HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 21, 2014 info pkt
DATE: January 15, 2014
TO: Tom Markus, City Manager
FROM: Rick Fosse, Public Works Director
RE: Iowa City Gateway Project
Introduction
The City of Iowa City has received notification from the Iowa Department of
Transportation that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved and
signed the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Iowa City Gateway Project.
The approval was dated December 18, 2013. The FONSI is the final step in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The project is now cleared to move forward
to the design phase.
History/Background
The first phase of the project, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process,
was started three years ago and is required to receive federal funds for the project. The
Environmental Assessment (EA) is a complete study and discussion of resources
present within the proposed area, looking at both the natural and social (man-made)
environment. Considerable evaluation of options for the Gateway Project occurred as
part of this process including the examination of many initial alternatives (off-alignment
improvements to other roadways such as Dodge / Governor and Foster Road / Prairie
du Chien for example), before concluding that improving the roadway in its current
location should be the Preferred Alternative. In addition, the Do Nothing Option
continues to be evaluated for comparison. It is important to note that because of aging
infrastructure and existing conditions, the Do Nothing Option would still require
significant improvements throughout the corridor even if the roadway and bridge were
not elevated.
As part of this process, staff has held two public meetings (March 3, 2011 and July 13,
2011), a drop-in center / open house (December 8, 2011), a public hearing (April 4,
2013) and attended three Historic Preservation Committee meetings. The 3 public
meetings in 2011 hosted over 330 attendees. Additional comments were received
throughout the entire process by staff through email, phone calls and meetings on site
or in the office with interested citizens / residents and numerous speaking events with
local organizations. The comments and feedback received from the public provided
staff and design team with comments and ideas that were used to develop the preferred
alternative. If you have not done so already, please take time to view the video or read
the transcript of the April 4, 2013 Public Hearing. Both are available on the attached
links to project related documents.
January 16, 2014
Page 2
Discussion of Solution
The EA completed for this project evaluated the elevation of Dubuque Street to 1’ above
the 500 year flood event and the low steel of the bridge to 1’ above the 500 year flood
event. This represents the maximum level of protection that can be built with the
existing environmental clearance. The financial grants for this project set a minimum
level of protection for Dubuque Street and the low steel of the bridge at 1’ above the 100
year flood event. These establish the upper and lower limits of protection that can be
considered for design if federal funds are to be used. The details of this project and
various design options have been discussed at the September 17, 2013 and October 1,
2013 City Council Work Sessions. The attached spreadsheet, Bridge Type and Level of
Protection Comparison, summarizes and compares 48 different options. Also attached
are responses to questions that were asked at the October 1st Work Session.
Financial Impact
The preliminary project estimate for the budget was based on a deck girder bridge. A
through arch bridge will be approximately $3M more expensive and a cable stay bridge
will be approximately $8M more expensive.
Recommendation
The project is currently placed on the agenda for the January 21st informal Work Session. At
that time, we will have a brief project presentation and answer questions that the City Council
may have. The project is also on the agenda for the Formal City Council meeting for a
resolution to establish the three primary design parameters. Those parameters are:
1. Level of protection for Dubuque Street
2. Backwater reduction goals (Elevation of Park Road Bridge)
3. Structural type of the bridge
Staff’s recommendations for each of the major design parameters, as outlined at the October 1st
Work Session, are described in more detail below:
Level of Protection for Dubuque Street
Staff recommends protecting Dubuque Street to the 2008 + 1’ level. While this recommendation
offers less protection than the option outlined in the Environmental Assessment (EA), staff feels
that this is a reasonable level of protection and provides a good balance of performance while
limiting impacts.
Level of Protection Option Estimated number of days
closed over the past 20 years
due to Iowa River flooding
Relative Comparison:
inches above/below the
2008 + 1’ protection level
Existing 150 NA
100 year + 1’ 7* -39”
200 year + 1’ 5* -11”
2008 flood + 1’(Recommended) 0 0”
500 year + 1’ (EA Preferred Alt) 0 +19”
*Including one day for cleanup, inspection and repair after inundation
January 16, 2014
Page 3
Backwater Reduction Goals and Bridge Type
Staff recommends that we proceed with either the Through Arch Bridge with a low steel
elevation of 200yr + 1’ or the Deck Girder Bridge with a low steel elevation of 200yr + 1’. As
illustrated in the following table, the bridge type has an effect on the backwater reduction, the
cost and the elevation of the Dubuque Street / Park Road intersection. All of these factors will
need to be weighed and consideration of aesthetics given when making a decision.
Option Bridge
Type
Low
Steel
Elevation
Elevation
at the
Dubuque
St/Park Rd
Intersection
Backwater
Reduction
at
Idyllwild
and Taft
Speedway
Dubuque
Street
Protection
Level
Construction
Cost
Estimate of
Bridge and
Road
Maximum
Protection and
Backwater
Reduction
(EA Preferred
Alternative)
Deck
Girder
500yr + 1’ 665.03 7” 500yr + 1’ $36.65 M
Recommended
Arch
Through
Arch
200yr + 1’ 659.02 4.9” 2008 + 1’ $38.31 M
Recommended
Girder
Deck
Girder
200yr + 1’ 662.52 6.1” 2008 + 1’ $35.01 M
A resolution to establish the above design criteria will be on the agenda for the Formal City
Council meeting. Please be prepared to provide additional comments or questions at the Work
Session for staff to address. Staff requests that the focus remain on the three design criteria
that need to be established. As noted in the attached schedule, we will return to discuss
specific Roadway Design Elements (lane width, turning lanes, sidewalks and trails) with Council
in March. This will give our design team a chance to refine our conceptual design based on the
design criteria and allow us to better address the questions that have been raised.
The following materials have been included for Council’s review prior to the meeting:
• Questions and Comments generated from the October 1, 2013 Council Work Session,
including
o Roadway Elevations at Key Locations Matrix
o Schedule of Design Phase Activities
o Iowa DOT Concept Statement Form
• Updated Links to project-related documents
• Bridge Type and Level of Protection Comparison
1
January 15, 2014
Questions and Comments generated from the
October 1, 2013 Council Work Session:
Roadway Elevation and Design Geometrics
1. Is a scenario that sets Dubuque Street protection at 100+1 and a bridge set at 500+1
feasible? What is the difference in elevation and grade change on Dubuque Street between
Park Road and Kimball?
Any of the concepts discussed to date feature an acceptable grade on Dubuque Street. There is
sufficient distance between the relocated Park Road intersection and the Kimball Road
intersection to accommodate any of the combinations of elevations for Dubuque Street and the
Park Road Bridge. For example, the greatest change in elevation between Park and Kimball is
with a girder bridge with low steel at 500+1 and Dubuque Street at 100+1. The change in
elevation is approximately 11.7 feet and the distance between the intersections is
approximately 550 feet, for a grade of 3 percent. The existing grade on Dubuque Street
between these intersections is approximately 1.5 percent.
For your reference, attached please find a matrix showing the roadway elevations at key
locations for the different scenarios discussed.
2. How wide are the lanes on Dubuque currently?
We currently have 12 foot lanes north of the Park Road intersection with a mix of urban (curb &
gutter) and rural (shoulder) sections throughout and a speed limit of 35 mph. South of Park
Road, lane widths are reduced to 11 feet, the speed limit is lowered to 25 mph, and clear zones
adjacent to the roadway are less. This stretch of Dubuque Street transitions to serve a more
urban and densely developed environment and provides direct access to the downtown and
campus areas. Fraternities and residences also line this stretch of Dubuque Street and many
more driveway and alley access points exist.
3. Will there be a median on Dubuque Street to accommodate the dual left turn lanes from
EB Park Road to NB Dubuque Street? If so, will there be a raised median in the middle of
Dubuque at the intersection or will it be painted?
With the preferred alternative and the staff recommended concepts, there will be a painted
median to achieve proper lane alignments and to accommodate the left turn lane from Dubuque
Street to Park Road. The median is not affected by the dual left turn lanes from Park Road to
northbound Dubuque Street. The figure below displays what the intersection would look like in
the preferred alternative. The configuration would be very similar to the painted median that
exists today. The existing median provides the spacing necessary to accommodate the 5 lanes (2
SB, 1 NB left turn, 2 NB thru) on Dubuque Street south of the Park Road intersection.
2
January 15, 2014
Also, please note that the preferred alternative moves the Dubuque Street alignment
approximately 5 to 7 feet to the west north of the Park Road intersection along the Bella Vista
bluff, even as it accommodates dual left turns from EB Park Road to NB Dubuque Street.
Current Intersection Preferred Alternative
Bridge Design
4. Is it possible to design the bridge to accept lateral forces from a flooded Iowa River in
order to maintain traffic when floodwater is in contact with low steel? How much more would
this cost?
HNTB Corporation will design a bridge that meets the current Iowa DOT design standards and
the recommendations of City Council and staff. It is certainly possible to design the bridge to
accept more lateral force than current safety factors require. Current safety factors allow for
traffic on the bridge when floodwater is in contact with low steel or a point higher on the
superstructure. Determining when to close a bridge to traffic is often up to the local
government and the traveling public’s comfort level. It is not possible to provide details related
to the desired design conditions and their resulting costs until we are in the design process.
5. Is the deck thickness of the bridge impacted at all by the width?
The deck thickness can be impacted by the width depending on the type of structure selected.
The width of the structure for a deck girder bridge will not have an effect on the depth of the
structure since the girders carry the load from pier to pier. Additional girders would be added to
account for the additional width.
The width of the structure for an arch bridge will likely impact the depth of the structure. In
order to get the load to the arch ribs, it has to be carried through floor beams that run between
the arch ribs. An increased distance between the arch ribs will increase the floor beam length
3
January 15, 2014
and depth. At this stage, it is recommended that arch be placed between the sidewalk and the
roadway for a partial through arch. The sidewalk framing would be supported by a cantilever.
Design Process
6. Will Council get the opportunity to review plans during the design process? While we
(Council) are concerned about efficiency and cost of design, we do not want to get a design we
are unhappy with because of so many unknowns up front.
Yes, the attached schedule includes two council work sessions to present and exchange
information with regards to the Roadway Design and cross-section issues and Aesthetics and
Landscaping. Throughout the final design process, staff and the design team are committed to
maintaining an open exchange of information with the Council, residents and other
stakeholders.
Attached, please find the draft design schedule and memo that provides an overview of the
design process, timeframes for each phase and milestones for Council input or decisions. It
also notes formal and informal opportunities for public input.
7. What is the concept statement and when does this happen?
The concept statement provides the Iowa DOT with the basic information regarding the project
and improvements being designed, including information regarding location, costs, impacts, as
well as existing and proposed design elements of the roadway cross-section. It is required by the
DOT for Local Systems Federal Aid Projects. Attached, please find a copy of the concept
statement form.
As displayed in the attached schedule for the design process, staff will submit a concept
statement to the Iowa DOT during the conceptual development stage. This will occur
approximately 6 weeks into the design process. Staff will meet with Council prior to the concept
statement submittal to discuss recommended roadway design parameters throughout the
corridor.
Flooding Issues
8. Will a higher bridge pass more water faster?
No. The amount of water flowing through the bridge will remain the same. Since the new
bridge is higher and longer, a larger cross-sectional area is provided and the velocity will
actually be lower.
9. Is Coralville designing their flood protection projects to protect to a foot above the 100-
year floodplain elevation?
Coralville is designing their flood control projects to a 2008+1 elevation except at the Clear
Creek Bridge on First Avenue where Coralville is designing protection for 100+1, due to
surrounding businesses and their proximity to the roadway. However, they are able to close
First Avenue at the bridge and offer protection to 2008+1 using removable flood barriers.
4
January 15, 2014
Miscellaneous
10. What view will a person driving on Dubuque Street or walking have?
A goal of the Gateway Project has been to maintain the look and feel of the current corridor.
However, we cannot say definitively or display what the views will be from and of the project at
this time. That depends on the elevation of the roadway and the bridge, the bridge type, clear
zones, etc. As we work through the design issues and the aesthetics and landscaping plans,
staff will present those details at a work session during the preliminary design phase.
11. Were the costs staff presented at the work session the cost of the bridge, or the total
cost of the project?
Neither, the costs presented were focused on the construction cost of the Gateway and the Park
Road 3rd lane improvement projects. An additional $8M will be added to cover design,
administration, construction administration, inspection, etc. Also, the Trunk Sewer project will
be constructed at the same time and is estimated at $4.4M.
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
Fo
s
t
e
r
R
o
a
d
6
5
9
.
8
4
6
5
9
.
8
4
0.
0
0
65
9
.
8
4
0.
0
0
65
9
.
8
4
0.
0
0
65
9
.
8
4
0.
0
0
Ta
f
t
S
p
e
e
d
w
a
y
(
o
l
d
)
64
6
.
6
0
66
1
.
1
0
14
.
5
0
65
8
.
7
2
12
.
1
2
65
8
.
5
9
11
.
9
9
65
5
.
2
1
8.
6
1
Ma
y
f
l
o
w
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
64
7
.
0
0
65
8
.
4
0
11
.
4
0
65
6
.
0
2
9.
0
2
65
5
.
8
9
8.
8
9
65
2
.
5
1
5.
5
1
Ki
m
b
a
l
l
R
o
a
d
6
4
5
.
6
3
65
8
.
1
3
12
.
5
0
65
6
.
5
5
10
.
9
2
65
5
.
6
2
9.
9
9
65
3
.
3
0
7.
6
7
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
Ki
m
b
a
l
l
R
o
a
d
6
4
5
.
6
3
65
8
.
1
3
12
.
5
0
65
6
.
5
5
10
.
9
2
65
5
.
6
2
9.
9
9
65
3
.
3
0
7.
6
7
65
6
.
5
5
10
.
9
2
65
3
.
3
0
7.
6
7
65
5
.
6
2
9.99 653.30 7.67
Pa
r
k
R
o
a
d
(
o
l
d
)
6
5
3
.
3
0
66
3
.
7
6
10
.
4
6
66
3
.
2
3
9.
9
3
66
2
.
9
2
9.
6
2
66
2
.
1
5
8.
8
5
66
2
.
1
8
8.
8
8
66
0
.
5
6
7.
2
6
66
1
.
2
5
7.95 658.93 5.63
Pa
r
k
R
o
a
d
(
n
e
w
)
6
5
6
.
8
7
66
4
.
0
3
7.
1
6
66
4
.
0
3
7.
1
6
66
4
.
0
3
7.
1
6
66
4
.
0
3
7.
1
6
66
2
.
4
5
5.
5
8
66
2
.
4
5
5.
5
8
66
1
.
5
2
4.65 659.20 2.33
Br
o
w
n
S
t
.
6
7
6
.
2
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0.60 675.60 -0.60
Lo
w
e
r
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
E
n
t
.
(
o
l
d
)
65
3
.
7
5
65
6
.
5
0
2.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.75 654.50 0.75
We
s
t
H
a
n
c
h
e
r
E
n
t
.
67
4
.
7
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.35 675.10 0.35
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
70
2
.
3
3
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.00 702.33 0.00
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
Ki
m
b
a
l
l
R
o
a
d
6
4
5
.
6
3
65
8
.
1
3
12
.
5
0
65
6
.
5
5
10
.
9
2
65
5
.
6
2
9.
9
9
65
3
.
3
0
7.
6
7
65
6
.
5
5
10
.
9
2
65
3
.
3
0
7.
6
7
65
5
.
6
2
9.99 653.30 7.67
Pa
r
k
R
o
a
d
(
o
l
d
)
6
5
3
.
3
0
66
4
.
2
6
10
.
9
6
66
3
.
7
3
10
.
4
3
66
3
.
4
2
10
.
1
2
66
2
.
6
5
9.
3
5
66
2
.
6
8
9.
3
8
66
1
.
0
6
7.
7
6
66
1
.
7
5
8.45 659.43 6.13
Pa
r
k
R
o
a
d
(
n
e
w
)
6
5
6
.
8
7
66
5
.
0
3
8.
1
6
66
5
.
0
3
8.
1
6
66
5
.
0
3
8.
1
6
66
5
.
0
3
8.
1
6
66
3
.
4
5
6.
5
8
66
3
.
4
5
6.
5
8
66
2
.
5
2
5.65 660.20 3.33
Br
o
w
n
S
t
.
6
7
6
.
2
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0.60 675.60 -0.60
Lo
w
e
r
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
E
n
t
.
(
o
l
d
)
65
3
.
7
5
65
6
.
5
0
2.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.75 654.50 0.75
We
s
t
H
a
n
c
h
e
r
E
n
t
.
67
4
.
7
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.35 675.10 0.35
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
70
2
.
3
3
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.00 702.33 0.00
Cr
o
s
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
f
f
.
Ki
m
b
a
l
l
R
o
a
d
6
4
5
.
6
3
65
8
.
1
3
12
.
5
0
65
6
.
5
5
10
.
9
2
65
5
.
6
2
9.
9
9
65
3
.
3
0
7.
6
7
65
6
.
5
5
10
.
9
2
65
3
.
3
0
7.
6
7
65
5
.
6
2
9.99 653.30 7.67
Pa
r
k
R
o
a
d
(
o
l
d
)
6
5
3
.
3
0
66
0
.
7
6
7.
4
6
66
0
.
2
3
6.
9
3
65
9
.
9
2
6.
6
2
65
9
.
1
5
5.
8
5
65
9
.
1
8
5.
8
8
65
7
.
5
6
4.
2
6
65
8
.
2
5
4.95 655.93 2.63
Pa
r
k
R
o
a
d
(
n
e
w
)
6
5
6
.
8
7
66
1
.
5
3
4.
6
6
66
1
.
5
3
4.
6
6
66
1
.
5
3
4.
6
6
66
1
.
5
3
4.
6
6
65
9
.
9
5
3.
0
8
65
9
.
9
5
3.
0
8
65
9
.
0
2
2.15 656.87 0.00
Br
o
w
n
S
t
.
6
7
6
.
2
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0
.
6
0
67
5
.
6
0
-0.60 675.60 -0.60
Lo
w
e
r
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
E
n
t
.
(
o
l
d
)
65
3
.
7
5
65
6
.
5
0
2.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.
7
5
65
4
.
5
0
0.75 654.50 0.75
We
s
t
H
a
n
c
h
e
r
E
n
t
.
67
4
.
7
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.
3
5
67
5
.
1
0
0.35 675.10 0.35
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
r
i
v
e
70
2
.
3
3
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.
0
0
70
2
.
3
3
0.00 702.33 0.00
20
0
8
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ke
y
S
p
o
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
50
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
8
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
10
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
20
0
8
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
8
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ke
y
S
p
o
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ke
y
S
p
o
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
50
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
50
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
8
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ke
y
S
p
o
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
10
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
50
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
8
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
8
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Br
i
d
g
e
a
t
2
0
0
+
1
B
r
i
d
g
e
a
t
1
0
0
+
1
De
c
k
A
r
c
h
B
r
i
d
g
e
Br
i
d
g
e
a
t
5
0
0
+
1
Br
i
d
g
e
a
t
2
0
0
8
+
1
B
r
i
d
g
e
a
t
2
0
0
+
1
B
r
i
d
g
e
a
t
1
0
0
+
1
10
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Al
l
2
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
1
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
20
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Al
l
2
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
1
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
r
t
i
a
l
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
A
r
c
h
B
r
i
d
g
e
Br
i
d
g
e
a
t
5
0
0
+
1
Br
i
d
g
e
a
t
2
0
0
8
+
1
B
r
i
d
g
e
a
t
2
0
0
+
1
B
r
i
d
g
e
a
t
1
0
0
+
1
Al
l
2
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
A
l
l
1
0
0
+
1
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
De
c
k
G
i
r
d
e
r
B
r
i
d
g
e
Br
i
d
g
e
a
t
5
0
0
+
1
Br
i
d
g
e
a
t
2
0
0
8
+
1
1
January 15, 2014
Schedule of Design Phase Activities
Per your request during the October 1 City Council work session, attached please find a
schedule of design phase activities for the Iowa City Gateway project. The schedule follows the
Iowa DOT’s design process flow chart and provides an overview of the major steps in the
design process. During the design phase of the project, there will be multiple opportunities for
public and City Council input. These design phases and the opportunities for Council and public
input are described below.
Pre-Design
The design process will begin with the City Council’s approval of the NEPA Preferred
Alternative, staff recommendation, or a hybrid concept. The approval will provide staff and the
consultant team with the necessary direction on each of the three design parameters discussed
at the October 1 Work Session and Council Meeting. The three parameters are: 1) Level of
protection for Dubuque Street; 2) Backwater reduction goals; and, 3) Structural type of the
bridge.
Concept Development
Depending on the Council’s approval, staff and the consultant team will have to update the
concept to match the selected parameters. During this stage, the roadway model (horizontal
and vertical profiles) will be updated to accommodate the approved bridge type and level of
protection for Dubuque Street. At this stage, the concept will utilize the same widths for travel
lanes, multiuse paths, parkway, etc. as those specified by Iowa Department of Transportation
(DOT). The thematic concepts for landscaping will also be developed during this stage. The
early concept development will include a public pre-design meeting and City Council work
session. This work session will focus on the specific roadway design elements and pedestrian /
bicycle connectivity opportunities throughout the corridor. After the Council work session,
concept development will continue, coordination with the Iowa DOT will occur for the submittal
of the Concept Statement.
Concept Refinement and Preliminary Design
During this phase, staff and the consultant team will be refining the concept based on Council
and public interaction and communication. The concepts will be refined and developed in
greater detail (20-30% plan development) addressing roadway, bridge, utilities, sewer,
aesthetics, etc. As the Concept Refinement phase wraps up, a new concept statement will be
submitted to Iowa DOT and will include the features and impacts of the various design
elements. In the Preliminary Design phase, design details will be further refined and a Council
work session focused on aesthetics and landscaping will be held. The council will also be
asked to approve a resolution initiating the property acquisition process for the project.
2
January 15, 2014
Field Exam, Preliminary, Check and Final Plans
Following the Preliminary Design phase, staff and the consultant team will dive into the detailed design of
the project. This includes developing the detailed design plans for all elements including roadway, bridge,
permits, maintenance of traffic, etc. that will culminate with the final plans and specifications for letting.
There will be opportunities for input throughout these phases, but the focus of issues to address will
continue to narrow from the macro-level at 30 percent plans (lane or parkway widths) to the micro-level at
70 percent plans(sidewalk widths or curb and gutter type), before finalizing plans at the 90 and 100
percent deliverables.
In addition to maintaining the open door policy and information exchange during all of these phases, a
public hearing will be held during the Final Plans phase.
Please Note: Throughout the design process, staff and the consultant team are committed to maintaining
an open exchange of information with the Council, residents and other stakeholders. This includes being
available during design to share the latest detailed information, listen to comments and address concerns.
At key points in the design process, the website will be updated with new information and emails will be
sent to those requesting updates.
Io
w
a
C
i
t
y
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
&
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
De
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
g
e
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
y
Ja
n
21
Ja
n
27
Fe
b
3
Fe
b
10
Fe
b
17
Fe
b
24
Ma
r
3
Ma
r
10
Ma
r
17
Ma
r
24
Ma
r
31
Ap
r
7
Ap
r
14
Ap
r
21
Ap
r
28
Ma
y
5
Ma
y
12
Ma
y
19
Ma
y
26
Pr
e
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
o
n
3
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
1
0
%
)
Br
i
d
g
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
P
r
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
o
r
k
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
,
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
I
s
s
u
e
s
Su
b
m
i
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
I
o
w
a
D
O
T
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
2
0
%
)
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
a
n
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
Wa
t
e
r
/
S
e
w
e
r
/
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Ti
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
p
l
a
n
s
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
o
r
k
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
,
A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
a
n
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Ju
n
-
1
4
J
u
l
-
1
4
A
u
g
-
1
4
S
e
p
-
1
4
O
c
t
-
1
4
N
o
v
-
1
4
D
e
c
-
1
4
J
a
n
-
1
5
Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15
Fi
e
l
d
E
x
a
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
s
(
3
5
%
p
l
a
n
s
)
Fi
e
l
d
e
x
a
m
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
,
b
r
i
d
g
e
,
e
t
c
.
,
On
-
s
i
t
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
Va
l
u
e
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
s
(
7
0
%
p
l
a
n
s
)
Re
v
i
s
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
,
b
r
i
d
g
e
,
e
t
c
.
,
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
s
i
g
n
a
l
,
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
s
Ch
e
c
k
P
l
a
n
s
(
1
0
0
%
p
l
a
n
s
)
Fi
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
,
b
r
i
d
g
e
,
e
t
c
Fi
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
l
e
t
t
i
n
g
Io
w
a
D
O
T
L
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
/
A
w
a
r
d
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
De
n
o
t
e
s
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
o
r
k
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
r
f
o
r
m
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
Fi
e
l
d
E
x
a
m
P
l
a
n
s
(
D
0
2
)
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
s
(
D
0
5
)
Ch
e
c
k
P
l
a
n
s
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
A
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
s
a
n
d
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
G
A
T
E
W
A
Y
FI
N
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
1
4
Feb-15
Fi
n
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
8
-
1
2
m
o
n
t
h
s
)
Letting Process Jun-15
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
D
0
1
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
D
0
0
)
Fi
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
p
u
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
In
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
T
h
e
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
e
m
a
i
l
up
d
a
t
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
e
w
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
sh
a
r
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
p
a
r
t
i
e
s
.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
p
h
o
n
e
,
em
a
i
l
o
r
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
i
s
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
d
b
y
s
t
a
f
f
a
t
a
n
y
t
i
m
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
7. Estimate of Land or Property Acquisition Impacts: - Will the proposed project:
a. Require temporary construction easements? d. Require total property acquisition(s)?
If Yes, indicate the approximate area (acres): If Yes, approximately how many properties will be totally
acquired?
b. Require permanent easement(s) or fee title? e. Involve relocation assistance for displaced person(s)
If Yes, indicate the approximate area (acres): and/or businesses? If Yes, approx-
c. Require borrow material? imately how many relocations will be required?
If Yes, indicate the proposed source (check all that apply): f. Involve a change in property access which results in
damage to the remainder of the parcel?
8. Public Acceptance: Is it anticipated that the proposed project will receive a substantial degree of public opposition?
ATTACH A DETAILED LOCATION
CONCEPT STATEMENT FOR LOCAL SYSTEMS FEDERAL AID PROJECTS
Form 517001 (08-05)
County:
Project Number:STIP Year:
Contact Person:Phone Number:
E-mail:
FAX Number:Title:
Address:
Date Submitted:
Estimated Letting Date:
City:
Please Note: Before completing this form, refer to the Concept Statement Instructions located in Index No. 6 of the
Project Development Information Packet (referred to herein as the Packet).
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1.a. Project Location(s) (include road or street name(s) & project limits):
1.b. Project Title/Description:
2. Type of Work (check all that apply):
3. Project Length:
4. Existing Bridge information:
5. Project Costs: For each item that applies, indicate if Federal aid reimbursement will be requested. If Yes, enter the estimated cost
Federal aid? Cost Item Estimated Cost
Preliminary engineering (if Yes, see Index No. 1 of the Packet for procedures) $
Construction engineering (if Yes, see Index No. 1 of the Packet for procedures) $
Acquisition of land or property rights (if Yes, see Flow Chart No. 8 in the Packet) $
Construction $
Utility relocation (if Yes, see Flow Chart No. 9 in the Packet) $
Railroad work (if Yes, see Flow Chart No. 9 in the Packet) $
In-kind contribution (attach documentation as per Index No. 4 of the Packet) $
6. Total Federal Aid (as shown in the STIP): $ Total Estimated Project Cost $
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
Yes No
First Revised
FHWA No.:Year Built:Size:
Type:
HMA Paving
Bridge Rehabilitation
Bridge Replacement
HMA Widening
HMA Resurfacing
Bicycle or pedestrian facilities
Historic restoration or renovation
Scenic or landscaping improvements
PCC Widening
Other (describe)
Traffic Signals
RCB Culvert
Grading
PCC Paving
Patching
Lighting
Intersection Modifications
km (to nearest tenth) Miles
If Yes, explain:
Page 1
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
New borrow area
Existing borrow area
Not yet determined
Contrator furnished Within existing right-of-way
ANSWER ALL SIX QUESTIONS
Form 517001 (08-05)
9. Environmental Impacts - Will the proposed project:
a. Involve any undisturbed land, either public or private, including new borrow areas? If Yes, archaeological
assessment and / or survey will be required. If No, and any of questions 7.a through 7.c are checked Yes, or if a new borrow area will be used, attach additional information to show that the land required for the property acquisitions, temporary or permanent easements, or new borrow areas has already been disturbed. b. Be in the proximity of any known archaeological site? If Yes, an archaeological assessment and / or survey will be required. c. Be in the proximity of any house, building, bridge, or other structure more than 50 years old? If Yes, an historic evaluation and / or survey will be required. d. Be in the proximity of any known historic building, district, bridge, roadway, or structure? If Yes, an historic evaluation and / or survey will be required.
(1) Does the project involve an historic roadway? If Yes, list:
(2) Do the existing streets to be improved using federal funds contain brick pavers?
(3) Does the project involve an historic bridge?
If Yes, List:
e. If any of questions 9.a - 9.d are checked Yes, have the associated archaeological and / or historical investigations been completed? If Yes, attach the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) approval letter(s). f. Be in the proximity of a recreational area (i.e., park, playground, trail, greenbelt, etc.) or wildlife refuge? If Yes, answer the following questions:
(1) Is the property used as a recreational area or wildlife refuge?
(2) Is the property publicly owned?
(3) If a recreational area, is it open to the public?
If the answers to all of questions 9.f (1) - 9.f (3) are Yes for a recreational area, or if the answers to both questions 9.f (1) and 9.f (2) are Yes for a wildlife refuge, complete and submit the applicable portions of Environmental Data Sheet (Form 517006). Refer to the Environmental Data Sheet Instructions for more information. g. Involve placement of fill in waters of the United States, including wetlands? If Yes, refer to the County Engineers Instructional Memorandum (I.M.) 3.13 to determine if a 404 permit is needed. h. Affect a floodplain or floodway? If Yes, refer to I.M. 3.131 to determine if a permit is needed. i. Disturb one or more acres of land? If Yes, NPDES General Permit No. 2 will be required from the Iowa DNR. When estimating the amount of disturbed land area, include all areas where soil will be exposed at any time to erosive forces. Refer to Storm Water Permits in Index No. 8 for more information. j. Involve the acquisition of more than five acres of farmland in any one mile (or less) length of the project? If Yes, complete the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD-1006). k. Be in the proximity of known Federal or State threatened or endangered species or their habitat? If Yes, complete and submit the applicable portions of the Environmental Data Sheet (Form 517006).
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
N/A
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No l. Involve the cleanup of any known hazardous materials? If Yes, describe them below:
Yes No m. Have probable significant noise, air quality, or water quality impacts that may raise public concern or warrant
special mitigation measures? If Yes, describe the types of impacts anticipated and the proposed mitigation, if
any:
10. Miscellaneous Items - Will the proposed project: a. Be within a 20,000 foot radius of a public airport? If yes, refer to I.M. 3.15 to determine if the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may need to be notified. b. Have a railroad crossing or railroad signals within its limits? If yes, contact the railroad company to determine if an agreement will be required. If the railroad has already been contacted, will the project require an agreement between the railroad and the LPA? c. Include Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) elements?
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No Not Yet Determined
Page 2
Form 517001 (08-05)
11. Project Design Elements -- Provide the project design information requested below. If the project involves multiple facilities, or significantly different sections on the same facility, complete a separate page for each. For design elements that are not applicable for the facility listed below, enter "N/A" in the appropriate space. If the project does not involve a roadway, bicycle trail, or shared use path, this page may be left blank.
Facility Name: Federal Functional Classification: Traffic Volumes: Existing AADT: (Year = ) Design Year AADT: (Year = ) % Trucks Design Speed: mph Posted Speed: mph Terrain: Type of Area: Design Guidelines (check only one) For urban roadways, use the design guidelines contained in Index No. 5 of the Packet and indicate which table was used below: For rural roadways, use the design guidelines contained in I.M.s 3.210 or 3.214 and indicate which table was used below: (*If any of these tables are used, explain reasons for not using the "Aids" tables in the cover letter or e-mail that accompanies this form.) For bicycle trails or shared use paths, use the most current edition of the Urban Design Standards Manual, Chapter 8, Section 2, Table 2.1. Design Exceptions: Will a design exception be required? If Yes, attach documentation for each esception requested.
Page 3
All Roadways (urban or rural)
Design Element Existing Proposed
Number of traffic lanes
If yes, which warrants are met?
If new traffic signals are proposed, are MUTCD warrants met?
Traffic Signals
Clear width of path on bridge (ft)
Vertical clearance (ft)
Lateral clearance (ft)
Shoulder width (ft)
Trail or path surface type
Trail/ path surface width (ft) and traffic direction:
Bicycle Trails or Shared Use Paths
Will channel change be required?
Is guardrail proposed?
Is guardrail present?
Bridge roadway width (ft)
Bridges (urban or rural)
Clear zone (ft)
Foreslope ratio (horizontal: vertical)
Shoulder width (ft)
Shoulder surface type
Roadway top width (ft) (shoulder-to-shoulder)
Rural Roadways
Horizontal clearance (ft)
On-street parking lane width (ft)
Median width (ft) and type
Curb and gutter width (ft)
Total roadway width (ft) (back-of-curb to back-of-curb)
Urban Roadways
Travelled way surface type
Travel lane width (ft.)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Minor Arterial Other Principal Arterial Interstate
Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Urban Collector Local N/A (trail or path)
Rolling Level Commercial or Industrial Fringe or Residential Rural
AASHTO Guidelines for Rural Local Roads*
AASHTO Guidelines for Rural Collectors*
3R Table for Rural Collectors (if checked, indicate type of improvement:
Design Aids for Rural Local Roads
Design Aids for Rural Collectors
Resurfacing) Restoration Rehabilitation
Urban 3R Guidelines Alternative Urban Design Guides* Urban Design Aids
Yes No
NoYes
1-Way2-Way1-Way2-Way
N/ANoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
Painted Raised Raised Painted
Page 3
Form 517001 (08-05)
11. Project Design Elements -- Provide the project design information requested below. If the project involves multiple facilities, or significantly different sections on the same facility, complete a separate page for each. For design elements that are not applicable for the facility listed below, enter "N/A" in the appropriate space. If the project does not involve a roadway, bicycle trail, or shared use path, this page may be left blank.
Facility Name: Federal Functional Classification: Traffic Volumes: Existing AADT: (Year = ) Design Year AADT: (Year = ) % Trucks Design Speed: mph Posted Speed: mph Terrain: Type of Area: Design Guidelines (check only one) For urban roadways, use the design guidelines contained in Index No. 5 of the Packet and indicate which table was used below: For rural roadways, use the design guidelines contained in I.M.s 3.210 or 3.214 and indicate which table was used below: (*If any of these tables are used, explain reasons for not using the "Aids" tables in the cover letter or e-mail that accompanies this form.) For bicycle trails or shared use paths, use the most current edition of the Urban Design Standards Manual, Chapter 8, Section 2, Table 2.1. Design Exceptions: Will a design exception be required? If Yes, attach documentation for each esception requested.
All Roadways (urban or rural)
Design Element Existing Proposed
Number of traffic lanes
If yes, which warrants are met?
If new traffic signals are proposed, are MUTCD warrants met?
Traffic Signals
Clear width of path on bridge (ft)
Vertical clearance (ft)
Lateral clearance (ft)
Shoulder width (ft)
Trail or path surface type
Trail/ path surface width (ft) and traffic direction:
Bicycle Trails or Shared Use Paths
Will channel change be required?
Is guardrail proposed?
Is guardrail present?
Bridge roadway width (ft)
Bridges (urban or rural)
Clear zone (ft)
Foreslope ratio (horizontal: vertical)
Shoulder width (ft)
Shoulder surface type
Roadway top width (ft) (shoulder-to-shoulder)
Rural Roadways
Horizontal clearance (ft)
On-street parking lane width (ft)
Median width (ft) and type
Curb and gutter width (ft)
Total roadway width (ft) (back-of-curb to back-of-curb)
Urban Roadways
Travelled way surface type
Travel lane width (ft.)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Minor Arterial Other Principal Arterial Interstate
Rural Major Collector Rural Minor Collector Urban Collector Local N/A (trail or path)
Rolling Level Commercial or Industrial Fringe or Residential Rural
AASHTO Guidelines for Rural Local Roads*
AASHTO Guidelines for Rural Collectors*
3R Table for Rural Collectors (if checked, indicate type of improvement:
Design Aids for Rural Local Roads
Design Aids for Rural Collectors
Resurfacing) Restoration Rehabilitation
Urban 3R Guidelines Alternative Urban Design Guides* Urban Design Aids
Yes No
NoYes
1-Way2-Way1-Way2-Way
N/ANoYes
NoYes
NoYes
NoYes
Painted Raised Raised Painted
January 15, 2014
Updated Links to project-related documents:
Iowa City web site home page:
http://www.iowacitygateway.org/
Finding of No Significant Impact document:
http://www.iowacitygateway.org/wp-content/uploads/IowaCityGateway-FONSI.pdf
Environmental Assessment document:
http://icgpreferredalternative.businesscatalyst.com/ea-document.html
Maps of the preferred alternatives, including grade change info, cross sections and elevations,
temporary construction impacts and right of way changes:
http://icgpreferredalternative.businesscatalyst.com/index.html
Draft renderings of the final project:
http://icgpreferredalternative.businesscatalyst.com/renderings.html
Public Hearing transcript, April 4, 2013:
http://www.iowacitygateway.org/wp-content/uploads/HearingTranscript.pdf
Video of the Public Hearing, April 4, 2013
http://view.earthchannel.com/PlayerController.aspx?PGD=iowacity&eID=431
Public comments submitted during the official comment period:
http://www.iowacitygateway.org/wp-content/uploads/AllComments2013-05-17.pdf
September 17, 2013 and October 1, 2013 City Council Presentations and the City Council
Packet Contents:
http://www.iowacitygateway.org/resources/
Bridge Type and Level of Protection Comparison
January 15, 2014
Bridge
Type
Low Steel
Elevation
Backwater
Reduction
at Idyllwild
Incremental
Improvement
in Backwater
Reduction
Deck
Elevation
Incremental
Height of
Bridge Deck
Construction
Cost
Estimate
with
Dubuque at
100yr + 1’
Construction
Cost
Estimate
with
Dubuque at
200yr + 1’
Construction
Cost
Estimate
with
Dubuque at
2008 + 1’
Construction
Cost
Estimate
with
Dubuque at
500yr + 1’
Deck
Girder
100yr + 1’ 3.4” 660.20 $32.67 M $34.26 M
Deck
Girder
200yr + 1’ 6.1” 2.7” 662.52 27.8” $32.97 M $34.63 M $35.01 M
Deck
Girder
2008 + 1’ 6.6” 0.5” 663.45 11.2” $33.41 M $35.17 M
Deck
Girder
500yr + 1’ 7.0” 0.4” 665.03 19.0” $34.20 M $35.01 M $35.34 M $36.65 M
EA Preferred
Alternative
Deck Arch 100yr + 1’ 3.6” 659.20 $36.01 M $37.59 M
Deck Arch 200yr + 1’ 4.7” 1.1” 661.52 27.8” $36.30 M $37.96 M $38.34 M
Deck Arch 2008 + 1’ 5.2” 0.5” 662.45 11.1” $36.71 M $38.48 M
Deck Arch 500yr + 1’ 5.6” 0.4” 664.03 19.0” $36.94 M $38.33 M $38.66 M $39.98 M
Through
Arch
100yr + 1’ 3.4” 656.87 $35.99 M $37.58 M
Through
Arch
200yr + 1’ 4.9” 1.5” 659.02 25.8” $36.26 M $37.93 M $38.31 M
Through
Arch
2008 + 1’ 5.2” 0.3” 659.95 11.1” $36.70 M $38.47 M
Through
Arch
500yr + 1’ 5.8” 0.6” 661.53 19.0” $36.90 M $38.30 M $38.63 M $39.60 M