANS ENHANCEMENT 80% Bike Path, Plantings, any town �STPH HARTFORD (H) 80� * TOWNS 11, 33, 42 47, 51, 53, 63, 76, 81, 82, 93, 112, 1181,, 132- 142, 146, 155, 159, 164 STPB BRIDGEPORT 80$ *, TOWNS 2, 6, 15, 36, 45, 50, 83, 84, 107, 124, 126, 138, 144, 167 STPN NEW HAVEN (N) 80$ *, TOWNS 14, 25, 37, 43, 59, 61, 79, 92, 98, 100, 106, 114, 131, 148, 156, 167 - STPS SPRINGFIELD (S) 80% *, TOWNS 39., 46, 48, 139, 1651, 129 STPW WORCESTER (W) 80� ' / *, TOWNS 141 '✓ STPO OTHER URBAN CAPITOL (C) 80% *, TOWNS 41 11, 42, 47, 51, 53, 63, 76, 93, 118, 128, 132, 142, 146, 155,, 159, 164 STPO OTHER URBAN CENTRAL (CE) 80� *, TOWNS 71 17, 20, 88, 109, 110, 131 STPO OTHER URBAN CENT. NAUG. VALLEY (CN) 80% *, TOWNS 61 25, 80, 87, 107, 114, 140, 151, 153, 166 STPO OTHER URBAN HOUSATONIC (H) 80% *, TOWNS 91 18, 34, 90, 95, 96, 117, 127 STPO OTHER URBAN SOUTH EASTERN (SE) 80% *, TOWNS 13, 44, 52, 58, 71, 72, 85, 94, 103, 113, 133, 137, 152 STPO OTHER URBAN SOUTH WESTERN (SW) 80% *, TOWNS 35, 56, 89"1 102, 135, 157, 158, 161 STPO OTHER URBAN URBAN PLACES (U) 80% *, TOWNS 77, 115, 117, 128, 137, 143, 162, 163 STPR RURAL 80% *, TOWNS 1, 31 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 49, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 78, 86, 91, 97, 99, 101, 104, 105, 108, 111, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 130, 134, 136, 145, 147, 149, 150, 154, 160, 168, 169 STPA ANYWHERE 80% *, any town * Functional Classification Higher than a Rural Minor Collector or a Urban Local Road, unless was under Fed Aid Urban 32-- TIME SCHEDULE SCOPE PROJECT Determination to do it 1/2 year SURVEY Urban or small < 1 "mile 1/2 year or Large > 1 mile 1 year DESIGN TIME Roadway only, structure only, overlay project 1 year or Roadway with a structure 1 1/2 year HYDRAULIC 1/2 year 1� RIGHTY�OF WAY easement, partial take 1/2 year or residential full take 1 year or rlZ commercial full take 2 year PERMIT OR HISTORICAL IMPACT 1/2 year {lL PUBLIC HEARING 1/2 year Vz- (new align. or house take) PROCESSING put out to bid to construction 1/2 year CONSTRUCTION TIME Overlay road only 1 year or Overlay road with sturctures 2 year or Small proj . < 3/4 million 1 year or Medium proj . 3/4 to 5 million 2 year or I Large proj . > 5 million 3 year TOTAL PROJECT TIME ��,�s aAJ uJ�'�:'-�i� d2. NO7' .�- PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Sheet No. Proj. No.f 3z-/ col Quantity Unit Unit Cost Price PAVEMENT mainlinec�4 -*) l i `�/3 SF 9.3 (�7Zz 44+ sideroads:�dj SF 3,7 C ) mill area SF 0.33 DRAINAGE ROADWAY 10 J 51 ,7 total pavement area 'All New' g4 S- SF 1.50 or total pavement area 'Upgrade' SF .50 or pipe (12"-2411 ) LF 50/35/30 catch basins EA 1500/1200/1000 reset catch basins EA 600/550/500 culvert ends ( 12"-24" ) EA 1000/900/800 etc. CURBING BCLC and LF 3.5 0/2.5 0/,/2�' 8/d Z add 1 foot strip pavement X length LF concrete curbing LF 24 granite curbin�g,.� LF 28 EARTHWORK ci ! earth exc. </500-5000/> ISMgZJCY 15/7� Z, V rock exc. </500-5000/> 4/( S Cy (B)/15/10 �� 3 borrow </500-5000/> CY 15/9/6 1 880 SUBTOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Sheet No. Proj. No. Quantity Unit Unit Cost Price e7 �-93 SUBTOTAL FROM PREVIOUS PAGE y GUIDE RAILING - 9. / R-I or 3 cable 13«a IF 11:r .� Z / 2 Z 7 I R-B LF 18/15/12 Systems 2-6A LF 70/65/55 Anchors EA 650 550 500 3 �'00 Jersey 151lx3211 LF 38/35/28 Jersey 2411x32" LF 58/55/50 OTHER FEATURES Concrete sidewalk 1, 11260 1( 5 /C OD SF 76/4.50 30,000 bit driveway ' -�To 3331"y 25&/15Q turf establishment SY .50/ ,41/.35 �Sy sod SY .25. 5 ZZ 3g� sedimentation control 3So0 LF 5 2 19 -25 , rg 7i� TRAFFIC-SIGNALSS new modified) EA 75,000/20,000 -7SGIOJ MAJOR CROSS CULVERTS OTHER HIGH COST ITEMS ROADWAY COST STRUCTURES bridge new SF 175 bridge rehab SF 50 retaining wall (wall face) SF 40 noise barrier wall SF 9 STRUCTURE COST • State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREP RE ,/ PR PARE BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. DES-003 REV 1-93 Z" 00 DATE CHECKED CHECKE BY 302-06-0225) SHEET NO. COMPUTATION SHEET SUBJECT: _��� ter_•_ _ _ R� M,*,,,vzv/tr .0 /0+offZ2+Zs'�yB> 1zoo (3o + = �1(��00�� /08$ sr- S7S�y2�3�= Zz4zssf A/I, 410 0 o �- Z Z y 2�_ (o��g/3 SF N. - �Ygf20 3 U = l g Z 13 s� 2s 172y 6to 6s Cz_ (zb to) 3u 3 3 43 Lg t8?S �2?5� 3.0 - 21 90 _-- i 30- �Z ZO 0 = S ADO t2gg�SF 273 — 301`" Sod te36Z 7f6Z zD' � 6z s' 6� 3G g y Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut ptz Department of Transportation DATE PREPARED �,/ PREP RED BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. GO L 7L DES-003 REV 1-93 � DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY (302-06-0225)COMMUTATION SHEET QCj� SHEET NO. SUBJECT: 2�tv ` /D><U = ��00� �►-•-� ScoLc /9� !$oc3 ?-f 0 - /D fU 700 Z = /Y40 ��.1` MA/ 7, �¢ �r�.•. 2 83 C4k7Ww of,K �-- Il+sv ej?, + 60- 5-) too -t o.Z s t of t e 3�.z� 112.5 r6f�fo © t `lt? x 4 0 �117 3 �r L � p3s 7 -Z 7• 5- 0 0 Z i �n��.y 1 Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREPARED �A U PREP RED BY Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. Goyim DES 003 REV 1-93 Z 3Z 00 DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY 302-06-0225) SHEET NO. COMPUTATION SHEET D O �j SUBJECT: R ► 4 6,\(,4, { -� a-v)1 . z l 3 t7o o t (yo • .3 + Z• .3L) x 3 a t G,i t(wox Z + ZxN�SU = z,53 r— L —� r83 Z,353 S8 �- (yox I + I ox _ 37 so Gdz� 3F pro -- z G Sod txzz� zoo - q� ( �X }5� x•s" pro = �Z,S 23 Z Z Z$.s 4 �3sx •3� -14 3s!1 40 - 501 G c�- 7'- ,1 z gr5 6 C9, / 5"7 D ,VFW Tay c, C-y Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREP�ARV a PREPARE BYCrW Bureau of En inee inS-003 &HiREV h 3 Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NQ DATE CHECKED v L CHECKED BY 302-06-0225) SHEET NO. COMPUTATION SHEET /0 0/ I SUBJECT: -7 to o CoX3 f�ZX3 �a �' 106 - 4 3bX q /30 = / 6-8 0 cG 2 Z. ,6zo t196o 9y5,5 7zg gas rt+ � 76 _� 30x 17. S-� Z�tSSrz���Q `f' �y5St�3o X i3 t ZK e3Z�/3a : l y`/,5"3c 3 5� 7 5-7- l o a.2� zg-.-- (72-g f �3O zd.�3OA 3 t 2 7 Z �oU f ! 3ox 3.St Z13,s2 zoc -� ZI,S o� ZZ o 37; �v z3,�sv ►`� 2y ' Z7 2.34,2-6 rr+-� 5-7 5-1 cy 93s� ,41Atu f�D• ��,4i3s� x z` 16,17 !�V loam k.65. VIP 348SIP- lq�Z 4 Z-7 FY 6Q �t cY Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREPARED PRE ARED BY g g ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. g �r Bureau of DES 003 REV 1 93 Operations 2_ DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY (302-06-0225) SHEET NO. COMPUTATION SHEET �a SUBJECT: 2- 2 6ID zLro t: $4X 330s Z g = f yb7 vy r /3 fo zlt5'O 3s� S'% q = Y Qy 5Y EA4f /0 / Q 0 0 SY 4f;lw- cif z sf0 E`o 2-bf0 Z( Op'x S— .4 9� _ 333 SY 13 fo t ik.- - 4 x 32O rZ)+(/ao y 1,0 sL))►9 1 7 ( f SY If-ee qp p o G2 i�lij /o t 2 5— :�- /z -f v 46)AI t 15x 5- ? s Y 1'G,*D 'j7 fosr cp-5 f 5 4Jen qy J X = i�G SY✓ SI3(o S`f T"u.,Lr- - -�� _to-- te.t Z�+U �soo (�/z A.#4 (0 +-zc— � 12to r sr 17SxS; 9 = 97 ,zfQ fo 1st t{Z 63 SY Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper 3 State of Connecticut Department of Transportation DATE PREPARED PREPARED BY �. Bureau of Engineering&Highway Operations ORGANIZATION UNIT NO. WORK ORDER NO. Q DES-003 REV 1-93 Z— od 9 DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY (302-06-0225) D / SHEET NO.� COMPUTATION SHEET SUBJECT: A7 7.yt CININWA ROW C1 id a 0 l0 x`D - wd s FJ - moo a Za x So:Z - o I = moo @ $ Y�. . zoo )C sv' Z =. __..r?a 0 a mar %3 x•7Y1.- = *It):X0 fA ' 700 4 1S - !D b®— f/a0=��`�a�$3 + 2co -(max 7 4P To a s f ir 14'3 s GO — !. 7 Sb A-c- + .2�O�d-- �/®�3CC�+ ZOO Z� �l X god A,? 3SD+t36"ys-o 4z,,,20C1= 10'-t,-IM Printed an ecycled or RecoverAd Paper THE FOLLOWING REFLECT THE ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COSTS FOR THIS PROJECT WITH FEDERAL AND STATE PARTICIPATION AND ACQUISITION BY CONNDOT'S OFFICE OF RIGHTS OF WAY. As of Sartva.r Fed. roj. No.: ———— Proj. Location: $ull;N0.K Ave. State Proj. No.: t3A-1g009 Town: Sauth W1,f%dLS*g_ RELOCATION COSTS: A. Replacement Owner = @ $22,500 = Housing Tenants = @ $5,250 = B. Residential Owner = @ $3,500 = Moving Pmts. Tenants = @ 1,000 = C. Business & Moving = @ $20,000 = Farm Pmts. Search = @ 1,000 D. Relocation Services Costs @ $600 = E. Other TOTAL RELOCATION RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION — SUMMARY A. Parcel by Parcel $ 137�Y.fi'D Court Awards, 75% of = Admin. Settlements, 25% of Skrra)t.Sb= 34, 3tc3 Etc. Other Total Land and Bldgs. $jcl6,813 B. Overhead — Complex @ $5,000 = S;000 — Simple S @ 2,500 = t2.14-00 — Temp @ 2,000 = — Other Total Overhead 17,SG�3 C. Demolition — Res'I @ $5,000 = — Comm'I @ 9,000 = — Ind'I @ 9,000 = — Other Total Demolition D. Mon. & Interstate 0.00 @ $40,000 = $0 Mapping Secondary 0.00 @ 30,000 = 0 (miles) Other 0 (State Only) Total Monumenting and Mapping E. Asbestos Res'I @ $2,400 = Inspection Comm'I/Ind. @ 5,000 = Other Total Asbestos Inspection �a.1�,313 TOTAL RIGHTS OF WAY ACQUISITION Fa v IL4e4 fm ��«�000 Note: These figures are guides only. Adjustments can be made to reflect projecttt conditions. p Prepared by Stephen A. Kichuk, Sr. , C.G.A. GENERAL FLOW CHART STP URBAN PROJECTS gat G (CDT) TOWN TOWN TOWN RPO qTOWNEVELOPS TOWN PREPARES SEND APPL'S YES PROJECTREVIEW APP'L FOR ONCEPTS TO RPO ELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS ELIGIBILITY & DEVELOP PROJECT LIST WITHIN FISCAL RESTRAINTS NO TOWN CONNDOT RPO TOWN COOR.& HOLDS TRANSMIT TO CONNDOT IS COORDINATES PROJECT PUBLIC INFO MTG. YES F.C. @ CTDOT TRANS. SCOPE REGIONAL SLOPING WITH TOWNS AND ESTABLISHS AND EST. TO THEIR POSTION TOWN. CC.RPO PLAN AND RPO. VERIFIES OK PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 45 DAY LIMIT NO RESCOPE TOWN CONNDOT/RPO CONNDOT NOTIFIES CDOT TOWN BEGIN JOINT ADMINISTERS PREP. OF MTG RESULT YES & OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT/AMEND OF RPM AND FISCAL POSITION APPROVAL CC.RPO OF REQUIREMENTS FOR 14 DAY LIMIT TIP/STIP PROJ. INITIATION NO CONNDOT m CONNDOT CONNDOT CONNDOT RPO CONNDOT/TOWN NOTIFIES TOWN PROJ INIT. PREL DESIGN AND NOTICE TO START OR COMPLETES TIP/STIP PHASE BEGINS FORWORDED THAT CTDOT PROCESS AND VERIFIES WILL BE PROJECT IS INCLUDED K E Y STARTING F.C.- FIELD COORDINATOR PREL DESIGN RPO-- REGIONAL PANNING ORGANIZATION RPM-- RECOMMENDED PROJ MEMORANDUM DCC q y MTG-- MEMNG ai:1`aAV:V1 LJ•,lvv fA&aVJ 4i1 i7117 ba YVa a"l IV?I VVl 0/ L JJ1 y f � ( � `'tin, ��-♦ '.` '♦,♦' �' `"`_.'.—' � r // I _ / + j. /� l f t `i, �\�,f��,ti !r ++rr+ /�+.,t,1•` ,� ��� (/ r� / J/)Ifr/ I�i Lf� , �'{•fp``,,� 1 '� ,,,* '- vJ t,'�`'.�� r,1 11 `r�(I �•r•, r,':! /1'� /( t',•}'+� ♦ "• ,,`\\ ` �ti\ / g ti-+.�;,l• PM16i 'hr.4Q fat.lfWlYmitlaf f118R107g71 \, �' �.�,r��,\1�,��,/ f•,.'/.�ti �II+_ �/i+,•� �`'.� M��++� ��1'.� FSl7'��.t� ` J,J /J/r I _.' 1J9+k',.,s<ff A`. ! I ( / ,I rr' \',• , finer 1r r � �,•... 4'�J/'. ti.� i ,./ �\ gLriuWi y"3fat �''�•,\�t�� '+ �'` ' )�1 ' ���' •'rfi{' 'r,`; .. T1'�.izCJ a�y-���J. rJr f,•f J r /� ''� �l\\•,t',i A, y�M�"`1 ,\��` '+`�!'1-•�, ��l f r ,� , 1 %f>• .``^_� /a ti` �•�r�r f/r�r/� ♦♦,ti, ", ♦"'�'♦,•�, \ ♦� '♦�\ �'',\ !, "'•V/f 'r��rt�J ' �, �� .-.. r r Ir rf rr _ .e* `•3. li{J-lll t.,:Ll._, fl j ,•`.•,,�� .` ., %/ �' 1 I� :1 � + „t,,`'����`` Ui ale r f ~1 � / t~ �.w�np'. `��� `51�3s •. + r�f i I`` 4 t JjJ //j}}��r � )(/'r{�',fT.- , •,'•Y;\ � ' ,I l,-,1y'\l�h tl (1 l'r%J:I� /�,li.i �•r/•�,/ �l�l- � '/'yf ,� - \T ti`` riI 1�+�t� , r � :lt:.a,�,i' [�,'(x.{./,/ !(l (i•..�'! �ii i � / 'r I � r^, `��~•-/''i•, I��y`�� �y `i 'r,♦1-L+i:rr' �Jr�i.l fr Y �.1 ��1`��rP'J.rr r A rf.r V 1 r%/ . �1 1 I r r 1����1�� }`�,` Vn f /1'i,,\ r ri, J .�`r f/`I }i/•Jl'�� �T.r,. ly.,G 1 l I �•- �.�,�' rp .. Y ) ,r, ,,1. Y ti. .•• `1 \.'♦, +; - �� ��` It `',,1,,,� .t tr , CLi� �`�'.� V 4 F,•?Sf�fi�• �I l.• (% Y„'�y�Y••/�/. r •'ji'';#l�j'11 �1 V `7 � I. ; ' ��%�l/y�r7jf� �},f'� /J•,,�'.J^� ,t+�• /' 1 r`/ r, +i `�fI/I � ,t1 1 �. I r�r�/."f'• f Ji-r.�r f .w. y ,' `/i � ,r]f..(ii'• !r_.�.:.(w.,rr+.i'�'��i'�'s�� ..n � !` 1 i� r3.+V�:� I� I -�•,: /' �".r•ri rf I �� Z� + rr art y,+-r r,•�s rr—r�`,I Y� `•.,� /���+` �� � f ('IrJf�'f r! � \ .. i, \ ,,��,.��,` a`'� ,' \ l:r 1, •,1, Xl• v r'. l I �' , ! ��, 1, 1;`•,`8�`•.'�ti`.'`'i �• S-ii1 h 1. �-� '••`,,, �.� Jsl T r i J 1 � 1..(71y ' 1 l •�` ,`\ , 1• ,,mil♦,\," I 1 ! 1' � �,•4,.� I•. I 'I �l _ '� I I �IYi_(^, 1` r� �� ♦, /�r �+ \+ i+a�' ''•F`.• '`;:: ,,11 '+♦_�t� 1 . t j ` `, y ,"�, '� , V � .1 '' ,V � 1 ' `♦"�;Y`.y.,� ryf Y'ri,_'�ti 1'vrJ�/ f� � i + ' � � c ir��.z� . r,• R♦y' ;t t �f ; `',,j.�L _ti may.` I + � � V� r ` L i✓�� � --1•,! 1 ` :IJt ,} �, � � '�• •mot� .\", \ � l� �, ,w,'••, - }}I, r , '1 {�5\d'rt �\� 'll�� 1("`/. y�'a II'1 �t 1 STATE OF CONNECTICUT � �r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2800 BERLIN TURNPIKE, P.O. BOX 317546 `�r NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06131-7546 Phone: 59 4-3 4 81 December 16, 1994 Town of South Windsor Mr. Michael J. Gantick, P.E. Director of Public Works 1540 Sullivan Avenue 1 9 1994 =_.r South Windsor, CT 06074 ® DEC DeT. Dear Mr. Gantick: $ SUBJECT: Reconstruction of Kelly Road (132-H010) . Reconstruction of Sullivan Avenue, Graham Road & Ayers Road Intersection (132-HO09) . Enclosed for your information is a report of the meeting held on November 30, 1994 at the South Windsor Town Hall, regarding the above proposed projects. Please distribute this information to the other attendees from your Town and to whomever you deem appropriate. If you have any questions please contact Joseph Goyette of this unit at 594-3486. Very truly yours, �r7/. ard�j� Supervisor Project Concept Unit Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations Enclosure cc: Thomas J. Maziarz-Ms. Sherry Garcia - Capitol Region Council of Governments An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled or Recovered Paper o " REPORT OF MEETING CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER PROJECT CONCEPT UNIT DATE OF MEETING: November 29, 1994 PROJECT NO. (S) : South Windsor #132-H009, #132-H010 TOWN(S) : South Windsor LOCATION OF MEETING: South Windsor Town Hall SUBJECT OF MEETING: Project Scoping Meeting for the following: 1. Proposed Reconstruction of Kelly Rd. (132- H010) 2 . Proposed Reconstruction of Sullivan Ave. , (Rte. 194) , Graham Road & Ayers Road Intersection. (132-H009) IN ATTENDANCE: Michael J. Gantick-Town of So. Windsor-644-2511 Marcia Banach-Town of So. Windsor-644-2511 X253 A.B. Davies-Town of So. Windsor-644-2511 X240 Melvin C. Stead Jr.-Town of So. Windsor-644-2551 Thomas Maziarz-Capitol Region Council of Governments (C.R.C.O.G. ) -522-2217 Sherry Garcia-C.R.C.O.G. -522-2217 Joseph Goyette-Dept. of Transportation-Project - Concept Unit-594-3486. TRANSACTIONS: The meeting began with a brief overview of the Project Concept Unit, its purpose and responsibilities. Following that, verification of the concept and scope of the two submitted project proposals began. 1. The Kelly Road Reconstruction Proposal consists of improvements to the horizontal and vertical alignment, and reconstruction of the pavement structure. The realignment of Spruce and Laurel will be looked at as an add-on option. The majority of vertical realignment will be at the east end of the project where a cut of about 6' is required to provide minimal stopping sight distances. Another cut of a foot or two is required just east of Willow Street to improve the intersection sight distance. Mr. Davies asked if the cuts could be lessened if the design speed was lowered to 30 mph from 40 2 - mph. A 30 mph design will be considered. The pavement structure is in poor shape and should be rebuilt to collector standards. The Kelly Road and Avery Street intersection will also be improved with 50' curb radii. There were no major changes to the scope or concept of this proposal. 2. The next project discussed was the Route 194, Graham Road, Ayers Road Intersection improvement. The proposed project calls for making Graham Road one-way north, adding a right turn lane from Route 194 onto Ayers Road. The addition of a traffic signal at Ayers road, together with increasing the clear zone on Route 194 opposite Graham Road, was also proposed. Drainage was not addressed. The Project Concept Unit felt this proposal did not adequately address all the problems at this intersection. An improvement to the proposal was suggested as follows: Eliminate Graham Road from Ayers Road to Route 194, flatten the curve and grade of Route 194 at Ayers Road, add right and left turn lanes at Ayers Road, consider a traffic signal at the Ayers Road, Route 194 intersection and install a drainage system. On December 2, 1994, the following proposal was suggested by phone to Ms. Marcia Banach and Mr. A.B. Davies of the Town of South Windsor, and to Mr. Thomas Maziarz of C.R.C.O.G. They were in favor of the following proposal. In this proposal, Graham Road is extended across Ayers Road and sweeps into Route 194 at approximately 90 degrees. Ayers Road would be terminated in a cul-de-sac. The drainage and the horizontal and vertical alignment would be adjusted as previously suggested. This proposal moves the Graham/Ayers intersection to the south on a flatter section of Route 194. It also provides better separation from the busy intersection to the north of the current location of Ayers Road. Project 132-118 is presently in design. This is a drainage project which begins at Hillside Drive, one-quarter mile west of Ayers Road. Jeff Scala of the Department of Transportation, Division of State Design, was contacted on December 1, 1994, about the possibility of sizing the drainage in Project 132-118 to handle the drainage from the proposed project area. Mr. Scala will look into it. i P - 3 - SUBMITTED BY: _,4G� DATE g REVIEWED BY: DATE (DEB-L42) - i ;I ,I i //J/yJ�L✓,yI� � ' l Al loop cr it -� - i ---------------- II a SOW N Sf4 TOWItt OlgSOUiA ?40 C.l U cd 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 May 25, 1995 Dear Resident: RE: SULLIVAN AVENUE/AYERS ROAD/GRAHAM ROAD INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION The Town of South Windsor is initiating concept plans to reconstruct the intersections of Sullivan Avenue and Ayers Road, and Sullivan Avenue and Graham Road. Initial plans are to modify the curvature of Sullivan Avenue, to cul-de-sac Ayers Road at Sullivan, and to modify the Graham Road alignment to provide a "T" intersection with Sullivan Avenue. Based upon preliminary assessment, the construction cost will be approximately $1,753,000.00. It is anticipated that the Federal Highway Administration will provide 80% of the construction cost with the State providing 20%. It is the Town's and the State's policy to keep persons informed and involved when such projects are undertaken. It is important that the community share its concerns with us to assist in the project's development. The Town will conduct an informational meeting on June 8, 1995 at 7:30 PM in the Community Banquet Room of the South Windsor Community Center, 150 Nevers Road, South Windsor. Deaf and hearing impaired persons wishing to attend this meeting and requiring an interpreter may make arrangements by contacting the Department of Transportation's Office of Communications at 594-3062 (Voice Only) at least five working days prior to the meeting. Anyone interested in obtaining further information, or in providing input, may do so by contacting me, Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer, at 644-2511, Extension 245. Very truly yours, fimm etta, eer JCl/jsv DISTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION LETTER Official, Planning and Zoning Commission - CHAIRMEN ONLY! Official, Zoning Board of Appeals Official, Conservation Commission Official, Inland Wetland Commission Chief of Police Chief of Fire Department Superintendent of Schools Town Council - ALL Carl F. Bard, P. E. Supv. Project Concept Unit ConnDOT P.O. Box 317546 Newington, CT 06131-7546 101 68 4 101 69 3 101 70 1&2 J 101 89 7 STRONG HAZEL C. COLON EPIFANIO & MARIA SU CUTLER JOHN K IDA SURV RICHARD ROMEO J+MARIE P+S 6 GRAHAM ROAD 14 GRAHAM ROAD 36 GRAHAM ROAD 72 GRAHAM ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 BARG MICHAEL D 1018 6 101 87 5 J 101 86 4 J 101 85 3 VANDERLINDEN CLINTON T JR BALDWIN DIANE G DESAUTELS JEAN C GERMAINE 30 DEXTER ROAD 86 GRAHAM ROAD 94 GRAHAM ROAD 102 GRAHAM ROAD LEXINGTON, MA 02173 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 Fri May 12 1995 12:53:05 Total Labels Printed 8 50 101 90 B RICE JOSEPH D & NANCY S S 50 AYERS ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 Fri May 12 1995 14:35:46 Total Labels Printed 1 100 9 100 30 100 31 10 L36 BANK OF SOUTH WINDSDR BANK OF SOUTH WINDSOR PETRAITIS ROSE D BERKOWITZ JEROME J 1695 ELLINGTON RD 1695 ELLINGTON RD 1014 SULLIVAN AVENU 507 TWIN CIRCLE DR SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 100 32 100 34 Al 100 34 A 100 34 A3 HALL RALPH C MARY T SURV MLT REALTY PARTNERS SEGAL DANIEL M & PATTI L' HOLCOMBE J. KIRBY 1024 SULLIVAN AVENU 1050 SULLIVAN AVENU 1050 SULLIVAN AVENU 1050 SULLIVAN AVENU SOUTH WINDSOR. CT 06074 UNIT Al UNIT A2 UNIT A3 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 100 34 A4 100 34 B1 100 34 B2 100 34 Cl THIBODEAU DANIEL J & DAWN MANCHESTER MEMORIAL HOSPI VILDOZOLA CARLOS W & PASS MLT REALTY PARTNERS 85 DEBBIE DR C/O MANAGEMENT 1050 SULLIVAN AVENU 1050 SULLIVAN AVENU S WINDSOR, CT 06074 PO BOX 664 UNIT 82 UNIT Cl MANCHESTER, CT 06040 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 100 100 38 89 4 6 J 88 3 BLANCHSRD & ROS8EfTO ENTE ANNINO GERTRUDE M PLAGA ✓ DONAHUE THERESE M MESSNER JACQUELINE 189 WEST ER ST 1101 SULLIVAN AVENU 1118 SULLIVAN AVENU 1123 SULLIVAN AVENU MAN ER, CT 06040 SOUTH WINDSOR. CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR. CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 89 5 5 J 88 4 88 2 89 35 4 HENNESSY JANE M GOIANGOS JOHN JR & CLAUDI JPATELLI HUGO M+ GLYNN JOSEPH M JR & KATHE 1124 SULLIVAN AVENU 1127 SULLIVAN AVENU 1135 SULLIVAN AVENU 1136 SULLIVAN'AVE SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SO WINDSOR, CT 06074, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 S WINDSOR. CT 06074 89 34 3 / 89 33 2 89 32 �Y 89 31 ROBERTS MARY B KARASINSKI STANLEY R & STODDARD DOROTHY M MARTIN FAITH C (LIFE USE) 1142 SULLIVAN AVENU 1148 SULLIVAN AVENU 1156 SULLIVAN AVENU- 1164 SULLIVAN AVENU SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 DODD LORRAINE M 88 5 / MITCHELL JOHN J 88 6 1177 SULLIVAN AVENU 1209 SULLIVAN AVE SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 Fri May 12 1995 11:25:29 Total Labels Printed 26 100 26 1 oQ.a711� 100(37" �,IW 26 A MARTIN RONALD F SOUTH WINDSOR DEVELOPMENT SOUTH WINDSOR DEVELOPMONT MARTIN RONAjBI F 46 WOOD POND RD 99 EAST_-CENTER ST 99 EAST CENTER ST C/O RON"7 F MARTIN WEST HARTFORD, CT 06107 MA ER, CT 06040 MANCHESTER, CT 06040 46 WgOD POND ROAD W�bIfCRTFORD, CT 06107 / ,y 100 27 / MARTIN RONALD 46 WOODPOND RD �-IJQ' W HARTFORD, CT 06107 Fri May 12 1995 11:33:23 Total Labels Printed 5 • s , 771 9? Iw�-' �/r'G�v �Z� ar✓�r =vim- /<L GL ��'� I o e113 �� (� 7 CLr1 SGL LDS I !� 3 /1z3 sMe z- rlaZ�! Z9, G l4 Gis�v i . � � l I/�� S�wr��✓ �L, O i j✓ 3 yr d I yZ �� ,., ?a ( 3G G.����i � I mission instead voted to- reo=; such a tl►reshA.otd: we'll fight to vote..We think a petition would \\I►/, J"`i"��s` ommend that a binding'Budget ref=i against 14?' he said. , ._ be more of aii incentive and would - _ Surgery Ce erendum be held if 10 percent of gut comm>ssiori` ,,and encourage people to vote," she 148 Hazard Avenue electors si a petition for a refer; e.1 1 said said. CouncOman=Ge4 i s „q ,. .# �'w A fraud wstji ohns endum . commission also "is.--rods he 'khhe increase in J recommending' that two public. y u «"" The commission also is rec-,' ," . si tares. .I think it malge. a plot hearings be held on the budget,tho 8� ommending the town hire a town more sense than only having,200 manager and pare the council from first by March 31 and the other no apeople, which is what is.presently T h • later than April 30,she said y „ �. ,,.rg 12 to nine members -- _ hiPpemngf.,... �Sai addm that u ^^ $ .l%}, ,. ticcording to 'tlie towq clerk' tire_numbei of signatures the coin.�.. The To1yn Council will review office, there were 13,693;electors mission is proposing is much less, the commjission s recommendations in town as of May 8. Therefore; than'Its 2U pei?ceagt;;}t initiall I June B � sag;." and decide whether to add them to those wha want to .force a refers pasted for a�budgeref to the ballot, for the November mum t _. endum on th5e��budget wouldyyhave to be bindings mcipia� election. S. l' {JC. pp s7<r��?'JAt'�• il�`� / �� . st�{C. Ti_ - Y� 7��.�tE`.tL �t"3 J i<' - { Y h� FR.' ., _ 1 f'[ Y Kell Road etitionei gather, 54 signatures additin; Namnoum�said,:, million.It is anticipated the'Fed-' By Karen'A. Gleason � -�avid:montage`.along. the; eral Highway Administration will ' c ' Journal Inquirer -'� s>t ' ' properties would be lost-if the' cover 80 percent of the cost,with :{ xr SOUTH: WINDSOR_' --: A road is widened.The plans call for the state covering the-rem ainder, . group of Kelly,:Road, resident$,; widening the pavement to 30 feet Town Engineer Jerryx Iazzetta plans to submit to town officials a and imrtalling $form drainages said, , ..�.,„„,,�.,,�.��� , �Fc!;} sY' �;s4..�t7 .-a �''•'yl.i. ti0n:, the proi"""^� t Fifteen} eats O, a SlmilBr E pelt ., r, 9. _ The cost estimate of the project This iecons►ruction and widening,,a s widening ;�ro,e4 : along¢Kelly includes money that, will be the road from Av Street to the. Road was:.,bloc6d nei Game �3' gh r' needed to buy rights of way along � ��� Vernon line,„rya .F ` . _ #, lwrhood residerits.,They_�siicces$-. the So. far, about 50 homeowners,fully appealed� _Planningr andF" road, he said. Federal funds ;, on Kell Road have si ed the;.: Commission decision to will pay 80 percent. of that cost, chap es from a J' gn � while the state and the'town r petition.agawst,the proposed rer allow Gerber Scientifid -U-c tb �f +iF sr aT "Ft _ sE Z' b% each supposed to contribute 10 construction; organizer John ,widen ttje,_road and constructa:. f, , ?. • ++ Namnoum said today `', 246 000- are--bot'l addition Ltd Percent, accoiduig to Iazzetta.Nn> , , o 'd l llllar .. ¢r,`` _`. �� � - - The width of the road nows South_-.Windsor has, a rust, xts:plant. ^r � ,;�, , ,�: A, nature to: t, although it`is a busy` An mformation�meeting on.,ranges from 22 to 28 feet,Iazzetta ,. suburb,',',' Namnoum said ,"We the latest eco>lslruttion plans wi71, said.. .If the project is approved, o1ne;in tQda ar don't want.our town to become a, a held at g.iii o f}Thursday fin` the road could be widened up to gemstone that's busier thoroughfare`„',, t the Community Center,. Oppo 30 feet m some places, he said, . The level and of traffic, vents of the project�i1an io submif The purpose: of Thursdays �2dw L,�,,- on.Kelly Roa it difficgl. their"petrua i th �� ;; �>i meeting is to gain feedback from,; Friedrieh'J for homeowners' to:,,eat their The reco� coif may�e rec .residents before the:town decides 4,= i" • "WhM, Pe le` driveways, he.said. . ,�,, ;v ommended; under` the Surface; whether to move forward with the' ° °P "The-traffic is nonstop, said Transportation Program;adminis- .plans,he said. The Town Councll Vemon Conimong', 520 Hai" Namnoum, who resides at; 108 tared by.the state:Department of` would have to approve a resol ' serving Tolland County For bier 8o Years.large Kelly Road. "No one is going 30 Transportation ,",'' ' ution;for the project to move` posed Monday,Open Tuesday;lAiednesday,Frida mph.'i The cost.is estimated at $1.55' forward, Iazzetta added " Colorwlll vary, -- :: .off 68 Kelly Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Town Council; I recently attended`the Kelly Road Reconstruction Concept' meeting held by the Town Engineer. It was shocking to learn that the town is proposing devastating the Kelly road neighborhood, in what appears to be a method of obtaining federal and state moneys. At the meeting,a petition with the signatures of all the residents of Kelly road was presented. Not one person was in favor of the project,in fact quite the contrary. Yet,even with 100%opposition to the widening of Kelly road project,the opinion of the Engineers was that the project would go forward. We were told that the widening is necessary due the volume of traffic. Yet Kelly road has easily accommodated two way traffic since it's inception. Widening the road will not only increase the speed, but the volume of traffic as well. There is already a problem at the intersection of Avery street and Kelly road. Kelly road was never intended to be the gateway to South Windsor and the Buckland mall. To the contrary,Kelly road is a residential area. Widening Kelly road will destroy the residential quality of the road,greatly reduce the property values and create an increased danger to families,especially those families with children. As it is now,we often have to wait awhile to get out of our driveways due to the traffic. At the present time,the speed limit on the Vernon side of Kelly road is posted as 25mph. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a vehicle going less than 40 or 50 mph on this straight a way. Traffic is forced to reduce speed at the top of the hill,crossing into the Kelly road residential area,due to a curve.Many motorists often exceed the speed limit and fly through the stop signs as they reach the straight away. Removing this curve and widening Kelly road will a only increase the vehicle speed and amount of traffic. Widening would also encourage additional truck traffic.If the street is too narrow,why haven't there been more accidents? The land required for widening the road will reduce the length of existing driveways and the already minimum home frontage on Kelly road. This will heighten the existing parking problem that many residents presently have. I addition,quite a few of the mature trees would have to be removed to accommodate this reconstruction project,destroying the character of the neighborhood When asked why the road has to be widened,we are told that this extra width is due to `what is recommended for a road iArith this much volume.' But where will it stop? Widening the road will increase the traffic on both Kelly road and Avery street. So with this logic,we will have to widen both Kelly and Avery again in couple of years. Where does it end? The town should be seeking ways to reduce the traffic in this area,promoting the town access route on route 30. So the bottom line is that the town engineers are proposing a project that will devastate our neighborhood. increase traffic on both Kelly road and Avery street, pose an increased safety problem for our families. and decrease the value of our properties. This is in spite of 100%opposition from the residents involved. As there is little logic being displayed with this project it would appear that this concept is only an attempt to obtain federal financing. Before I lose my real estate investment and am forced to move,I am prepared to take what ever legal and political action is available,at the local,state and federal level. I am writing to you as a town council member, in the hope that you will cancel this ridiculous project. Please give consideration of how you would feel if you lived a moderately busy street,where traffic often exceeds the speed limit,and your town proposed widening and straightening the road. A home where you have a minimum amount of frontage and your town wanted to bring the road closer to your front door. What would you do if you had small children? I was hoping to live here another 10 years,but this project would force us to move and at quite a loss on the sale of our property. As taxpayers in South Windsor it is hard to believe that the town would even consider just writing us off and putting residents in this position. Please vote to reject this Kelly Road Devastation project. Sincerely; C� Bob Eisman r ,e, 20 19 qs�- Fv SDr�esw,,�y t�t, wS�•.•��tU�/ C T. a c o� y .� RECE O PJ U N 2 1 19 96 SOIJM WINDSOR MG.DE �, a C �J�-�Q d o ca.uj 'o Diu �1 p�"'�' G�,�y� I/, �G✓t �✓1 C%J �� a A Al Cie,Gam• �' �J�?�� w► 0.iJ o,7 a.c lae Cl aP\ .o Ow 01� U ' 46�Q,,r, u ,� �p„ ^�,� �. v t , - .,Q,,uk4 qu..��T`"L cl J'r oL _ n n I GJ '0�►4.)1 wt1-C h 0 a,•, -t;" � /�- a�•�j �v� ca�,,�..���,,, � fly. �.�..,a,,, G.�c� ,o, 46 s Ar ,o, - .ot-�4 v s i A4 keep f To,w. a,,v s we k, Sc -�° u��i�iG� � 4,a - 'O�'U� �d ,o j J,/e. f-4*- &4 a r,d ,o ak a--o w b nn f C,- p-,4 vct'- d a44 c ,a./�co opcin�o�nGt s•>,c - w c 4 �:�.Qi '�►, ��.wL..a -f ro���'- A, ° 0 re .�tQ.vCn t.✓ P � � C 7 0 7- 7 --- Co.UC��Pr r::;LAJ P,O�&;tj 79:Z> 7zrc�/6� ECO.c� UC OF \- D /Eve _TWRU ooW _.-�_ f 79, 77AWI/ s ZAv 4 001, Of �zT NG /T D WA 01 _y0U 4LL WILL C47/(/E7J t9?J P..9isE' YouTz �33rTA S�✓�'��4.L_ ��ysF �yov2 N�'F Ar�D _ A-7�T� S Q.ci Gov ,lf�rJF �ivis��- �GE73sE �l�4cF �a,� N/,�iylFd- A�D�=.S f�6��, �5�7711��; 141 _ ���jZ/,c./E /D UlZ C'0ly1ly1�7'S 4 GCE � �� � 7- � Aizt-- m4-t-j Y --r--.5suem ?� / -5 l�T�o sy2. � suG � ff's �oi�D S7bAPO )/0fh/ 1,4 6F� u&m Z-1 e-F- 7 7D 13y0l&-T-7Z Y 45XI�:e/j7A-) 7�� R19- :nc 10-47bJ6z c: g /S 0U7Z-1 J&- > 1X J T� ' PROCESS INVOLVED WITH A PROJECT -The need for improvement is identified - Funding decision is made (Town or outside source) - Concept plans made, cost estimate prepared -Application to funding source is made (Surface Transportation Program) - Preliminary approval of project by funding source - PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING HELD ON CONCEPT PLAN (WE ARE HERE) - Review of issues raised at Public Informational Meeting - Decision by Town to go forward or abandon - Funding set aside for project - Concept plan revised - Preliminary engineering begins - PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING HELD ON PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLANS - Input from Public Informational Meeting incorporated into design - Preliminary design begins - PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Town Council Meeting - Input from Town Council Meeting & Public Hearing Incorporated into Design - Town Council Resolution approving project & funding - Property acquisition phase initiated - Final design - Property acquisition completed - Project is bid; construction starts AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROCESS, PUBLIC INPUT AND QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME. y� C/qAJ 456--t&t 7 s l S 4 Z.&J67711-Y �hG s W177CII 771-/46S � /gig/ ���/O�tJCpu•uC« DFC�OdETzc�/j1�xlJ5 �6-'�� AW-FFOR T Fe-)R 7716- 7��zwov 4faUc&-Z6/XAg Tff� T,�ff.�sfF�en�a✓ NE�vs .q�v�y P�b��s /N so O/x)Dsdz AZE;V-S 1.0 /o vu AjD /rl�� FloPZ COC.LtZolo2 pd.,P Pv�j n /NT�7� GcI�T� SE7/��f}r. P.eoor3c�s — JU,¢,stFz� �A� w�ar�f �iG�ici�cyf Tl� /�v�s�r� 7 Ews7 7.v4 �zcy NAS Pl�E�Ex�T Gul Z�T�S T��T //may 7Z) ZC5 � AJl> /5 Cup✓�-rzr N�z ��-�y Sr. �� � r /5 17��so477• .16 AJD /•t> Poo1z 60tiD17704J �lZ�! �N%t= E7C/STS D�rJG.Y D.cJ � I�O,ZT7o.v OF T�i`F .�d� �D /5 IA-) GPxcJ 47JI.> /W6' FbN42�''(-10 P,�oF3c�ns CvMPCo�7:5 �L�7�r7j 4�Sou7- 771,57- I.t� iT7t 191-c- o�c 77&SE 5vAc.)6,*rFD was T� �dYf3LEfl f3F�vs� /T uJou�D Ouse= STn,� wRj� 77Z�) PoaD �•u /1�� Y �eiv�J�ys AND u�ov�D Noi A�>0>10E5:s 77/?F- 01—ht=;O T�G�c�zici�S �TCs —T�E ccJj ltiJr LL MA-K�N � 7'�M�7 C.4hTJti U ?D f-ftz P 7� s2�NOT1�1��✓� ��ST l//f�G� 10EG0R1S �U(i770.tJ pt' 7?/,5— j�a 9 M4'PF- 7a -)Z>lw6 ��TK�iP7�a G."o�c-��r PLAN F,ae no.v OAS .ZD&-;J77�iFv 1-5 ,0&7N4 Yo uz> Ae;E-1- 7-0 Tie l/EZvQ, .) T A.) Lives, 4-P-SOV7- 3 800 Fes, eezzy ZAP /s �CGl�ssi�i� At.- D OvR -Tzr,>wti 157�D.�DS /,vD�t'3P1s' 34 %vlDE 4w&-UFZ 777�--F< /S s4 �i6ihy ,��ia�rru� /O ST2E�T� kJF 70Y Ta ,e-EDvcE OnJ EX1577rAv47 ?tom qn 'So �w/a�i , Th4L=, - �oiOgP u)ou&D A�j D vP Tv 8 � IA.) Ow,g- /VD.✓t'. �jc/STI.t/6 STd�i .�fI7N�6� 00, �i2oPos� 729 f3E UP6O,�7�677D. rV f3� Is #*o?'tss&--Z> Ta .86- EVA -1447Z5D_ is �o�as� 7a T.iytP�dE- TFf� IN 7��5�T�o.✓ ffT �v�y_ —" Cdiyu�A�jo.cJ u�/G� F E /fIl�LL� �wcEzicl�.✓�, ra A71649� r:F��i3�D Ta ?�� .ZNAo,�n>�nac� A�vsr �� 4s�.�-.�� s�c� AIAs .4 QUO Qr-i-V n41ii l7-7rJC ..70 J ZL � sr��-ro,,� 1�Y1 �'nSNZ Q1 7'1/(rl ryrr2c2l (�j • 9rr�n'r✓�9�� -3ff1 � 3� 21 i5 �lLoPE�T/ t�G�¢ves�r�o.v� Timis f3&-7..oU447 hl5Z-2> 7Z) ��R;ooi Yo c) 77,Xe- aA-1C&--,P7- P41-)L) ZaA2 AND 7a ate&-,r>z-1 rz-,O� kQ�--s� Timis /ZCFWlV4 /t�u,� �1YJPvT GfJ/GL fvE .�riiEw�D 7-7> 47'D oCV-,eu1�,p GU17;;l /E7-7" 14- Ste" 1-917s REF77A/6S ,�T �cW yo 3(5:- 6ivOv /)LAJ DPPo,,L- 77,)4117"Y )IVUR ZWRC)lr- .- Aj d 7,-L � I�Tz�iu6s J � PUFS-61c, A�ixlg uJirf/ m 7;7/�K Yov woe C��i uE, Td r��6�i - Zcvo u�D ,moo W 7UZeu 7-77�'s /nF&-77•c1 6 o v5-� ?a /z�E7v45 :S7?b2;7A4 7779-- MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer DATE: June 14, 1995 RE: PROPOSED SULLIVAN AVENUE/AYERS ROAD/GRAHAM ROAD INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION Listed below is a synopsis of the questions, concerns and comments made at the June 8, 1995 Public Informational Hearing for the proposed Sullivan Avenue/Ayers Road/Graham Road Intersection Reconstruction Project: 1. The Neighborhood development representatives a. The cul-de-sac must be large enough for school bus b. Do not want the bus shelter moved to Ayers and Graham because of vandalism and dangerous intersection C. Egress during construction d. In favor of an improvement project 2. Concern about drainage - will project increase existing problem. 3. Concern on Cutler property that the proposed Graham Road bulges toward house. Also concern about type of retaining wall to be used. 4. Reduction in parking spaces at office building 5. Will Graham have right and left turning lanes at Sullivan Avenue? 6. Question on design - will angle of intersection of Graham with Sullivan change if a traffic signal is placed there? 7. Cul-de-sac may cause a safety hazard - emergency vehicles will take longer to get to the Neighborhood. 8. Question about open ditch along Graham Road. 9. Stop light will cause pollution. 10. Sight line at Ayers and Sullivan better- liked original plan to make Graham Road one way, and place a traffic light at Ayers and Sullivan. 11. Question as to when traffic counts were made and will new traffic count be done. 12. Will extension of driveways be at States expense? 13. Can cul-de-sac on Ayers be moved - doglegged into office building parcel. 14. Can State provide additional parking for office building. 15. Can State override/supercede local requirements such as school bus requirements. 16. Concern that if curve at Pierce Road was not made better by State, will same thing happen here. 17. If Sullivan Avenue is to be widened to four lanes in future, will this design for two lanes be adaptable. 18. Drainage in area doesn't work - will this be corrected. 19. Can bushes and brush be cut down on Sullivan Avenue to increase current sight line for driveways. 20. Has anyone looked at "ripple" effect on Steep Road when traffic light placed at Graham and Sullivan. 21. Concern of impact of cul-de-sac on Ayers on properties in the Neighborhood - they are small lots. 22. Most of those present also indicated that improvement is needed. JCl/jsv 40. i y 40*1N 3fq( /I C � U �'-'i','�..v✓� ii i.:_• 6..�� .x.J✓ n.+/'y:/ a-:i.•:-.�7 C Yi 9. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 — x•co�'�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 cb/13 October 11, 1995 Kelly Road Residents South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Resident: Re: Kelly Road Reconstruction/Turn In of Funds Following your input at the Public Hearing, I requested that Town Staff do the following: 1 . Determine adequacy of the culvert on the west end to safely handle heavy trucks--it's okay. 2 . Identify key issues of road reconstruction--it appears to be road base, sidewalks, site lines and drainage, --although the staff has done very little on this program and there is a scarcity of data. 3 . Check with the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) regarding funding requirements . CRCOG does require road rewidening. I have also verified this requirement. Since the road rewidening is the basis of your objections, I had indicated to CRCOG that we would be returning the money. Since then, the I-291 Corridor Committee has completed their planning. One of the outcomes of that planning has been a solution to the dangerous intersection of Route 30/Route _5 at the East Hartford town line. Accordingly, I am working to turn in the $1 .5 million for Kelly Road reconstruction toward the Route 30 relocation, and I have the support of East Hartford in this effort. In any case, there will be no further work on Kelly Road, but our effort to turn in the funds may allow us future funding for resurfacing if CRCOG policy does change to allow resurfacing as requested by the larger cities . October 11, 1995 Page 2 I believe no other communication is necessary on this project; but, should you have any questions, please contact me at my home at 644-3627 . Very truly yours, Richard R Mayor RR:mpg MEMORANDUM TO: Liana T. Kuras, Acting Town Manager FROM: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Pub V Works j Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer �� Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning. � DATE: August 11, 1995 RE: Kelly Road Reconstruction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to the memorandum from Mayor Ryan to you dated July 19, 1995, regarding Kelly Road reconstruction, following is a clarification of the issues. The existing Kelly Road pavement is essentially at the end of its useful life. With no action, the road will continue to deteriorate. 1. Federal/State funding considerations. Mayor Ryan's memo indicated that Town staff should meet with Kelly Road residents to try to identify an improvement plan that meets both the residents' wishes and CRCOG engineering standards, in order to utilize the federal/state funding. However, the Town Council has indicted that there will be no widening of Kelly Road. Capitol Region Council of Governments has indicated that a minimum width of 28 feet is acceptable, but that it is not acceptable to leave Kelly Road at its current non-uniform width. (Kelly Road currently varies in width from a minimum of 22' to a maximum of 28', with the average width at about 24-25'.) Therefore, with the Council decision to preclude widening of Kelly Road, there is no possibility of using the federal/state STP (Surface Transportation Program) funds that the Town was awarded for this project. The reconstruction of Kelly Road without widening to a minimum uniform width, and the use of federal funds to do so, are mutually exclusive propositions. 2. Repair alternatives and cost implications. a. Full reconstruction, to 28' width. Includes road widening, curbing, drainage, sidewalks, and correction of sight distance problems. Corrects all existing problems. Estimated life of new road: 20 years. Total project cost estimate: $1,538,300. Funding Sources: Federal/State STP Funds (Est) $1,528,800 Total Town Cost (Est) $ 9,500 b. Overlay on existing pavement at existing width. Adds pavement thickness only; does not include sidewalk construction. Does not correct any structural, drainage, or sight distance problems; addresses only pavement surface problem. May exacerbate drainage and access problems at some existing driveways. Estimated life of new pavement: 3-7 years. Total project cost estimate: $85,000+. Funding Sources: Federal/State STP Funds (Est) -0- Total Town Cost (Est) $85,000+ w c. Partial reconstruction in place, to existing width. Includes removal of existing pavement, replacement with 4" of new pavement at same width and road profile; curbing; sidewalk reconstruction; additional drainage structures plus replacement of 6 existing catch basins. Does not correct drainage problems (ponding) in some driveways; does not correct sight distance problem. Curbing would be difficult to place, as road width meanders in & out along length of road. Note: placement of curbing requires road widening of about two feet, as curbing must have pavement base to be placed upon, and placing curbing along the existing pavement area would narrow the road even further. Total project cost estimate: $400,000+. Funding Sources: Federal/State STP Funds (Est) -0- Total Town Cost (Est) $400,000+ 3. Right-of-way implications/residential property impacts. a. Full reconstruction. The full reconstruction and widening would primarily be done within existing Town right-of-way. The only residential property taking might occur at the intersection of Avery Street and Kelly Road; however, there would be grading rights required. Residential property impacts would consist of regrading and possibly some removal of vegetation within Town R.O.W., and some regrading outside of the Town R.O.W. (with possible associated vegetation removal). Unless preliminary design is performed, the nature and extent of regrading and vegetation removal as well as specific properties impacted cannot be determined. b. Overlay. No right-of-way impacts, as the overlay occurs over the existing roadway with no other improvements. However, possible residential property impacts could include increased driveway ponding and steeper driveway grades. c. Partial reconstruction. Widening needed for curbing would be done within existing Town R.O.W.; there may be regrading and removal of vegetation associated with this alternative due to sidewalk construction. As with the full reconstruction alternative, actual impacts to residential property cannot be determined until preliminary design is undertaken. Attached is a matrix comparing the three alternatives. Town staff are very cognizant of the residents' concerns; however, there still is the option of proceeding with preliminary design for the full reconstruction project, without committing the Town to going forward with construction, and without rejecting the federal funding at this time. All three options could be further explored so that right-of-way and residential property impacts could be identified for all options. After the preliminary design work is completed, there will be detailed information available regarding the actual impacts of each option, allowing the Council to make a decision at that time about which option if any) to pursue. We would need a ` Council resolution to CRCOG indicating that the Council has elected to proceed with preliminary design for the full reconstruction project. If the Council does not wish to pursue this approach, CRCOG will need a Town Council resolution indicating that the Council has elected to reject the federal/state STP funding for this project, so that the funds can be reallocated to another project within the Capitol Region. 6 Kelly Road Alternatives Comparison Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C- Full Reconstruction Pavement Partial Overlay Reconstruction Widen to 28' Add pavement on top • Remove existing • Add drainage, curbing, of existing pavement pavement, replace with Description sidewalks within existing ROW new pavement • Correct inadequate • Add curbing, sidewalks, sight line some drainage Residential • Widening within No residential property • Reconstruct within existing ROW impacts existing ROW Property . Grading, vegetation Widen for curbs Impacts removal needed Grading, vegetation removal needed • Corrects existing Neighborhood • Solves some drainage drainage problems acceptance problems Advantages . Corrects sight line • Neighborhood problem acceptance • Upgrades road to Town • Life expectancy 20 years standards • Least cost to Town • 20-year life expectancy • Lack of neighborhood . Road continues to • Curbing difficult acceptance deteriorate • Does not correct all Disadvantages • Overlay lasts about 3-7 drainage problems years • Does not correct sight Increases drainage& line problem driveway access • Curbing requires slight problems widening • Does not correct sight . Very high cost to Town line problem Total Project Cost (Est) $13538,300 $85,000+ $400,000+ Federal/State Funds $L528,800 $0 $0 Total Town Cost $9,500 $85,000+ $400,000+ I MEMORANDUM TO: Liana T. Kuras, Acting Town Manager FROM: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works DATE: RE: Kelly Road Reconstruction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to the memorandum from Mayor Ryan to you dated July 19, 1995, regarding Kelly Road reconstruction, following is a clarification of the issues. 901 j Kelly Road-4as it exists now is essentially at the end of its useful road life. ,aa44--Qtherw;s@ Jr With no action, the road will continue to deteriorate. ! /' 1. Federal/State funding considerations. The Town Council has indicted that there will be n widening of Kelly Road. The Connecticut Department of Transportation (via CRCOG) has, • ' indicated that there will be no federal/state funding for Kelly Road unless the road is widened to a minimum of 28' along its length. Kelly Road currently varies in width from a minimum o 22' to a maximum of 28', with the average width at about 24-25'. Therefore, with 'Council decision to preclude widening of Kelly Road, there-ta-no ossibility of using the federal/state funds that the Town was awarded for this project. P 6W P e c4ae-( 44'e 2. Repair alternatives and cost implications. a. Full reconstruction, to 28' width. Includes road widening, curbing, drainage, sidewalks, and correction of sight distance problems. Corrects all existing problems. Estimated life of new road: 20 years.< Total Project Cost (Est.) $1,538 300,E Federal/State Funds ,3`?8 800 Total Town Cost - $ 9,500l b. Overlay on existing pavement at existing width. Adds pavement thickness only. Would create drainage and steep grade problems for some driveways. Does not correct any structural, drainage, or sight distance problems; addresses only pavement surface problem. Estimated life of new pavement: 3-7 years. Total Project Cost (Est.) $85,000+ Federal/State Funds- -0- Total Town Cost $85,000+ c. Partial reconstruction in place, to existing width. Includes removal of existing pavement, replacement with 4" of new pavement at same width and road profile; curbing; sidewalk reconstruction; additional drainage structures plus replacement of 6 existing catch basins. Does not correct drainage problems (ponding) in some driveways; does not correct sight distance problem. Curbing would be difficult to place, as road width meanders in & out along length of road. Note: placement of curbing requires road widening of about feet, as curbing must have pavement base to be placed upon, and placing curbing along the existing pavement area would narrow the road even further. Total Project Cost (Est.) $400,000+ Federal/State Funds -0- Total Town Cost $400,000+ 3. Right-of-way implications/private property impacts. a. Full reconstruction. The full reconstruction and widening would be done within existing Town right-of-way. There would be no residential property takings; however, there would be grading rights required. Private property impacts would consist of regrading and removal of vegetation within Town R.O.W., and some regrading outside of the Town R.O.W. (with associated vegetation removal). The nature and extent of regrading and vegetation removal cannot be determined unless preliminary design is performed; and specific properties that would be impacted cannot be identified as yet. At this point, any attempts to specify impacts to vegetation or grading (by anyone) are speculation only. b. Overlay. No private property impacts, as the overlay occurs over the existing roadway with no other improvements. c. Partial reconstruction. Widening needed for curbing would be done within existing Town R.O.W.; there may be regrading and removal of vegetation associated with this alternative. As with the full reconstruction alternative, actual impacts to private property cannot be determined until preliminary design is undertaken. Attached is a matrix comparing the three alternatives. Town staff need a decision from the Council to either pursue the full reconstruction project, and accept the federal/state funding, or to pursue another alternative and reject the federal/state funding. As soon as we receive that direction, we will commence meeting with the residents and begin preliminary engineering/design, as appropriate. r Kelly Road Alternatives _ Comparison Alternative A: Alternative B: Alternative C. Full Reconstruction Pavement Partial Overlay Reconstruction Widen to 28' Add pavement on top • Remove existing • Add drainage, curbing, of existing pavement pavement, replace with Description sidewalks new pavement • Correct inadequate • Add curbing, sidewalks, sight line some drainage - -- ------- Private Property Widening within Overlay within existing • Reconstruct within existing ROW ROW existing ROW Impacts Grading, vegetation • Widen for curbs removal.needed • Grading, vegetation removal needed • Corrects existing • No private property • Minimal private drainage problems impacts property impacts Advantages Corrects sight line • Neighborhood • Solves some drainage problem acceptance problems • Upgrades road to Town • Neighborhood standards acceptance • Least cost to Town • Life expectancy xx years • 20-year life expectancy • Lack of neighborhood Road continues to • Curbing difficult acceptance deteriorate • Does not correct all Disadvantages Overlay lasts about 3-7 drainage problems years • Does not correct sight • Increases drainage line problem problems • Curbing requires slight • Does not correct sight widening line problem . Very high cost to Town Total Project Cost 3 (Est) $1,538,�h00 $85,000+ $400,000+ Federal/State Fund $135283 0 $0 $0 Total Town Cost $9,500 . $85,000 $400,000+ Ccs� � 10W N SC4 a u 70-ulln Ole Slatt i ?dZfUZ40th�3a y � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074� Sox•C. AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 29 , 1995 To: Kelly Road Residents The Town's Engineering Department recently held an Informational Meeting to solicit your thoughts and ideas on the proposed reconstruction of Kelly Road; and to apprise you of their findings with regard to this Project. That meeting, more than any others that have been held, clearly indicated a great deal of concern on the part of the area residents . In light of this, I have scheduled a Special Work Session on Monday, July 10, 1995, at 7 :00 p.m. , to informally summarize for the Town Council and the public, the information and results of the earlier hearing. It would be my intent to come away from this brief meeting with three or four Kelly Road homeowners who would volunteer to be "sounding boards" and planning liaisons with Town staff as we develop further concepts regarding road maintenance; general traffic conditions; and other concerns of the residents or the Town staff. I have asked the Police Department to provide us with a representative at this meeting. Road reconstruction is a long, and sometimes emotional, issue; which, in many cases, never comes to fruition. I believe we can best work together as a team to define what, if anything, must be done; and, if something must be done, how and when. At the same time, I would hope we can look at the issues that exist today and search for ways to improve upon existing conditions . Since my goal is for a "team formation; " and since this issue has not yet appeared before Council for a decision, I have planned a half-hour meeting to discuss the major issues, and how we should study them. Ver t my yours Richard R an Mayor PROPOSED KELLY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION REPORT OF JUNE 15, 1995 MEETING Listed below is a synopsis of the questions, concerns and comments raised at the June 15, 1995 Public Informational Meeting for the proposed concept plan of Kelly Road Reconstruction: 1 . Widening will cause more speeding. 2. Widening will create more traffic. 3. Road pavement is in bad shape. 4. Drainage needs to be improved. 5 . Move sidewalk to other side. 6. Waste of money to widen road. 7 . Driveways need to be fixed. 8. Residential neighborhood - not a thoroughfare. 9 . Want to prohibit truck traffic. 10. Traffic now causes problems getting into and out of driveways. 11 . Vehicles running stop signs, 12. Curbing is needed. 13 . Concern about loss of trees and property. 14. Ponding in driveways. 15 . Widening will increase "cars passing other cars" . 16. Property values will decline with widening. 17 . Want status quo. 18. Want sidewalk reconstructed. 19 . Don' t want sidewalk reconstructed. 20. Place stop signs on Avery at Kelly. 21 . Wider road will cost more to maintain. 22. Concern about school bus - cars passing stopped school bus. 23 . Road needs maintenance. 24. Concern about access during construction. 25 . Concern about weight of trucks on culvert near Avery. In addition to the above, a petition was given to the Town Engineer which stated: "The signed petition is against the proposed widening of: Kelly Road, South Windsor. We the undersigned all being residents and property owners on Kelly Road, South Windsor, sign this petition against the proposed widening of Kelly Road to a width of 30 ' . The widening of Kelly Road would only add to the existing problem of speeding on the road, plus a number of other concerns. " There were a total of 59 signatures representing 45 properties along Kelly Road. /home/vallez/KELLYROAD/comments 5l/0 i 1.) SULLIVAN AVENUE AT GRAHAM ROAD PROJECT - Public Informational Meeting June 8, 1995, 7:30 PM at Community Center - A representative from the States Project Concept Unit will attend the Public Informational Meeting & make presentation - Reconstruct about 1,700 feet of Sullivan Avenue - Redo the curve at Graham Road - Regrade Sullivan Avenue - Cul-de-sac Ayers Road at Sullivan Avenue - Reconstruct about 600' of Graham Road - Realign road to make a right angle with Sullivan Avenue - Rework intersection with Ayers - New traffic light at Graham & Sullivan Avenue - New cost estimate is $1,753,000:00. - No cost sharing by Town co►I's JY""k6q- -9- q F f R,v w 9,L 2.) KELLY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - Public Informational Meeting June 15, 1995, 7:00 PM at Community Center - Reconstructing Kelly Road from Avery Street to Vernon Town Line - Approximately 3,800 feet of roadway - Road will be widened to 30' with curbing - Sidewalks will be reconstructed - New storm drainage will be provided and existing storm drainage replaced. - Sight line problem at Gerber Road will be improved. - Intersection with Avery Street will be improved - Design will be in accordance with AASHO guidelines. - Funding will be: Design (In-House) - Town of South Windsor Construction - 80% Federal, 20% State ROW Costs - 80% Federal, 10% State, 10% Town - Estimated Total Cost $1,538,300.00 - Construction 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer DATE: April 281995 RE: STP - URBAN PROJECTS 1.) Kelly Road Reconstruction Project - Reconstructing Kelly Road from Avery Street to Vernon Town Line - Approximately 3,800 feet of roadway - Road will be widened to 30' with curbing - Sidewalks will be reconstructed - New storm drainage will be provided and existing storm drainage replaced. - Sight line problem at Gerber Road will be improved. - Intersection with Avery Street will be improved - Design will be in accordance with AASHO guidelines. - Funding will be: Design (In-House) - Town of South Windsor Construction - 80% Federal, 20% State ROW Costs - 80% Federal, 10% State, 10% Town - Estimated Total Cost $1,538,300.00 - Construction 1997 2.) Sullivan Avenue at Graham Road Project - A representative from the States Project Concept Unit will attend the Public Informational Meeting & make presentation - Reconstruct about 1,700 feet of Sullivan Avenue - Redo the curve at Graham Road - Regrade Sullivan Avenue - Cul-de-sac Ayers Road at Sullivan Avenue - Reconstruct about 600' of Graham Road - Realign road to make a right angle with Sullivan Avenue - Rework intersection with Ayers - New traffic light at Graham & Sullivan Avenue - Funding?? Our original proposal for a project was much less work than this ($200,306) and our obligation was design ($15,000) and 109o' of ROW cost ($0). We did not anticipate any work outside of the existing ROW's. - New cost estimate is $1,753,000.00. The Public Information Meeting that is required must be noticed in three ways: 1) News Release, 2) Newspaper Advertisement, 3) Formal Mailing. Once the meeting is held, notification is to be sent to ConnDOT indicating: 1) Results of Meeting, 2) Documentation Check List filled out, 3) Resolution from Town Council supporting project. Capitol Region Council of Governments 221 Main St., Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 522-2217 FAX:724-1274 To: STP-Urban Project Recipients From: Tom Maziarz Date: April 27, 1995 Subject: Brief Program Update for Project Recipients Reminder on Public Information Meeting. Every recipient should have received a notice from ConnDOT to hold a public information meeting on projects in their town. Please schedule these as soon as possible. We cannot put the project in the TIP until the public meeting is completed. We hope to do the TIP endorsements at the Policy Board meeting on May 24. (The Transportation Committee we review the projects on May 22.) Metric Design Requirement. Every set of design plans will have to be completed using metric units. ConnDOT's local road unit will give you more information on this when they meet with you. If you have already started your design work beware that you will probably be asked to convert to metric before you complete your project. Project Initiation Meetings. Within the next month or so, ConnDOT will be contacting each recipient to arrange a project initiation meeting. The meeting will be scheduled by the division of Consultant Design - Local Roads (Sebastian Sbalcio is the unit manager). This unit of ConnDOT is the one that will be administering your project from now on. The purpose of the meetings are: 1. to introduce you to the staff person who will administer your project, 2. explain ConnDOT's administrative and design review procedures, 3. explain the town's responsibilities on the project,and 4. establish a detailed project schedule. If you have any questions feel free to call me at 522-2217. MAY 2 1995 :'IT i_ V GENERAL FLOW CHART 22 SEPT 94 STP URBAN PROJECTS RPA Town Town Town TOWN PREPARES REVIEW APP'L FOR TOWN DEVELOPS :SEND APPL'S YES PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & DEV PROJ CONCEPTS O RPA ELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS PROJECT LIST WITHIN FISCAL RESTRAINTS NO PLANNING PLANNING RPA INITIAL F.C.TRANSMITS F.C. VERIFIES TRANS'T APP'L YES SUBMISSION APP'L TO PCU FUNCTIONAL CLASS. TO F.C.. @ DOT FOR FUNDING PLANNING ELIGIBILTY NO NO VIP are y,yv-L - P.C.U. $ P.C.U. P.C.U. P.C.U. PCU INITIATES PCU COORDINATES COOR MTG WITH: IS TRANS. SCOPE PCMS DATA ENTRY PROJ SCOPING WITH PCU, RPA, F.C. REGIONAL YES TO TOWN CC. RPA,STATE TEMP IDENT. ASSGN TOWNS AND RPA. FISCAL OFFICE LIST /CE. DESIGN, POL'Y & PLAN PROJ TO CODE 1 EST. PROJ COST "TIME OUT MTG" OK RESCOPE P.C.U. CDOT/RPA DRAFTS BEGIN JOINT TOWN TOWN' DEVELPMNT/AMEND YES TOWN NOTIFIES PCU TOWN COOR. & HOLDS P R E L ' M OF MTG RESULT OF APPROVAL & OFFICIAL PUBLIC INFO MTG. R P M POSITION TIP/STIP CC:RPA,POL&PL AND ESTABLISHES 10 DAY LIMIT P.C.U. THEIR POSTION REMOVE PROJ NO 45 DAY LIMIT INFO FROM P.C.M.S. RIP P.C.U. P.C.U. STATE/C.E DESIGN P.C.U. FISCAL MGT. IDENTIFIES FWD'S SCOPE & DESIGNER NOTIFIES FINAL RPM FISCAL INCORP REQ PROJECT DESIGNER: SCHED FROM PCU WHEN PROJECT TO FIN MGT. IN OBILGATION DESIGNER 2 WK STATE,C.E. SCHEDULE PUT IN FOR SIGNITURE PLAN CODE 2 TOWN PCMS STATE/C.E DESIGN/ ADMIN. STATE/C.E DESIGN POLICY FISCAL MGT. TOWN PROJ INIT. NOTIFIES TOWN INSURES PROJ IS IN SIGNED RPM P.D. DESIGN & PUBLISHED TO START OR TIP/STIP & NOTIFIES TRANS'D TO PHASE BEGINS BY ADMIN. THAT CDOT STATE/C.E. DESIGN, POLICY CODE 3 WILL BE P.C.U. & PLANNING STARTING CODE 4 P.D. DESIGN P.C.U.- PROJECT CONCEPT UNIT F.C.--- FIELD COORDINATOR RPA --- REGIONAL PLANNIG AGENCY