Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.1 Motion to accept bid for Central Road & Cathy Lane Crosswalk Project for an amount not to exceed $976,937.00.SubjectMotion to accept I! • for • • s Cathy exceedLane Crosswalk Project for an amount not to $976,937.00 Meeting June 20, 2023 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD - Fiscal Impact true Dollar Amount $976,937.00 Budget Source Capital Improvements Fund Category Type Action Item A key component of the Village's strategic plan is to create a pedestrian infrastructure network that promotes multi -modal transportation options. In 2023, a top priority project is to enhance the crosswalk at the intersection of Central Road and Cathy Lane. This proposed improvement will improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to the Central Community Center for residents living on the south side of Central Road. Construction of this project will also fulfill an important objective of the Village's 2017 Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study. Other projects included in the study that have recently been completed include crosswalk improvements at Emerson Street and at Weller Lane. Central Road is a four (4) -lane arterial road under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Cathy Lane is a local street under the jurisdiction of the Village. The intersection is controlled with STOP signs on Cathy Lane and has crosswalks across the north, south and west legs. The marked crosswalk across Central Road has signs at the crossing and a pedestrian activated flashing beacon in advance of the crosswalk without a pedestrian refuge island. The Village retained the services of an engineering firm, Gewalt Hamilton 1 Associates, Inc. (GHA), to provide design engineering. The design includes roadway widening, a pedestrian refuge island, new center left turn lanes for vehicles on Central Road turning onto Cathy Lane, pavement markings, signage including overhead pedestrian crossing signs that illuminate at night and pedestrian activated rectangular rapid flashing beacons. The design has been presented to and supported by the Transportation Safety Commission. Construction drawings and specifications have been approved by IDOT. Village staff is seeking at this time to enter into a construction contract for the project. Work is expected to begin in August and be completed in the spring 2024. A Notice to Bidders was posted on the Demandstar website and Village staff contacted local contractors. A bid opening for the project was held on June 12, 2023. Three (3) contractors submitted a bid. A low bid of $888,123.70 was received from Martam Construction of Elgin Illinois. Below is a summary of the bids: Bidder Total Bid Martam Construction $888,123.70 Alliance Contractors $937,956.45 Acura Incorporated $975,868.33 Engineer's Estimate $760,868.33 All bidders submitted a bid bond in the amount of 10% of their total bid as required by the contract documents. The bids were checked for accuracy. There were no errors. All bidders submitted all of the required documents and correctly signed their bid and bid bond. 2 Martam Construction has provided general contracting and concrete construction services for over 50 years in the area. They have performed a number of projects in Mount Prospect including road improvement work. Recently, Martam Construction has completed the Cottonwood Relief Station Rehabilitation Project and Backyard Drainage Project. Their work has been exceptional. The low bid from Martam Construction is 16.7% above the cost estimate prepared by GHA. For a relatively small construction project that requires the general contractor to retain the services of several subcontractors, it is not unusual for the cost of some bid items to be slightly higher than typical. This can be attributed to subcontractor overhead costs and the general contractor's time to coordinate their services. In addition, the project experienced design delays due to prolonged permitting reviews at IDOT. This required GHA to continually update the cost estimate over the past 18 months in an attempt to match rising construction costs. This proved difficult as some material costs including concrete has seen additional increases since advertising the project. It is Village staff's opinion that rebidding the project will not yield lower prices. The three bids were relatively close together reflecting an accurate cost of the project given the economy. As material costs continue to rise, rebidding may see even higher prices. Furthermore, rebidding may limit interest from contractors. Some or all of the existing bidders may not re -bid because their pricing has already been exposed. Staff recommends that a 10% contingency be included in the construction contract to allow for quantity variances and unanticipated conflicts. For the construction contract, a 10% contingency added to the lowest bid would result in a total contract award of $976,936.00. (Base Bid: $888,123.70 + Contingency: $88,812.30 = Total Recommended Award: $976,936.00). Alternatives 1. Accept lowest lowest -cost, responsive bid for Central Road & Cathy Lane 3 Crosswalk Improvements. 2. Action at the discretion of the Village Board. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Village Board accept the lowest -cost, responsive bid for construction of the Central Road & Cathy Lane Crosswalk Project as submitted by Martam Construction of Elgin, Illinois in an amount not to exceed $976,936.00. ATTACHMENTS: Martam_Construction_Bid. pdf Central -Cathy Plan Set.pdf Central - Cathy Bid Tab.pdf central ped study report - final.pdf 4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AFFIDAVIT — BID CERTIFICATION FORM Bidder: Company/Firm Name: Address: As a condition of entering into a contract with the Village of Mount Prospect, and under oath and 106� alty of pedu and possible termination of contract rights and debarment, the undersigned, V , being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states that he or she is (sole owner, partner, joint ventured, President, Secretary, etc) of (Name of Company) and has the authority to make all certifications required by this affidavit. Section I Non Collusion The undersigned certifies that this bid is genuine and not collusive or a sham, that said bidder has not colluded, conspired, connived or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any bidder or person, to put in a sham bid or to refrain from bidding, and has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement or collusion, or communication or conference with any person, to fix the bid price element of this bid, or of that of any other bidder, or to secure any advantage against any other bidder or any person interested in the proposed contract. SectionBid Riggingand "• The undersigned further states that (Name of Company) is not barred from bidding or contracting as a result of a conviction for violations of state laws prohibiting bid rigging or bid rotating or any similar offense of any state of the United States, as provided in Sections 33E-3 and 33E-4 of the Illinois Criminal Code, 720 ILCS 5/33E-3, 33E-4. Section III Drug Free Workplace The undersigned further states that (Name of Company) provides a drug free workplace pursuant to the Drug Free Workplace Act, 30 ILCS 580/1, et seq., and has, to the extent not covered by a collective bargaining that deals with the subject of the Substance Abuse Prevention in Public Works Projects Act, 820 ILCS 265/1 et seq., a substance abuse prevention program that meets or exceeds these requirements of that Act. Section IV Tax Payment The undersigned further states that VA (Name of Company) is not delinquent in payment of any taxes to the Illinois Department of Revenue, in accordance with Illinois Compiled Statues, 65 ILCS 5/11-42.1. The undersigned understands that making a false statement regarding delinquency in taxes is a Class A Misdemeanor and, in addition voids the contract and allows the municipality to recover all amounts paid to the individual or entity under the contract in civil action. 32 5 Bid Form Page 1 BID FORM Central Road & Cathy Lane Crosswalk Pro ect Village of Mount Prospect Department of Public Works (hereinafter called 'Bidder") TO: Office of the Village Manager, 3 d Floor 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 (hereinafter called "Village" or "Village of Mount Prospect") Bid For: "Central Road & Cathy Lane Crosswalk Project' The bidders have familiarized themselves with the work and probable work conditions required under this Bid affecting the cost of the work and with the Bid Documents which include: Notice to Bidders Table of Contents Instructions for Bidders General Conditions and Special Provisions Specifications Bid Form Affidavit — Bid Certification Form Bid Security Bid Sheet Other materials or standards provided or noted by the Village Contract Document Performance Bond Form Labor and Materials Payment Bond Form Plan Set Therefore, the Bidder hereby proposes to furnish all supervision, technical personnel, labor, materials, tools appurtenances, equipment, and services (including all utility and transportation services) required to construct and complete the Work, all in accordance with the above listed documents. Bidder agrees to perform all of the Work and provide the equipment and materials described in the Bid Documents, as follows: Bidder has bid on all items and has provided a price for all items. The Bidder will complete and provide all labor, equipment, materials and mobilization (if applicable) to perform the Work as incidental to the fixed item price for each item proposed. PA 1J Bid Form Page 2 In submitting this bid, the Bidder understands that the Village of Mount Prospect reserves the right to add to or subtract from the estimated quantities. The Village of Mount Prospect intends to award one (1) contract (if at all) for the items bid. If written notice of award of this bid is mailed, emailed or otherwise delivered to the Bidder at any time before this bid is withdrawn, the Bidder agrees to execute and deliver the contract in the prescribed form and furnish payment and performance bonds, or letter of credit, and the insurance certificates required by the Bid Documents to the Village within ten (10) days after receipt. The Bidder, and as successful bidder/Contractor upon award of the Contract understands and agrees to the following: 1) The Contractor agrees to provide all Work and items and material to the Village as noted in the Bid Documents and comply with the requirements of the Bid Documents. 2) The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and county and municipal ordinances, as described in the General Conditions. All Addenda pertaining to this project shall be acknowledged by the Bidder in the spaces provided below: Addendum No. Addendum Date Acknowledgement by Bidder or A thori d e resentative Date Acknowled ed 6-1 -x3 Failure to acknowledge receipt, as provided above, may be considered sufficient grounds for disqualification of the bidder and rejection of his/her bid submittal. A record of all Addenda and copies of same will be available to all qualified bidders from the Village of Mount Prospect Public Works Department, 1700 West Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois two (2) days prior to the letting. It shall be the bidder's responsibility to become fully advised of all Addenda prior to submitting its bid. Upon award of the contract the Village will send Notice of Award to the successful bidder. The bidder must then execute the contract and provide the required bonds or letter of credit and certificate of insurance to the Village within ten (10) days. The Village will then issue a written Notice to Proceed, which starts the performance period. The contractor shall begin work no later than August 21 2023 and shall reach substantial completion no later than November 17, 2023 with final completion no later than April 1, 2024. Failure to complete the work in the designated time frame may result in the Director of Public Works withholding compensation due the contractor for failure to complete the said work in the designated time frame, calling the bonds, or taking such other action as may be available. 7 Bid Form Page 3 Security in the sum of ten (10%) percent of the amount bid in form of (check one): ��Bid Bond Certified Check Bank Cashier's Check is attached hereto in accordance with the "Instructions for Bidders". This Bid Submittal contains the following: 1) Bid Form 2) Affidavit — Bid Certification Form 3) Bid .Security 4) Bid Sheet (s) Respectfully submitted: Nan M Title: Date: `� v Contact Information: Official Address: 0 N -DV 11J, I Telephone: Email: EW1 31 Page 2 - AFFIDAVIT — BID CERTIFICATION FORM Section V Sexual Harassment Polic Pursuant to Section 2-105(A) of the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-105 (A), every party to a public contract must: "Have written sexual harassment policies that shall include, at a mini -mum, the following information: (1) the illegality of sexual harassment; (11) the definition of sexual harassment under State law; (III) a description of sexual harassment, utilizing examples; (IV) the vendor's internal complaint process including penalties; (V) the legal recourse, investigative and complaint process available through the Department (of Human Rights) and the Commission (Human Rights Commission); (VI) directions on how to contact the Department and Commission; and (VII) protection against retaliation as provided by Section 6-101 of the Act. (Illinois Human Rights Act)." A "public contract" includes: ... every contract to which the State, any of its political subdivisions or any municipal corporation is a party." 775 ILCS 5/1-103 (M) (2002), The undersigned further states thatMA(Name of Company) has a written sexual harassment policy in place in full compliance with 775 ILCS 5/2-105 (A) (4). It is expressly understood the foregoing statements and representations and promises are made as a condition to the right of the bidder to receive payment under any award made under the terms and provisions of this bid. The undersigned certifies a all in mation contained in this Affidavit is true and correct. Signed by: Title:�� w"' _ Signatur Name Printed - Signed and sworn to before me this q day of 20 11 My commission expires- N ry lPublic orrictALSm ON Al: ERT I NOTA�Y 6IU LIGE a"M'A'C - O VL OISA u 33 9 Bid Bond CONTRACTOR: ('Jame, legal stalas and addrem ) Martam Construction, Inc. 1200 Gasket Dr. Elgin, IL 60120 OWNER: (Xanre, legal stalus and address) Village of Mount Prospect 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Document A310 TM -2010 Conforms with The American Institute of Architects AIA Document 310 SURETY: (lMyyre, le crl.slarAatr mrd principal place r fhresinesa) Swiss Re corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation 1200 Main Street, Suite 800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Mailing Address for Notices 1411 Opus Place, #450 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 BOND AMOUNT: $ 10% Ten Percent of Amount Bid PROJECT: (,'Jenne, location or address. mrd Project munber, if anti Central Road and Cathy Lane Crosswalk Project This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to Its completion or modification. Any singular reference to Contractor, Surety, Owner or other party shall be considered plural where applicable. The Contractor and Surety aro bound to the Owner in tite arnount set forth above°e, for the payment of Which tite Contractor and $%'rely bind thernscives. their heirs, cxcotrtors, administrators,„ successors and assigns„ jointly and severally, as provided herein. Tito conditions of this Board arc such that if the Owner accepts the bid of the Contractor within the time specified in the bid documents, or within such time period as may be agrcod to by the Owwater and Contractor, and the Contractor either (I) ethers into a contract with the Owvner in accordance with the tertns of such bad, and gives such bond or bonds as may, be specified in the bidding or Contract Documents, wvillr a surety admitted in the, jurisdiction of the project and otherwise aceeptabic to the Owwter, for tine faithful perfdrrttance of such Contract and for tho prompt payment of labor and material furnished in the prosecution thereof;, or (2) pays to the Owvner the differotrce, not to exceed the atnount of this Bond, between (lie amount specified in said bid and such larger amount for which the Owner may in good faith contract with another party Io perlirrm thework covered by said bid, then this obligation shall be null and valid, otherwrrise to rctnuin in lull farce and eWect. The Surety liereby %w"aaives any notice atfan agreement boattveen the Owner and Contractor it) extend the tittle in which the Owvner may accept the bid. WuiveriXtiolicu by life Sorely shall not apply in airy extension exceeding sixty (60) days in the aggregate beyond the time lir acceptance ol'brds specified in the bid documents, and (lie Owner and Contractor shall obtain the Surel}'s consent lir an extension beyond sixty (60) days. If this Bond is issued in connection with a subcontractor's bid to a Contractor, the term Contractor in this Bond shall be deemed to be Subcontractor and the taut Owner shall be deemed to be Contractor. Holten this Bond has been fumished to connply with a statutory or other legal requirement in the location (if tile project, any praiw•ixiort in this Bond conflicting wvitli said stututory or legal requirement shall be dcented deleted herefrom and provisions confirnning to such stalttlory or other Icgal requirement shall be dcctrtotd incorporated hercia, When sot f umi:ahcd, the intent is Ihat this Flond shall be construed as a statutory bond and not as a co turnon law bond, Signed and scaled this 12th day of June, 2023 aren A, OConnell S-0054/AS 8/10 Martam Construction, Inc. (Principal) (Seal) Y" Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insuranc rporation S E A L 1973 (7ialcr es Dore orney-in- a �+ 10 SWISS RE CORPORATE SOLUTIONS SWISS RE CORPORATE SOLUTIONS AMERICA INSURANCE CORPORATION ("SRCSAIC") SWISS RE CORPORATE SOLUTIONS PREMIER INSURANCE CORPORATION ("SRCSPIC") GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT SRCSAIC, a corporation duly organized and existing under laws of the State of Missouri„ and having its principal office in the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and SRCSPIC, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri and having its principal office in the City of Kansas City, Missouri, each does hereby make, constitute, and appoint: James Moore Principal: Martam Construction, Inc. Obligee: Village of Mount Prospcct Bond Description: Central Road and Cathy Lane Crosswalk Project Bond Number. laid Montt Bond Amount: See Bond Form Its true and lawful Attorneys) -in -Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver, for and on its behalf and as its act and deed, bonds or other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond on behalf of each of said Companies, as surety, on contracts of suretyship as are or may be required or permitted by law, regulation, contract or otherwise, provided that no bond or undertaking or contract or suretyship executed under this authority shall exceed the amount of: FIFTY MILLION ($50,000,040.00) DOLLARS This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following Resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of both SRCSAIC and SRCSPIC at meetings duly called and held on the 91' of May 2012: "RESOLVED, that any two of the President, any Managing Director,„ any Senior Vice President„ any Vice President, the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary be, and each or any of them hereby is, authorized to execute a Power of Attorney qualifying the attorney named in the given Power of Attorney to execute on behalf of the Corporation bonds, undertakings and all contracts of surety, and that each or any of them hereby is authorized to attest to the execution of any such Power of Attorney and to attach therein the seal of the Corporation; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of such officers and the seal of the Corporation may be affixed to any such Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures or facsimile seal shall be binding upon the Corporation when so affixed and in the future with regard to any bond, undertaking or contract of surety to which it is attached." r es o R 4XI. * t`c *"fy A g f�J «`«; F61i Janssens, Senior Vice President of SRCS:\IC & Srnhw Virt Pres dent of SRCSPIC SEAL_ SEAL, ;.rue 1973bb, ,' r+.."„✓ 4i .,*r40,a' ."''a s_r "a `.`, a` Gerald Jagrowski, Vice President of SRCS,41C & Vice President of SRCSPIC IN WITNESS WHEREOF. SRCSAIC and SRCSPIC have caused their official seals to be hereunto affixed, and these presents to be signed by their authorize officers this 10TH day of NOVEMBER „20 22 Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation State of Illinois Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Premier Insurance Corporation County of Cook ss On this 10TH day of NOVEMBER , 2022 before me, a Notary Public personally appeared ” " An&JIS , Senior Vice President of SRCSAIC and Senior Vice President of SRCSPIC and Crcirald 'a 'rows i, , Vice President of SRCSAIC and Vice President of SPCSPIC, personally known to me, who being by me duly sworn, acknowledged that they signed the above Power of Attorney as officers of and acknowledged said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of their respective companies. OFFICIAL SEAL CHRISTINA MANISCO 1010TAW PUSUS. SYATF of Y LRM My e Mweloo 29, 1, 1gffMX_Kk1dh= the duly elected of SRCSAIC and SRCSPIC, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Power of Attorney given by said SRCSAIC and SRCSPIC, which is still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed the seals of the Companies this12th day June- 20 23 Jeffrey Goldberg, Senior Vice President R Assistant Secretary of SRCSAIC and SRCSPIC 11 State of Illinois County Of Dupa e SURETY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (ATTORNEY-IN-FACT) 1, Karen A. OConnell Notary Public of DuPage County, in the State of Illinois , do hereby certify that James Moore Attorney -in -Fact, of the Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation who is personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day in person, and acknowledged that he signed, sealed and delivered said instrument, for and on behalf of the Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and notarial seal at my office in the City of Downers Grove in said County, this 12th day of June , 2023 aLl Notary Public Karen A. OConnell My Commission expires: February 15, 2026 12 REVISED 06.01.2023 BID SHEET "Central Road & Cathy Lane Crosswalk Project" (TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE CONTRACTOR/BIDDER) The Bidder will complete pricing for all items (# 1-93) to provide all labor, equipment, materials and mobilization (if applicable) to perform this work. The fixed item price given is to be all _Inclusive. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNIT'S DIAMETER) UNIT 8 $ 160.00 $ 1,280.00 2 EARTH EXCAVATION CU YD 950 $ 52.00 $ 49,400.00 3 REMOVAL, AND DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CU YD 300 $ 55.00 $ 16,500.00 4 TRENCH BACKFILL CU YD 23 $ 156.00 $ 3,588.00 5 TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4" SQ YD 644 $ 10.00 $ 6,440.00 6 SODDING, SALT TOLERANT SQ YD 644 $ 18.00 $ 11,592.00 7 SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING UNIT 1,300 $ 0.10 $ 130.00 8 SUBBASE GRANULAR MATERIAL, TYPE B 4" SQ YD 1,153 $ 12.00 $ I3,836.00 9 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, 4- SQ YD 383 $ 12.00 $ 4,596.00 10 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, 6" SQ YD 6 $ 25.00 $ 150.00 11 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE BASE COURSE WIDENING 10" SQ YD 722 $ 98.00 $ 70.756.00 12 HOT -MIX ASPHALT BASE COURSE, 8" SQ YD 29 $ 170.00 $ 4,930.00 13 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS (TACK COAT) POUND 3,208 $ 1.00 $ 3,208.00 14 POLYMERIZED LEVELING BINDER (HAND METHOD), N70 TON 41 $ 550.00 $ 22,550.00 15 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL -_BUTT JOINT SQ YD 76 $ 60.00 $ 4,560.00 16 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, MIX "D", N70 TON 563 $ 121.00 $ 68,123.00 17 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 12" (JOINTED) SQ YD 19 $ 252.00 $ 4,788.00 18 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCH SQ FT 2,935 $ 15.00 $ 44,025.00 19 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 8 INCH SQ FT 505 $ 18.00 $ 9,090.00 20 PAVEMENT REMOVAL SO YD 132 $ 65.00 $ 8,580.00 21 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL, 2" SQ YD 4,271 $ 7.00 $ 29,897.00 13 ITEM NO, DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 22 DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVAL SQ YD 106 $ 26.00 $ 2,756.00 23 CURB REMOVAL FOOT 4 $ 8.00 $ 32.00 24 COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL FOOT 1,841 $ 8.00 $ 14,728.00 25 SIDEWALK REMOVAL SQ FT 2,832 $ 2.00 $ 5,664.00 26 CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE I, 10 INCH SQ YD 10 $ 250.00 $ 2,500.00 27 STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12" FOOT 56 $ 165.00 $ 9,240.00 28 STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 12" FOOT 28 $ 178,00 $ 4,984.00 29 STORM SEWER REMOVAL. 8" FOOT 15 $ 20.00 $ 300.00 30 STORM SEWER REMOVAL 10" FOOT 28 $ 20.00 $ 560.00 31 STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12" FOOT 28 $ 20.00 $ 560.00 32 WATER VALVES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 1 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 33 FIRE HYDRANTS TO BE MOVED EACH 1 $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 34 INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 11V FRAME AND GRATE EACH 2 $ 2 200 00 $ 4,400.00 35 INLETS, TYPE B, TYPE 11V FRAME AND GRATE EACH 4 $ 3,800.00 $ 15,200.00 36 MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 2 $ 6%00 $ 1,200.00 37 MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED WITH NEW TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LID EACH 4 $ 950.00 $ 3,800.00 38 REMOVING INLETS EACH 2 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 39 CONCRETE CURB, TYPE B FOOT 4 $ 27.00 $ 108.00 40 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B 6.12 FOOT 1,717 $ 27,00 $ 46,359.00 41 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE M 6.12 FOOT 16 $ 27.00 $ 432.00 42 CONCRETE MEDIAN, TYPE SM-6.12 SQ FT 743 $ 21.00 $ 15,603.00 43 MOBILIZATION LSUM 1 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 44 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701501 LSUM 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 45 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701606 LSUM 1 $ 50,500.00 $ 50,500.00 46 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701701 LSUM 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 14 ITEM ITE DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 47 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701801 LSUM 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 48 SHORT TERM PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 1,629 $ 1.00 $ 1,629.00 49 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING LETTERS AND SYMBOLS SQ FT 224 $ 2.40 $ 537.60 50 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 4" FOOT 2,248 $ 0.40 $ 899.20 51 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 6" FOOT 353 $ 1.00 $ 353.00 52 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 12" FOOT 327 $ 1.50 $ 490.50 53 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 24" FOOT 77 $ 3.00 $ 231.00 54 SIGN PANEL - TYPE 1 SQ FT 107 $ 30.00 $ 3,210.00 55 RELOCATE SIGN PANEL ASSEMBLY - TYPE A EACH 4 $ 195.00 $ 780.00 56 RELOCATE SIGN PANEL ASSEMBLY - TYPE B EACH 2 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 57 RELOCATE SIGN PANEL - TYPE 1 SQ FT 31 $ 15.00 $ 465.00 58 TELESCOPING STEEL SIGN SUPPORT FOOT 152 $ 25.00 $ 3,800.00 59 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LETTERS AND SYMBOLS SQ FT 224 $ 9.00 $ 2,016.00 60 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 4" FOOT 2,248 $ 1.50 $ 3,372.00 61 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 6" FOOT 353 $ 2.20 $ 776.60 62 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 12" FOOT 327 $ 4.40 $ 1,438.80 63 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 24" FOOT 77 $ 9.00 $ 693.00 64 RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER EACH 102 $ 72,00 $ 7,344.00 65 UNDERGROUND CONDUIT, GALVANIZED STEEL, 2" DIA. FOOT 162 $ 78.00 $ 12,636.00 66 HANDHOLE, COMPOSITE CONCRETE EACH 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 67 UNIT DUCT, 600V, 2-1C NO.10, 1/C NO.10 GROUND, (XLP- TYPE USE), 3/4" DIA. PQLYETHYLENE FOOT 78 $ 103.00 $ 8,034.00 68 UNIT DUCT, 600V, 3-1C NO.10, 1/C NO.10 GROUND, (XLP- TYPE USE), 3/4" DIA. POLYEJJJYLENE FOOT 540 $ 103.00 $ 55,620.00 69 PAINT NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL POST EACH 1 $ 360.00 $ 360.00 70 PAINT NEW MAST ARM AND POLE, UNDER 40 FOOT EACH 2 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 71 TRAFFIC SIGNAL POST, 16 FT, EACH 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 15 ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 72 STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY AND POLE, 24 FT, EACH 1 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 73 STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY AND POLE, 28 FT. EACH 1 $ 17,460.00 $ 17,400.00 74 ------------ CONCRETE FOUNDATION, TYPE A FOOT 4 $ 550.00 $ 2,200.00 75 CONCRETE FOUNDATION, TYPE E 30-INCH DIAMETER FOOT 20 $ 680.00 $ 13,600.00 76 REMOVE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT EACH 2 $ 5,200.00 $ 10,400.00 77 REMOVE EXISTING HANDHOLE EACH 2 $ 900.00 $ 1,800.00 78 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION EACH 2 $ 900.00 $ 1,800,00 79 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT (SPECIAL) LSUM 1 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 80 PROPOSED STORM SEWER CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 6 $ 1,400.00 $ 8,400.00 81 BRICK PAVER REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION, SPECIAL SQ FT 51 $ 35.00 $ 1,785.00 82 SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 3 $ 900.00 $ 2,700.00 83 FRAMES AND LIDS TO BE ADJUSTED (SPECIAL) EACH 4 $ 1,400.00 $ 5,600.00 84 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING---- fsEbMEDIAN SQ FT 75 $ 18.00 $ 1,350.00 85 ILLUMINATED SIGN, SPECIAL EACH 2 $ 9,400.00 $ 18,800..00 86 MODIFY EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLLER L SUM 1 $ 6,006.00 $ 6,00000 87 TEMPORARY INFORMATION SIGNING SO FT 77 $ 15.00 $ 1,155.00 88 MAINTENANCE OF LIGHTING SYSTEM CAL MO 3 $ 3,500.00 $ 10,500.00 89 TREES (SPECIAL) EACH 3 $ 700.00 $ 2,100.00 90 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED CROSSWALK WARNING SYSTEM EACH 1 $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00 91 MAINTENANCE BOND (24-MONTH) L SUM 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 92 TEMPORARY ACCESS (COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE) EA 2 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 93 TEMPORARY ACCESS (ROAD) EA 2 $ 1,500.00 Emmommoommosommm TOTAL FOR ITEMS (1-93) $ 3,000.00 $ 888,123.70 16 Martam Construction, Inc. 1200 Gasket Drive Elgin, IL 60120 Contractor No 3702 WHO HAS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AN APPLICATION FOR PREQUALIFICATION STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE, EQUIPMENT AND FINANCIAL CONDITION IS HEREBY QUALIFIED TO BID AT ANY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTINGS IN THE CLASSES OF WORK AND WITHIN THE AMOUNT AND OTHER LIMITATIONS OF EACH CLASSIFICATION, AS LISTED BELOW, FOR SUCH PERIOD AS THE UNCOMPLETED WORK FROM ALL SOURCES DOES NOT EXCEED UNLIMITED 001 EARTHWORK $14,575,000 002 PCC PAVING $13,625,000 012 DRAINAGE $14,900,000 017 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION $10,225,000 034 DEMOLITION $2,725,000 08A AGGREGATE BASES & SURF. (A) $4,400,000 09A HIGHWAY STRUCTURES $7,675,000 THIS CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY IS VALID FROM 61312022 TO 413012023 INCLUSIVE, AND SUPERSEDES ANY CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED, BUT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR REVOCATION, IF AND WHEN CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CONTRACTING FIRM OR OTHER FACTS JUSTIFY SUCH REVISIONS OR REVOCATION. ISSUED AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS ON 61612022. F I L 494-0645 ti U1111"noks Department of Transportation Office of Highways Project Implementation/ Bureau of Construction 2300 South Dirksen Parkway / Springfield, Illinois 62764 March 6, 2023 Martam Construction, Inc., #3702 1200 Gasket Drive Elgin, IL 60120 Dear Contractor, In response to staffing levels industrywide, the department will be implementing 44 IL Adm. Code, Section 650.120 which allows the department to grant contractors a temporary extension of prequalification ratings. Prequalification ratings set to expire March 31 through July 31, 2023, will be extended through August 4, 2023. This will allow currently prequalified firms to bid on the April, June and August lettings. Please submit your renewal application as soon as possible as applications are processed in the order they are received. Once your application has been analyzed, a new Certificate of Eligibility will be issued. The new certificate will supersede the extension granted with this letter and any certificate previously issued. If your firm plans to bid on a local agency letting and has not received a new Certificate of Eligibility, a copy of this letter will need to be attached to your current Certificate of Eligibility and submitted to the local agency prior to being issued bidding documents. 2023 Application Submittal Notice: In addition to the mandatory hard copy submission, the department is requesting contractors submit a PDF electronic copy if possible. Electronic copies should be emailed to Tara Elston at Tara. Elston@illinois.gov. When mailing in the hard copy, please remember notarized pages must be original copies with wet signatures. Questions or comments may be addressed to Tara Elston, Prequalification Engineer, at (217) 782-3413. Sincerely, Lora S. Rensing, P.E. Engineer of Construction 18 STANDARD SYMBOLS FEATURE BUFFALO BOX BUSH/SHRUB CATCH BASIN CLEANOUT COMBINE SEWER LINE CONTOUR CULVERT DITCH/SWALE ELECTRIC LINE ELECTRIC MANHOLE FENCE EXISTING D O E —x — x — x — z — z — z- �l PROPOSED u -708- E -_-_-_-_-_-_- lobl CENTR PEC NTE vi INDEX OF SHEETS ■■■A■■■An■An`/ A OWN OR w■!\ AR wAw 1 COVER SHEET 2 INDEX OF SHEETS, GENERAL NOTES, HIGHWAY STANDARDS 3 SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES 4 TYPICAL SECTIONS 5-7 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVAL PLAN 8-10 PROPOSED PLAN AND PROFILE 11-13 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN 14-16 PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGN PLAN 17-19 LANDSCAPING PLAN 20 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK SIGN AND RRFB 21-22 ELECTRICAL DETAILS 23-26 A.D.A. GRADING DETAILS 27-29 CROSS SECTIONS - CATHY LANE 30-40 IDOT HIGHWAYS STANDARDS 41-55 DISTRICT ONE DETAILS ■■■A■■■An■An`/ A OWN OR w■!\ AR wAw SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES SIN CODE NO. ITEM UNIT TOTAL QUA 20100110 TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER) UNIT 8 20200100 EARTH EXCAVATION CU YD 950 20201200 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CU YD 300 * 20800150 TRENCH BACKFILL CU YD 23 21101615 TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4" SQ YD 644 25200110 SODDING, SALT TOLERANT SQ YD 644 25200200 SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING UNIT 1300 31101200 SUBBASE GRANULAR MATERIAL, TYPE B 4" SQ YD 1153 35101600 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, 4" SQ YD 383 35101800 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, 6" SQ YD 6 35400500 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE BASE COURSE WIDENING 10" SQ YD 722 35501316 HOT -MIX ASPHALT BASE COURSE, 8" SQ YD 29 40600290 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS (TACK COAT) POUND 3208 40600735 POLYMERIZED LEVELING BINDER (HAND METHOD), N70 TON 41 40600982 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL - BUTT JOINT SQ YD 76 Ansm'lAn HOT -MIX ASPHAI TSI IPPAr.P ('OI IPRP nnlx "n" Nin TnN sF11 EXIST. NORTH R.O.W. m EXIST ST *SIDEWALK REMC IRE HYDRANT TO BE MOVED EX LOCATION: STA. 85+23.58, 30.14' LT EXIST. R.O.W. 77T rXCAVATION AREA FOR FIRE IYDRANT RELOCATION RELOCATE SIGN PANEL ASSEMBLY - TYPE A (S4-5) RELOCATE SIGN PANEL ASSEMBLY - TYPE B (S1-1, W16 -9P) CD o ANG INLETS--\�' `N ro + + M REMOVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT (REMOVE FLASHING BEACON, WOODEN POST, AND ELECTRIC CABLE FROM CONDUIT) REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION (AS NEEDED) RELOCATE SIGN PANEL, TYPE 1 (W11-15, W16 -9P) FIRE HYDRANT TO BE MOVED EX LOCATION: STA. 91+30.79, 31.69' LT +02.61 38.00' LT HOT -MIX ASPHALT S REMOVAL - BUTT JC Z m O a_ EXIST. R.O.W. 0 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURS POLYMERIZED LEVELING BINDER (H, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE BAS SUBBASE GRANULAR MATERIALITY[ BRICK PAVER REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION, SPECIAL AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, 6" o N STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY AND POLE, 24 FT. 10 - - PAINT NEW MAST ARM UNDER 40 FOOT (SEMI -GLOSS BLACK) + CONCRETE FOUNDATION, TYPE E 30 -INCH DIAMETER o (10.0 FT. DEPTH) N M EXIST. R.O.W. + 1 �- I� ---II COMBINATIONCONCRETE CURES SND GUTTER, -TYPE 12 �TYP.) TRAFFIC SIC Ln +27.80 CONCRETE L COMBINATION aONCRETE CURB--- AND URSAND GUTTER,- PE M-6.12 HC O O O O O 6l Q W z U Q Z PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCH (TYP.) - nllnTI ARIF% C"r I\A r AIT !"llK1/-n T -TT- C'Tn T-\AIA1 I/ 0 TIMI/ -I POT Sta 51.50' 1 48.50' 1 m X in C EXIST. R.O.W. T CD CD AT&T MH ADJUSTMENT INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 11V FRAME AND GRA RIM: 679.27 INV: 675.46 STA: 86+09.86 OFFSET: 27.92' LT V F*mFftfmbv- Tz- --L'I V 7' -��T-- STORM SEWERS, ( TRENCH BACKFILL STORM SEWEF TRENCH BACK co 0 Ln AT&T MH ADJUSTMENT INLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 11V FRAME AND GRA RIM: 679.27 INV: 675.46 STA: 86+09.86 OFFSET: 27.92' LT V F*mFftfmbv- Tz- --L'I V 7' -��T-- STORM SEWERS, ( TRENCH BACKFILL STORM SEWEF TRENCH BACK WATER VALVES TO BE ADJUSTED EXIST.LO R a Fal 0 WITH NEW o RIM: 676.51 FIRE FIRE H' CD 0-)I PR PR LOC TYPE 11V FRAME AND GRATE -CP1 STA. 9. STA. - 9 RIM: 676.43 < 901D PI)o ADDU' PH /AS P Ln MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED WITH NEW TYPE I FRAME, CLOSED LID RIM: 676.51 FIRE FIRE H' INLETS, TYPE B, PR PR LOC TYPE 11V FRAME AND GRATE STA. 9. STA. - 9 RIM: 676.43 FRAVI FRA� INV: 673.14 ADDU' PH /AS P ..... ----- T T vv STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12" (14 LF) TRENCH BACKFILL9 (�-83 CU YD) — — — — 1 MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED WITH NEW TYPE I FRAME, CLOSED LID RIM: 676.51 /— STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 12" (5 LF) /TRENCH BACKFILL (1.19 CU YD) 0 0 SIGN LEGEND (STATE LAW 36"x 12" FYG HERE R1 -5B (36"x36") O go STATE LAW STOP FOR WITHIN CROSSWALK R 1-6A (12 "x36") W16 -9P (24"x 12") �� :STATE LAW \1 / � wTww�ww w^w rATR■ a lklA 0 W 11-15 (36"x36") W16-7P(L) (24"x12") W16-7P(R) (24"x 12") 0 C STATE LAW HERE �OR STATE LAW STOP FOR WITHIN CROSSWALK 36"x 12" FYG R1 -5B (36"x36") R 1-6A (12 "x36") (RELOCATED SIGN PANEL ASSEMBLY) EXIST. R.O.W. - T 0 Lim SIGN LEGEND W 11-15 (36"x36") @ ( **00 ) W16-7P(L) OR (24"x 12") ( Ski%* ) W16-7P(R) 12" YELLOW DIAGONALS @ 20' C -C LED - 4" DOUBLE YELLOW LINE -RAISED REFLECTIVE - P -A vqT (ONE-WAY AMBER MA SPACE D_ 40'-OWCENT C_ 0 (STATE LAW H�EOAE� f FOR STATE LAW STOP FOR WITHIN 36"x12" FYG R1 -5B (36"x36") R 1-6A (12 "x36") 0 Wll-15 (36"x36" OD W16-7P(L) (24"x 12" OR W16-7P(R) (24"x 12" END IMPROVEMENTS STA. 92+18.81 RAISED REFLECTIVE (ONE-WAY CRYSTAL SPACED 80' ON CEN EXIST. R.O.W. VEMENT MARKER kRKER R, TYP. ) EXIST. R.O.W. FF - TREES (SPECIAL) (CONTRACTOR TO PLANT A 2.5" RED OAK, HONEYLOCUST, OR KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY) STA. 86+59.81, 39.62' LT EXCAVATION AREA FOR FIRE HYDRANT RELOCATION C) o N LL`N rri +1 + +02.61 38.00' LT EXIST. R.O.W. +43.76 /34.00' LT �ASPH 7T] + 7 7.47 /34.00' LT CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL NEW LED ILLUMINATED CROSSWALK SIGNS AND PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED CROSSWALK WARNING SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE SIGNS, POSTS, MAST ARMS, FOUNDATIONS, UNDERGROUND CONDUIT/CABLE, RECTANGULAR RAPID -FLASHING (RRFB) BEACONS, RRFB POLE MOUNTED CONTROLLER CABINETS, PUSH -BUTTONS, AND ALL INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO CONNECT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLLER. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING ANY MATERIAL OR PERFORMING WORK. 3. THE PROPOSED CROSSWALK SIGNS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLLER. THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS SHALL BE WIRED TO THE LIGHTING CONTACTOR THROUGH THE TERMINAL BLOCKS AND CONNECTED TO A NEW 120V, 20 AMP, SINGLE POLE BREAKER. THE CIRCUIT SHALL BE LABELED 'T -A'. 4. THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED CROSSWALK WARNING SYSTEM SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLLER. THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS SHALL BE WIRED TO THE TERMINAL BLOCKS, BYPASSING THE LIGHTING CONTACTOR, AND CONNECTED TO A NEW 120V, 20 AMP, SINGLE POLE BREAKER. THE CIRCUIT SHALL BE LABELED 'T -B'. IT SHALL NOT BE CONTROLLED BY THE EXISTING PHOTO EYE. 5. ALL WORK WITHIN THE LIGHTING CONTROLLER CABINET, REQUIRED TO CONNECT THE PROPOSED ILLUMINATED CROSSWALK SIGNS TO THE EXISTING CONTROLLER SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT PAY ITEM FOR 'IVIODIFY EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLLER'. THIS SHALL INCLUDE ALL CONNECTIONS AND THE WIRING OF THE NEW CIRCUIT BREAKERS FROM THE PANELBOARD, THROUGH THE CONTACTOR IF NEEDED, TO THE TERMINAL BLOCK. 6. THE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL CABLE SHALL BE INSTALLED FROM THE PROPOSED COMPOSITE CONCRETE HANDHOLE 'Hl' TO THE EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLLER. THE CABLE SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH THE PROPOSED COMPOSITE CONCRETE WITHOUT UNDERGROUND SPLICES. DURING INSTALLATION, 6.5 -FT OF SLACK SHALL BE COILED WITHIN THE HANDHOLE. 7. THE PROPOSED CABLE SHALL BE SPLICED AT HANDHOLE 'Hl' AND INSTALLED FROM THE HANDHOLE TO THE PROPOSED MAST ARMS 'T1' AND 'T3' AND PROPOSED POLE 'T2' AS SHOWN IN THE LIGHTING rHY dE PROPOSED PAVEMENT - (SEE TYPICAL SECTION) 30" MIN CRUSHED STONE BACKFILL CA -6 OR CA -7 TO BOTTOM OF STONE BASE UNDER PAVEMENT AND SIDEWALK. PLUS AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET EXTENDED. CONDUIT (SIZE AND TYPE AS SPECIFIED) 12" MAXIMUM WIDTH OR AS APPROVED BY ENGINEER \` TOPSOIL AND SEED RESTORATION (SEE RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS) 3" WIDE DETECTABLE WARNING TAPE EARTH BACKFILL SAND BEDDING TYPICAL CONDUIT IN TRENCH DETAIL NO SCALE NOTES: 1. CONDUIT SHALL BE SURROUNDED BY 4" OF COMPACTED SAND. . !1 ! TABLE ADA ■ / • i I � IIIII 1 IIIII i m•. • • i s•i i ' i .• i •:i i '! •• � •i ••i m:s : ': i •:i s m:. :• i s:i m:• i •:i i m:• �: i •:i i• EXIST. R.O.W. .i. GRADING.B '■ i i ,IIIIl11111 i m•. • • i s•i i ' i .• i •:i i '! •• � •i ••i ms. s i � • . ! m:. : : i . • s m:• i •:i i ADA GRADING TABLE ■ 1 � VIII ` VIII it • •• � • • � i! i i • � s i • SIDE CURB ,rn--V-1 SIDE 1 88 ADA GRADING TABLE STATION OFFSET ELEVATION A 90+52.4 25.7' L 676.45 B 90+52.5 26.7' L 676.39 C 90+52.5 27.2' L 676.89 D 90+57.4 25.5' L 676.41 E 90+57.5 26.5' L 676.35 F 90+57.5 27.1' L 676.85 G 90+62.4 25.4' L 676.40 H 90+62.5 26.4' L 676.34 1 90+62.5 27.0' L 676.47 J 90+70.6 25.2' L 676.38 K 90+70.6 26.2' L 676.32 L 90+70.6 26.8' L 676.45 ,i, GRADING TABLE • � i m•i : ! • ii ADA GRADINI • � i 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 ......... .... ......... EQS-T-.�-::::• ::::::::: :::::::: ::::::::: :::::: :::::::: .......; ---------------- :=== ...... ---------------------------------- .... - ..... . ..... ........ ......-.-. .-.-.-.- .... .... ;...;... ;. - ;...;. 0 -3%: • :3; 4:0 ;eQ:� :'• :�: 00 0/ ....... ;....... ........ ... ... yny p ......... ......... o .... .... ......... fST:: ; ;;,;;;,;; ;,;;;,;;; ;;,;,;;;, ;,;;;,;, ;;;.;;;. ;;;. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 ......... .... ......... ......... :.:.:.. ......... .:.:.:.: :........ :.:.:.: :.: ..... .: :o= 2:2--•f-'--: ' :.::.: 1'502-" : .. - . . EXIST- .' 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 ......... .... ......... I..T: ::::. :::: : :::::::. ::::::::: ::::. ...... : .' ......IJ R AIS:....:.:...: . ..::� . TR- - :--::::--: :..::::.::::..... .:..:..:.:::.........::.: .:..:.... .:..:.: :.,...,. ....... == ....... =...=.. :.. t= °:::� ::�. ... ...=.... ......... ... ........ -- - - --- ---- - ---- ..:Cn-:.:: ---- - ::�... , - -- - - -- ;.:.;... TN ......... ......... .... :.:.:.. :.:.... :.:.:.:.: :.:.:.. .:..... s:i.... M :.:.:.:.: :.:.:.:. :.:.:.:.: .:.: .. ... . . . . . . . ... ... .., .., . .. .., .. �o= ;ter-:.:�.:.; �p 12.�/ .. ,�--: O �. ., �.. .. :��" T �.-. .. BXIST Base course pay width Surface width Slope 1:1 I Slope 1.5% Slope 1.5% 18 f 18 {450) a (45( Subbase Longitudinal sawed joint HMA binder and SECTION A -A surface courses (TYPICAL 2 LANE WITH SHOULDERS) Base course pay width CL Lane width i Lane width 12 12 ( 300) (300 ) Slope 1:1 I Stripe Slope 1.51 Slope 1.5% 18 if {450)> _ b (45 Subbase Longitudinal sawed joint ALTERNATE SECTION A -A (TYPICAL 2 LANE WITH SHOULDERS) A� > Longitudinal sawed' No. 6 (No. 19) Tie bars + joint at 36 (400) cts, 1 12 ( min. CL Of Road * Less than 12 (300) formed roundoutto be used. CAST IN PLACE DETAIL WERMEEMI struct Flush with top of roadway curb and top of median surface DFTIl11 A SF(:TinN A -A Q Omit detectable wornincgs when distance between back of curbs is less than 6' (1.83 m). See flat slab top joint configurations Flat slab top 24 0 0 (600) d U O m C N 4'-0" (1.22 m) 5 (125) Steps spaced at 12 (300) to 16 (400) cts. X v i C m (Without conical top riser) Bar c Bar c Concret fill 24 10-# (600) equii —ac, SECTION PERPENDICULAR TO PIPE (With conical top riser) x As an alternate, the barrel wall reinforcement may be reduced to wall reinforcement with #3 (#10) bars placed around the pipe pe holes as shown. This option may be utilized when the pipe penet holes are formed as opposed to cored. GEOMETRIC LIMITS FOR PIPE PENETRATION HOLES 1. A minimum of 9 (230) of monolithic reinforced concrete shall be maintained a pipe penetration holes > 24 (600). 2. A minimum 12 (300) inside arc length of reinforced concrete shall be maintair between pipe penetration holes > 15 (380), 3. A maximum of 60 percent of the inside perimeter of the reinforced concrete manhole walls may be removed. 4. Horizontal joints that intersect pipe penetration holes > 15 (380) shall have c 0 M 0 max. Concrete fill, 2 %LL 0 Base slab Sand cushion SECTION PARALLELTO PIPE (Without conical top riser) Bar c Bar c Concret fill 24 10-# (600) equii —ac, SECTION PERPENDICULAR TO PIPE (With conical top riser) x As an alternate, the barrel wall reinforcement may be reduced to wall reinforcement with #3 (#10) bars placed around the pipe pe holes as shown. This option may be utilized when the pipe penet holes are formed as opposed to cored. GEOMETRIC LIMITS FOR PIPE PENETRATION HOLES 1. A minimum of 9 (230) of monolithic reinforced concrete shall be maintained a pipe penetration holes > 24 (600). 2. A minimum 12 (300) inside arc length of reinforced concrete shall be maintair between pipe penetration holes > 15 (380), 3. A maximum of 60 percent of the inside perimeter of the reinforced concrete manhole walls may be removed. 4. Horizontal joints that intersect pipe penetration holes > 15 (380) shall have c Doweled contraction joint 1(Placed in prolongation with pavement joints) construction option: 1. Form with Vs (3) thick steel template 2 (50) deep, and seal. 2' Saw at 4 to 24 hours, and seal. Short radius curve (Such as entrances, side streets and ramp returns). Contraction 7_ joint 2 -No. 4 (No. 13) bars placed at mid -depth (when space permits) 18 (450) long dowel bars DrE wit Construction Curb joint � � box 7 N V m E DE -M > > > C C > > j 15'-0" 15'-0"15'-0" Edge of (4.5 m)(4.5 m) (4.5 m) pavement Pavement expansion joint with (or without) dowels PLAN ADJACENT TO PGC PAVEMENT OR PCC BASE COURSE B I ' A Pavement Slope 6°ra '. R. � Tie bar' TABLE OF DIMENSIONS BARRIER CURB TYPE A B C D Ri B-6.06 *1 6 1 1 1 6 1 6 1 :131 B C A Pavement Sloe 61%, o R. Tie bar MOUNTABLE CURB TABLE OF DIMENSIONS MOUNTABLE CURB TYPE A B C D Ri R>_ M-2.06 6 2 4 2 3 2 (M-5.15) (150) (50) (100) (50) (75) (50) M-2.12 122 4 2 3 2 M-5.30 300 50 100 50 75 50 M-4.06 6 4 3 4 3 NA M-10.15 150 100 75 (100 75) M-4.12 12 4 3 4 3 NA (M-10.30) (300 (100) (75} (100) 75) M-4.18 18 4 3 4 3 (M-10.45) 450)(100) (75} (100) (75} NA u 22 !` tt, x 3'-0"i s _{ 1.0 m) (1.0 1 min. min PavemE HMA surfacing Slope 6°0 m --� L PCC base L Tie bar course ADJACENT TO PCC BASE WITH HMA SURFAC B C A For contract construction projects ----------------------------------------------------------- G� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C� ROAD ONSTRUCTIO AHEAD W20-1103(0)-48 For maintenance ROAD and utility WORK projects AHEAD W20-1(0)-48 Edge of paved shoulder 0 500' (150 m) min. 500' 1000'(300 m) max. T (150 m) W21-1(0)-48 TYPICAL APPLICATIONS Utility operations Culvert extensions Side slope changes Guardrail installation and maintenance Delineate- installation Landscaping operations Shoulder repair Median Li3 min. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° / / When the work operation exceeds one f cones, drums or barricades shall be pla( at 25' (8 m) centers for Ll3 distance, ar 50' (15 m) centers through the remaind the work area. 0 ROAD ONSTRUCTIO AHEAD W20-7(0)-48 W20-1103(0)-48 Or l Or ROAD LEFT WORK TURN LANE CLOSED AHEAD W20-1(0)-48 W2Q-I106(0)-48 W21-1{0}-48 C= 3 (\l\ o UV SIGN SPACING, Posted Speed Sign Spacing 55 500' (150 m) 50-45 350' (100 m) <45 200'(60 m) MEDIAN OPERATIONS Ol Refer to SIGN SPACING TABLE for distance. a2 Required for speed > 40 mph. OCones at 25' (8 m) centers for 250' (75 m). Additional cones may be placed at 50' (15 m) centers. When drums or Type I or Type 11 barricades are used, the interval between devices may be doubled. QUse flagger sign only when flagger is present. QS Omit this sign when median is less than 10' (.3 m) or for bi-directional turn lanes. aCones, drums or barricades at 20' (6 m) centers in taper. QAdvanced arrow board required for speeds > 45 mph. QThree Type II barricades, drums or vertical barricades at 50' (15 m) centers. SYMBOLS 0 0 11 — Orange Any posted speed DAYTIME USE o m vs L 4-6 (100-157) 3 4-6 m (100-150) ......... .......... co o A ............. . ......... cD Mi Orange Orange Any posted speed Any posted speed DAY OR NIGHTTIME USE CONES TUBI al ti � C6 C:, 0> ............ ........... 24 (600) min. Sal Sal r I Arm".5-5-liow A A 4' (1.2 m) min. TYPE I BARRICADE TYPE 11 BARRICADE TYPE III BARRICADE Sal Sal N o ................. .................. ................. ............ ............ * Warning lights i9 O O Orange Posted speed < 45 mph — Orange Any posted speed DAYTIME USE o m vs L 4-6 (100-157) 3 4-6 m (100-150) ......... .......... co o A ............. . ......... cD Mi Orange Orange Any posted speed Any posted speed DAY OR NIGHTTIME USE CONES TUBI al ti � C6 C:, 0> ............ ........... 24 (600) min. Sal Sal r I Arm".5-5-liow A A 4' (1.2 m) min. TYPE I BARRICADE TYPE 11 BARRICADE TYPE III BARRICADE Sal Sal N o ................. .................. ................. ............ ............ * Warning lights RPU Sign panel 36 (960) wide or less Cj Sign panel over 36 (906) wide WOOD OR TELESCOPING STEEL POSTS :TAIL B '/,6 (M8) dia. Sign panel I I I I I I Stainless steel I bracket I I I I I I Sjz6 (M8) - dia. Sign panel 36 (900) wide or less 11 ga. (3.1) mild steel, hot -dipped galvanized See DETAIL C Sign panel over 36 (900) Ovide LIGHT OR SIGNAL STANDARDS (19) Stainless steel band PostMounting bracket Conduit Conduit E M (725) Conduit ( o Galvanized steel hooks 41 0 21�12 (545) min. Nonmetallic � conduit hell c Z�, _E ZIN 8 (200) `1 L o min. 09RO . r r French drain "` Conduit 12 (300) AND VARIES A P.C.C. SIDEWALK WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY 12' (3.6 m) MIN. 15' (4.5 m) R. (TYP.) f 00 12 (300) STUB I ~ a' I >- 1_ 24 .1 5' (1.6 m) r (600) W PARKWAY CURES EDGE OF PAVEME TRANS. PLAN 10' (3.0 HT1) TO < 11 12 (300) & VARIES (TYP.) _ A, P.C.C. n f SIDEWALK j WIDTH OF DRIVEWAY 12' (3.6 m) MIN. I I I EXIST. I I I SEWER 1 I I I I [ 1 I I I I 12" (300) PROP. si. LATERAL •• O. SMALLER 4' (1.2 m) CONCRETE COLLAR STORM SEWER REPLACEMENT WITH -PREFABRICATED "T" OR "Y" SECTION EXIST. SEWER 27" (675) OR SMALLER PROP. PAY LIMIT OF HMA SURF. RE FULL THICKNESS OF MILLING TEMP. RAMP (NOTE "C") (NOTE "E") PROP. HMA SURFACE REMOVAL A *1 -------- ------I------------------- EXIST. PAVEMENT PROP. HMA SURFACE REMOVAL OPTION 1 PROP. PAY LIMIT OF HMA SURF. RE FULL THICKNESS OF MILLING TEMP. RAMF (NOTE "C") (NOTE "E") NEW VALVE BOX NEW VALVE rfwrzli'. xo-m *** REDUCE TO 40' (12 m) O.C. ON CURVES WITH POSTED OR ADVISORY SPEED 45 M.P.H. 1 � 1 80' (24 m) O.C. EDGE OF PAVEMENT--\ r2 (50) TO EDGE OF EDGE LINE r— 4 (100) YELLOW NO PASSING ZONE LINE �4 (100) YELLOW 0 4 (100) WHITE EDGE LINE 111 (280) C—C 1�f2 (4 0) 51/2 (14 0) C -C � 30` (9 m) —4 (100) YE 10` (3 m) 2 (50)� F 4 (100) WHITE EDGE LINE EDGE OF PAVEMENT (50) TO EDGE OF EDGE LINE EDGE OF PAVEMENT 4 4 (100) WHITE EDGE LINE 10' (3 m) —1 , 30' (9 m) 4 (100) YELLOW (100) WHITE LANE LINE -------------------------- ------------------------ 4 (100) WHITE LANE LINE X11 (280) C -C 4 (100) YELLOW 30' (9 m) 2 (50) F4 (100) WHITE EDGE LIn EDGE OF PAVEMENT MUSEWIrlint M, DRIVEWA ENTRAN 1 • l l 1 !• 1 ! l • i MAST ARM MOUNTED SIGNALS IN EXISTING, PROPOSED OR FUTURE SIDEWALKJBICYCLE PATH AREA. INTERSECTION SHOWN WITH PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS AND m m0 2"(TYP.) (50mm) 1� F� ((1220mm n 9 ( (1270mm) CONTROLLER EXISTING CABINET BASE APRON PROPOSED TOP VIEW APRON NO. 6 BARE COPPER WIRE BUSHIN E � GROUND _ E CLAMP 1 25mm �, In c°Ln FINISHED BEVEL cq -- /—GRADE LINE a � D D D ' D p - CONTROLLER EXISTING CABINET BASE APRON PROPOSED TOP VIEW APRON NO. 6 BARE COPPER WIRE BUSHIN E � GROUND _ E CLAMP 1 25mm �, In c°Ln FINISHED BEVEL cq -- /—GRADE LINE NOTES: 1. CONDUIT DEPTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 30" (760mm) BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH OR ANY SLOPING GROUND Nly" • :-flowl VAMM! ! TOP OF THE THE POST BASE IS NOT TO O THE TOP EDGE OF TF ' i j � •i i i� ! � i :If -Al! i' ! :�• •: CENTRAL ROAD AND CATHY LANE CROSSWALK PROJECT BID OPNEING: JUNE 12, 2023 ENGINEER ESTIMATE I ACURA INC. I ALLIANCE CONTRACTORS I MARTAM CONSTRUCTION SIN Code Number hem Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost 1 20100110 TREE REMOVAL (6 TO 15 UNITS DIAMETER) UNIT 8 $40.00 $320.00 $75.00 $600.00 $50.00 $400.00 $160.00 $1,280.00 2 20200100 EARTH EXCAVATION CU YD 950 $50.00 $47,500.00 $45.00 $42,750.00 $10.00 $9,500.00 $52.00 $49,400.00 3 20201200 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CU YD 300 $50.00 $15,000.00 $55.00 $16,500.00 $15.00 $4,500.00 $55.00 $16,500.00 4 1 20800150 TRENCH BACKFILL CU YD 23 $80.00 $1,840.00 $75.00 $1,725.00 $65.00 $1,495.00 $156.00 $3,588.00 5 21101615 TOPSOIL FURNISH AND PLACE, 4" SQ YD 644 $8.00 $5,152.00 $6.00 $3,864.00 $8.50 $5,474.00 $10.00 $6,440.00 6 25200110 SODDING, SALT TOLERANT SQ YD 644 $17.00 $10,948.00 $14.00 $9,016.00 $8.00 $5,152.00 $18.00 $11,592.00 7 25200200 SUPPLEMENTAL WATERING UNIT 1,300 $10.00 $13,000.00 $0.01 $13.00 $1.00 $1,300.00 $0.10 $130.00 8 31101200 SUBBASE GRANULAR MATERIAL, TYPE B 4" SQ YD 1,153 $10.00 $11,530.00 $12.00 $13,836.00 $6.00 $6,918.00 $12.00 $13,836.00 9 35101600 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, 4" SQ YD 383 $15.00 $5,745.00 $12.00 $4,596.00 $6.00 $2,298.00 $12.00 $4,596.00 10 1 35101800 1AGGREGATE BASE COURSE, TYPE B, 6" SQ YD 6 $20.00 $120.00 $96.00 $576.00 $8.00 $48.00 $25.00 $150.00 11 35400500 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE BASE COURSE WIDENING 10" SQ YD 722 $90.00 $64,980.00 $120.00 $86,640.00 $145.00 $104,690.00 $98.00 $70,756.00 12 35501316 HOT -MIX ASPHALT BASE COURSE, 8" SQ YD 29 $160.00 $4,640.00 $150.00 $4,350.00 $200.00 $5,800.00 $170.00 $4,930.00 13 40600290 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS (TACK COAT) POUND 3,208 $1.00 $3,208.00 $0.01 $32.08 $0.30 $962.40 $1.00 $3,208.00 14 40600735 POLYMERIZED LEVELING BINDER (HAND METHOD), N70 TON 41 $200.00 $8,200.00 $250.00 $10,250.00 $400.00 $16,400.00 $550.00 $22,550.00 15 40600982 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL - BUTT JOINT SQ YD 76 $20.00 $1,520.00 $65.00 $4,940.00 $10.00 $760.00 $60.00 $4,560.00 16 1 40603340 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE, MIX "D", N70 TON 563 $140.00 $78,820.00 $140.00 $78,820.00 $110.00 $61,930.00 $121.00 $68,123.00 17 42000541 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 12" (JOINTED) SQ YD 19 $180.00 $3,420.00 $180.00 $3,420.00 $175.00 $3,325.00 $252.00 $4,788.00 18 42400200 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5 INCH SQ FT 2,935 $10.00 $29,350.00 $12.00 $35,220.00 $11.00 $32,285.00 $15.00 $44,025.00 19 42400410 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 8 INCH SQ FT 505 $14.00 $7,070.00 $15.00 $7,575.00 $13.20 $6,666.00 $18.00 $9,090.00 20 44000100 PAVEMENT REMOVAL SQ YD 132 $65.00 $8,580.00 $36.00 $4,752.00 $25.00 $3,300.00 $65.00 $8,580.00 21 44000157 HOT -MIX ASPHALT SURFACE REMOVAL, 2" SQ YD 4,271 $9.00 $38,439.00 $6.00 $25,626.00 $4.00 $17,084.00 $7.00 $29,897.00 22 1 44000200 1 DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVAL SQ YD 106 $30.00 $3,180.00 $24.00 $2,544.00 $25.00 $2,650.00 $26.00 $2,756.00 23 44000300 CURB REMOVAL FOOT 4 $15.00 $60.00 $10.00 $40.00 $15.00 $60.00 $8.00 $32.00 24 44000500 COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL FOOT 1,841 $9.00 $16,569.00 $10.00 $18,410.00 $15.00 $27,615.00 $8.00 $14,728.00 25 44000600 SIDEWALK REMOVAL SQ FT 2,832 $5.00 $14,160.00 $3.00 $8,496.00 $3.00 $8,496.00 $2.00 $5,664.00 26 44201765 CLASS D PATCHES, TYPE I, 10 INCH SQ YD 10 $130.00 $1,300.00 $600.00 $6,000.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 $250.00 $2,500.00 27 55OA0050 STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 1 12" FOOT 56 $120.00 $6,720.00 $175.00 $9,800.00 $260.00 $14,560.00 $165.00 $9,240.00 28 55GA0340 I STORM SEWERS, CLASS A, TYPE 2 12" FOOT 28 $120.00 $3,360.00 $300.00 $8,400.00 $260.00 $7,280.00 $178.00 $4,984.00 29 55100300 STORM SEWER REMOVAL 8" FOOT 15 $45.00 $675.00 $55.00 $825.00 $25.00 $375.00 $20.00 $300.00 30 55100400 STORM SEWER REMOVAL 10" FOOT 28 $45.00 $1,260.00 $55.00 $1,540.00 $25.00 $700.00 $20.00 $560.00 31 55100500 STORM SEWER REMOVAL 12" FOOT 28 $45.00 $1,260.00 $55.00 $1,540.00 $25.00 $700.00 $20.00 $560.00 32 56109210 WATER VALVES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 1 $700.00 $700.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $535.00 $535.00 $600.00 $600.00 33 56400100 FIRE HYDRANTS TO BE MOVED EACH 1 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,555.00 $10,555.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 34 1 60236825 IINLETS, TYPE A, TYPE 11 V FRAME AND GRATE EACH 2 $1,670.00 $3,340.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $3,025.00 $6,050.00 $2,200.00 $4,400.00 35 60240312 INLETS, TYPE B, TYPE 11V FRAME AND GRATE EACH 4 $1,800.00 $7,200.00 $4,500.00 $18,000.00 $3,835.00 $15,340.00 $3,800.00 $15,200.00 36 60255500 MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 2 $700.00 $1,400.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 $535.00 $1,070.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 37 602558DO MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED WITH NEW TYPE 1 FRAME, CLOSED LID EACH 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,DD0.00 $920.00 $3,680.00 $950.00 $3,800.00 38 60500060 REMOVING INLETS EACH 2 $430.00 $860.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 $250.00 $500.00 $200.00 $400.00 39 60600605 CONCRETE CURB, TYPE B FOOT 4 $40.00 $160.00$25D.5.0OD $1,000.00 $49.00 $196.00 $27.00 $108.00 40 60603800 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE B�.12 FOOT 1,717 $30.00 $51,510.00 $40 $77,265.00 $49.00 $84,133.00 $27.00 $46,359.00 Page 1 of 3 CENTRAL ROAD AND CATHY LANE CROSSWALK PROJECT BID OPNEING: JUNE 12, 2023 ENGINEER ESTIMATE I ACURA INC. I ALLIANCE CONTRACTORS I MARTAM CONSTRUCTION 41 60609200 COMBINATION CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, TYPE M-6.12 FOOT 16 $50.00 $800.00 $45.00 $720.00 $49.00 $784.00 $27.00 $432.00 42 60622800 CONCRETE MEDIAN, TYPE SM -6.12 SQ FT 743 $22.00 $16,346.00 $18.00 $13,374.00 $31.00 $23,033.00 $21.00 $15,603.00 43 67100100 MOBILIZATION LSUM 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $58,550.00 $58,550.00 $164,475.00 $164,475.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 44 70102620 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701501 LSUM 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 45 70102625 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701606 LSUM 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,500.00 $10,500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $50,500.00 $50,500.00 46 70102635 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701701 LSUM 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 47 1 70102640 ITRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROTECTION, STANDARD 701801 LSUM 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $6,200.00 $6,200.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $1.00 $1.00 48 70300150 SHORT TERM PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 1,629 $1.00 $1,629.00 $1.50 $2,443.50 $1.50 $2,443.50 $1.00 $1,629.00 49 70300210 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING LETTERS AND SYMBOLS SQ FT 224 $1.50 $336.00 $5.00 $1,120.00 $2.00 $448.00 $2.40 $537.60 50 70300220 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING -LINE 4" FOOT 2,248 $0.50 $1,124.00 $1.00 $2,248.00 $0.30 $674.40 $0.40 $899.20 51 70300240 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING -LINE 6" FOOT 353 $1.00 $353.00 $1.50 $529.50 $0.45 $158.85 $1.00 $353.00 52 7D300260 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING -LINE 12" FOOT 327 $1.50 $490.50 $3.00 $981.00 $1.00 $327.00 $1.50 $490.50 53 1 70300280 ITEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING -LINE 24" FOOT 77 $2.00 $154.00 $10.00 $770.00 $2.00 $154.00 $3.00 $231.00 54 72000100 SIGN PANEL - TYPE 1 SQ FT 107 $35.00 $3,745.00 $30.00 $3,210.00 $35.00 $3,745.00 $30.00 $3,210.00 55 72400500 RELOCATE SIGN PANEL ASSEMBLY -TYPEA EACH 4 $200.00 $800.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $150.00 $600.00 $195.00 $780.00 56 72400600 RELOCATE SIGN PANEL ASSEMBLY - TYPE B EACH 2 $300.00 $600.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $250.00 $500.00 $250.00 $500.00 57 72400710 RELOCATE SIGN PANEL - TYPE 1 SQ FT 31 $25.00 $775.00 $20.00 $620.00 $15.00 $465.00 $15.00 $465.00 58 72800100 TELESCOPING STEEL SIGN SUPPORT FOOT 152 $16.00 $2,432.00 $20.00 $3,040.00 $20.00 $3,040.00 $25.00 $3,800.00 59 1 78000100 ITHERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LETTERS AND SYMBOLS SQ FT 224 $8.00 $1,792.00 $6.00 $1,344.00 $8.00 $1,792.00 $9.00 $2,016.00 60 78000200 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 4" FOOT 2,248 $2.00 $4,496.00 $1.50 $3,372.00 $1.35 $3,034.80 $1.50 $3,372.00 61 78000400 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 6" FOOT 353 $3.00 $1,059.00 $2.25 $794.25 $2.00 $706.00 $2.20 $776.60 62 78000600 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 12" FOOT 327 $4.00 $1,308.00 $3.00 $981.00 $4.00 $1,308.00 $4.40 $1,438.80 63 78000650 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING - LINE 24" FOOT 77 $5.00 $385.00 $6.00 $462.00 $8.00 $616.00 $9.00 $693.00 64 781001DO RAISED REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER EACH 102 $47.00 $4,794.00 $54.00 $5,508.00 $66.25 $6,757.50 $72.00 $7,344.00 65 1 81028200 JUNDERGROUND CONDUIT, GALVANIZED STEEL, 2" DIA. FOOT 162 1$40.00 $6,480.00 $75.00 $12,150.00 $71.20 $11,534.40 $78.00 $12,636.00 66 81400730 HANDHOLE, COMPOSITE CONCRETE EACH 1 $840.00 $840.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $4,525.00 $4,525.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 67 81603010 UNIT DUCT, 600V, 2-1C NO.10, 1/C NO.10 GROUND, (XLP-TYPE USE), 3/4" DIA. POLYETHYLENE FOOT 78 $5.00 $390.00 $25.00 $1,950.00 $94.20 $7,347.60 $103.00 $8,034.00 68 81603020 UNIT DUCT, 600V, 3-1C NO.10, 1/C NO.10 GROUND, (XLP-TYPE USE), 3/4" DIA. POLYETHYLENE FOOT 540 $7.00 $3,780.00 $25.00 $13,500.00 $94.80 $51,192.00 $103.00 $55,620.00 69 85100500 PAINT NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL POST EACH 1 $800.00 $800.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $327.00 $327.00 $360.00 $360.00 70 85100600 PAINT NEW MAST ARM AND POLE, UNDER 40 FOOT EACH 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $250.00 $500.00 $1,120.00 $2,240.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 71 1 87501200 ITRAFFIC SIGNAL POST, 16 FT. EACH 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,258.00 $3,253.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 72 87700160 STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY AND POLE, 24 FT. EACH 1 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $13,200.00 $13,200.00 $15,708.00 $15,708.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 73 87700180 STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY AND POLE, 28 FT. EACH 1 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $16,053.00 $16,053.00 $17,400.00 $17,400.00 74 87800100 CONCRETE FOUNDATION, TYPE A FOOT 4 $280.00 $1,120.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 $503.50 $2,014.00 $550.00 $2,200.00 75 87800400 CONCRETE FOUNDATION, TYPE E 30 -INCH DIAMETER FOOT 20 $300.00 $6,000.00 $400.00 $8,000.00 $615.00 $12,300.00 $680.00 $13,600.00 76 89502375 REMOVE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT EACH 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,D00.00 $4,800.00 $9,600.00 $5,200.00 $10,400.00 77 1 89502380 IREMOVE EXISTING HANDHOLE EACH 2 $610.00 $1,220.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 78 89502365 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE FOUNDATION EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,D00.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 79 X0320050 CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT (SPECIAL) LSUM 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 80 XD322916 PROPOSED STORM SEWER CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 6 $500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $9,D00.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $1,400.00 $8,400.00 81 X1700021 BRICK PAVER REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION, SPECIAL SQ FT 51 $25.00 $1,275.00 $75.00 $3,825.00 $25.00 $1,275.00 $35.00 $1,785.00 82 X6026050 SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE ADJUSTED EACH 3 $940.00 $2,820.00 $2,000.00 $6,D00.00 $1,345.00 $4,035.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 Page 2 of 3 CENTRAL ROAD AND CATHY LANE CROSSWALK PROJECT BID OPNEING: JUNE 12, 2023 ENGINEER ESTIMATE I ACURA INC. I ALLIANCE CONTRACTORS I MARTAM CONSTRUCTION 83 X6030310 FRAMES AND LIDS TO BE ADJUSTED (SPECIAL) EACH 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $3,095.00 $12,380.00 $1,400.00 $5,600.00 84 X7800100 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING - RAISED MEDIAN SO FT 75 $6.00 $450.00 $15.00 $1,125.00 $15.00 $1,125.00 $18.00 $1,350.00 85 X8910050 ILLUMINATED SIGN, SPECIAL EACH 2 $5,250.00 $10,500.00 $5,600.00 $11,200.00 $8,623.00 $17,246.00 $9,400.00 $18,800.00 86 X8950130 MODIFY EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROLLER L SUNT 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 87 Z0030850 TEMPORARY INFORMATION SIGNING SO FT 77 $25.00 $1,925.00 $20.00 $1,540.00 $20.00 $1,540.00 $15.00 $1,155.00 88 ZD033028 MAINTENANCE OF LIGHTING SYSTEM CAL MO 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,500.00 $13,500.00 $3,200.00 $9,600.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.00 89 XX006570 TREES (SPECIAL) EACH 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $950.00 $2,850.00 $925.00 $2,775.00 $700.00 $2,100.00 90 XXOD7021 PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATED CROSSWALK WARNING SYSTEM EACH 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $28,834.00 $28,834.00 $32,000.00 $32,000.00 91 MAINTENANCE BOND (24 -MONTH) EACH 1 $500.00 $500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 92 X4022000 TEMPORARY ACCESS (COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE) EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,D00.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 93 X4023000 TEMPORARY ACCESS (ROAD) EACH 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 ENGINEER'S CONTINGENCY L SUM 1 1 $68,871.45 $68,871.45 TOTAL 1 $760,585.95 1 $975,868.33 $937,956.45 $888,123.70 Page 3 of 3 ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................................................................2 Purpose....................................................................................................................................................................3 BackgroundInformation.......................................................................................................................................3 Field Observations at Intersections......................................................................................................................3 Crash Analysis- Pedestrians and Bicyclists.........................................................................................................6 TrafficSignal Warrant Analysis..............................................................................................................................8 SchoolSpeed Limit Analysis................................................................................................................................10 SafetyToolbox Options........................................................................................................................................13 FHWAPedestrian Study.......................................................................................................................................16 PotentialFunding Sources...................................................................................................................................17 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................................18 Appendix 1 - Crash Analysis Appendix 2 - Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Appendix 3 - Pedestrian Traffic Counts Appendix 4- Recommended Improvements Appendix 5 - Pedestrian Facility Studies Appendix 6 - Coordination Appendix 7- Funding Sources Appendix 8 - Central Road, Northwest Highway and Prospect Avenue Pedestrian Crossing CIORSAGROUP The Village of Mount Prospect commissioned Ciorba Group to establish consistent guidelines to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Central Road. The goal is to promote a safe walking and bicycling environment within the community. Field observations were performed at the Central Road intersections between Arthur Avenue and Wolf Road to identify any issues or inconsistencies. Information gathered included existing marked crosswalk and crosswalk signing locations, type of intersection traffic control, location of existing school speed limit zones, and intersection sight distance problems. A crash analysis was completed concentrating on vehicular accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists to identify any patterns or problem locations requiring corrective actions. The crash analysis did not identify any patterns or trends in the accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists that would indicate the need to implement any specific safety improvements for those locations. A Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis was performed to determine if traffic signals should be installed at the unsignalized Central Road intersections with Emerson Street and Pine Street. These two intersections were singled out for analysis due to the perceived heavy pedestrian volumes crossing Central Road. The analysis indicated that a new traffic signal was not justified at the Central Road/Pine Street intersection. A new traffic signal could have potentially been justified at the Central Road/Emerson Street intersection based on Warrant 7, Crash Experience. IDOT, however, indicated that a new traffic signal would not be allowed at this location due to its proximity to the Central Road and Main Street/IL 83 intersection. A review of the two existing school speed limit zones along Central Road was performed to determine if they are properly located and justified. The review also investigated the need for any additional zones along Central Road. The review concluded that no additional school speed limit zones are needed and that the Village should contact local schools to discuss the potential for eliminating the existing speed limit zones. There are a variety of federal aid programs administered by the Illinois Department of Transportation available that could potentially assist in funding pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements along the Central Road corridor. There are many ways that pedestrian and bicyclist safety can be improved along Central Road. Options include: • Public Education • Enforce Traffic Laws • Improve Intersection Sight Distance • Improve Existing and Add New Crosswalk Treatments • Other Recommendations o Replace downtown intersection tactile areas with ADA compliant tiles. o Eliminate the right turn on red maneuver at specific intersections that exhibit consistent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 2 i CMORBA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 79 Within the Village of Mount Prospect, Central Road is often viewed as a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. High traffic volumes and vehicle speeds can make it difficult to cross the roadway. At the Village's request, Ciorba Group prepared a pedestrian and bicycle crossing study of Central Road from Arthur Avenue to Wolf Road. The goal of this study is to evaluate the Central Road corridor to establish best practices that provide consistency and enhance safety for the pedestrians and bicyclists. These best practices will help promote walking and biking within the community. The study will include: • Gathering and collating information on the status of crosswalks and pedestrian signals at the existing intersections within the corridor; • Crash Analysis of the corridor that concentrates on accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists; • Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis at the Central Road intersections with Pine Street and Emerson Street: • School Speed Limit Analysis to determine if school speed limit locations are appropriate and consistent. Central Road is a minor arterial road with typically two lanes of traffic in both the eastbound and westbound direction. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has jurisdiction of Central Road between Arthur Avenue and Rand Road (US 12). From Rand Road to Wolf Road, Central Road is under the Village's jurisdiction. The land uses along this corridor are mostly residential with commercial properties clustered around most major intersections. Parks, schools and churches are also located along the corridor. The Union Pacific Railroad crosses Central Road at -grade just west of Northwest Highway (US 14). The Central Road speed limit is 40 mph from Arthur Avenue to Busse Road, and 35 mph from Busse Road to Wolf Road. The IDOT Website indicates the 2014 average daily traffic (ADT) along Central Road is: • 23,100 Arthur Avenue to Busse Road • 21,300 Busse Road to Northwest Highway • 17,700 Northwest Highway to Rand Road • 12,600 Rand Road to Wolf Road Ciorba Group contacted IDOT to discuss potential safety improvement alternatives along Central Road. We were informed that IDOT is developing their own Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study which at the time of this report is incomplete. According to IDOT officials, their study results will not be released until the study has been finalized at some future date. Ciorba Group performed a field visit to the corridor and reviewed all intersections along Central Road within the project limits. Information gathered included the presence of existing crosswalks, crosswalk signage, school crossing signs, and pedestrian signals as well as identifying any sight distance issues. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has programmed future improvements along Central Road which will include new sidewalk ramps at all intersections to satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. Therefore, existing sidewalk ramp grades were not measured in the field. There are north/south marked crosswalks at 12 intersection locations on Central Road between Arthur Avenue and Wolf Road. The five arterial cross roads (Busse Road, Northwest Highway/US 14, Main Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 3 Street/IL 83, Rand Road/US 12 and Wolf Road) have marked crosswalks and traffic signals with pedestrian heads. The three collector roads crossing Central Road are Arthur Avenue, Emerson Street and Mount Prospect Road. The Arthur Avenue intersection has a traffic signal but only has east/west crosswalks. Emerson Street does not have a traffic signal, but has a marked crosswalk on the west leg of the intersection. The Mount Prospect Road intersection has a traffic signal with crosswalks on all four legs. There are 29 local roads that intersect Central Road within the project limits. Of these, the Prospect Avenue and Owen Street intersections with Central Road have traffic signals with crosswalks while three local roads with no stop control on Central Road (Weller Lane, We Go Trail/Lancaster Street and Cathy Lane) have north/south crosswalks. The other 24 local roads that intersect Central Road within the project limits do not have north/south crosswalks. Apart from the intersection of Central Road and Prospect Avenue, all marked crosswalks at collector and local roads were adjacent to community buildings, schools, or parks. A detailed list of the existing crosswalk conditions per roadway classification is provided in Table 1. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Ipw Table 1. ExistingCrosswalk Conditions a 3 a 3 a) H 4) O N O N a N N N s � U H z 3: ; vi w Q a y c a U a N V N Vf i N p y V H o '. a v N N a ° a U H U a �, Sight Distance Issue Comment Busse Rd Northwestrr Highway (US 14) ....... ......... ......... Main St (IL 83) Rand Rd (US 12) Tm ......::: ....::::: Wolff Rd 1111111 IIIIII,IIII IIII ,11Ill,l�l Arthur Ave Emerson St���. .......:: Mt Prospect Rd IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I�I�IIIIIII 1800 W Central Rd Central Park East (Arlington Heights; Weller Ln Kenilworth Ave ..::: .............:: Waverly PI Lancaster St/ We Go Trail ...........:::: Millers Ln 511 i ' :) 5 Ipw 0, Shrubs to the east V0� 1 mil-Vl- � -------' ) .......: ........: ........: ......... «� Trees to the west "@ ........ ......... ........: ........: Trees and poles . to the east i ..,:..,:, ����w��''°°d�ryry'� 4 ..;...., pl5 .... �I °y ry00I0YI 0 .................. 610 ........ ......... ........ 4 Trees and light poles to the east 0 Trees to the east Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 4 i CMO:'+L"is3A GROUP Enr:iw� ,,,as 81 mil-Vl- "@ ........ ......... ........: ........: Trees and poles . to the east 0 Trees to the east Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 4 i CMO:'+L"is3A GROUP Enr:iw� ,,,as 81 Nelson Ln (Des Plaines) * N/S Crosswalk at Busse Road is on west leg only. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 5 i CMORSA GROUP Fnr:iw� ,,,as 82 X v �_ c � y 3 3 N a ) in O O U N a N U N on s Q a in V c z LUa U lie a a � N NIle h p y V �L H a v N O U.2) N'. rn U N U o_ �, Sight Distance Issue Comment Cathy Ln,������ Trees to the east and west, Sign to thf east "I ........ ......... ........ Wa Pella Ave m Prospect Ave ____ 0,11W V Ridge Ave T Elmhurst Ave' Post Office Sign to the east ......: ......... Pine St ....- (',gj 07J" Building to the west, trees to the east Wille St stj Parking lot and fence to the west, tre to east ......... ........ Maple St v...:.:.. *m .: .......: ......... ........ ........ ......... ......... Fence to the west, trees to the east St .......: ......... School St ..... ; . ._... s_..._ ... Owen St, Shrubs to the east and west ..... ........ William St ....... ........ .......: ......... Trees to the east "Shrubs Louis St____ to the west and south ....::::: Edward St _ �:�_ __..� �.�_ w �.____ -; ._�. ..._. _ .::,.: ........ ........ ...::,.: ........ ........ ......... George St w Shrubs to the west ........ ......... ......... Albert St f jr ..,. ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ Shrubs to the west and north, parking lot east Westgate Rd s... �,,..... ..... ........ ....... Marcella Rd ( �" - _ . _.: _._ ..: ........ ....... ......: ........ ....... ......... Shrubs to the east and west Horner Ln �� Shrubs'-to the west ........ ......... Patricia Ln (Des ... Nelson Ln (Des Plaines) * N/S Crosswalk at Busse Road is on west leg only. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 5 i CMORSA GROUP Fnr:iw� ,,,as 82 A crash analysis was conducted that concentrated on vehicular accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists. The most recent 5 years (2012 to 2016) of crash reports involving pedestrians and bicyclists along the Central Road corridor were obtained from the Mount Prospect Police Department. This information was analyzed to identify any locations with a high pedestrian and bicycle crash frequency. A crash analysis was also done for traffic signal warrant analysis at the Central Road intersections at Pine Street and Emerson Street. ST GREGORY I.. �._ �....� V. � � Pedestrian Crashes 0 Pedestrian trash Location ILCJ IL O C4 a Figure 1. Location of Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes There were two crashes involving pedestrians on Central Road within the project limits from January 2012 to December 2016 with one incident resulting in a pedestrian injury. These crashes occurred at separate intersections, so there are no concentrated crash locations involving pedestrians. Central Road and Main Street - 02/24/2012. The pedestrian was crossing Central Road from the northwest to the southwest corner within the crosswalk. A vehicle traveling eastbound was stopped at the traffic signal. The pedestrian crossed while the pedestrian signal indicated "Do Not Walk." When the eastbound traffic signal turned green, the vehicle began moving and struck the pedestrian. This resulted in the pedestrian sustaining a Type B injury. A Type B injury is considered not incapacitating and could include lumps on the head, abrasions, bruises or minor lacerations. Central Road and Maple Street - 01 /25/2012. The pedestrian was crossing Maple Street from the southeast corner to the southwest corner within the crosswalk. The motorist was driving northbound on Maple Street, halted at the stop sign and then struck the pedestrian while attempting to turn left onto Central Road. There were no injuries with some property damage only. IDOT's crash statistics for the Village from January 2011 to December 2015 reveal that vehicular accidents caused a total of 4 pedestrian fatalities and 15 pedestrian Type A injuries. None of the fatalities or Type A injuries occurred along Central Road within that timeframe. A Type A injury is Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 6 i CMORSA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 83 ry 1 w 1 CENTRAL al "RE) al ._ Bicycle Crash Location 0 Pedestrian trash Location ILCJ IL O C4 a Figure 1. Location of Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes There were two crashes involving pedestrians on Central Road within the project limits from January 2012 to December 2016 with one incident resulting in a pedestrian injury. These crashes occurred at separate intersections, so there are no concentrated crash locations involving pedestrians. Central Road and Main Street - 02/24/2012. The pedestrian was crossing Central Road from the northwest to the southwest corner within the crosswalk. A vehicle traveling eastbound was stopped at the traffic signal. The pedestrian crossed while the pedestrian signal indicated "Do Not Walk." When the eastbound traffic signal turned green, the vehicle began moving and struck the pedestrian. This resulted in the pedestrian sustaining a Type B injury. A Type B injury is considered not incapacitating and could include lumps on the head, abrasions, bruises or minor lacerations. Central Road and Maple Street - 01 /25/2012. The pedestrian was crossing Maple Street from the southeast corner to the southwest corner within the crosswalk. The motorist was driving northbound on Maple Street, halted at the stop sign and then struck the pedestrian while attempting to turn left onto Central Road. There were no injuries with some property damage only. IDOT's crash statistics for the Village from January 2011 to December 2015 reveal that vehicular accidents caused a total of 4 pedestrian fatalities and 15 pedestrian Type A injuries. None of the fatalities or Type A injuries occurred along Central Road within that timeframe. A Type A injury is Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 6 i CMORSA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 83 considered incapacitating where the injured person is not able to walk or perform the activities that could be performed prior to the injury. There were 683 pedestrian fatalities and 4,895 pedestrian Type A injuries in Illinois during 2011 to 2015. Bicycle Crashes There were nine crashes involving bicycles on Central Road between Arthur Avenue and Wolf Road from January 2012 to December 2016. Two of the crashes resulted in pedestrian fatalities while two others resulted in injuries. Apart from two crashes at the Busse Road intersection, all the other crashes occurred at separate intersections. Even with two crashes at the Central Road/Busse Road intersection, no concentrated crash locations involving bicyclists are considered to exist. Both crashes at the Busse Road intersection involved a driver making a right turn on red. Central Road and Busse Road - 08/24/2012. The bicyclist was traveling westbound in the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection. The driver hit the rear wheel on the bicycle while turning right on red. There were no injuries, property damage only. Central Road and Busse Road - 05/26/2015. The bicyclist was traveling eastbound on the sidewalk on the north side of the road. The driver was turning right on red from the north leg to go westbound on Central Road when he struck the bicyclist. There were no injuries or reported property damage. Central Road east of Weller Lane - 06/09/2016. The bicyclist intended to cross Central Road northbound to Melas Park. The bicyclist activated the RRFB signal and proceeded north within the crosswalk. Vehicles in the eastbound outside lane stopped for the RRFB signal but an eastbound vehicle travelling in the inside lane did not stop and struck the bicyclist. This crash resulted in a fatality. Central Road and Northwest Highway - 04/29/2013. The bicyclist was traveling eastbound in the left turn lane. An eastbound vehicle backed up and struck the bicyclist, causing the bicyclist to fall. There were no injuries. Central Road and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks west of Northwest Highway - 09125113. The bicyclist was traveling eastbound across the tracks. Witnesses state that the gates were down and the lights were flashing. The train was unable to stop before striking the bicyclist. This crash resulted in a fatality. Central Road and Elmhurst Avenue - 0311512013. The bicyclist was traveling eastbound in the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection. A vehicle heading southbound on Elmhurst Avenue halted at the stop sign, then proceeded and hit the bicyclist while attempting to turn onto Central Road. There were no injuries, property damage only. Central Road and Emerson Street - 04/28/2015. The bicyclist was traveling westbound in the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection. A vehicle heading northbound on Emerson Street was turning right onto eastbound Central Road. The driver claims they were blinded by the sun and did not see the bicyclist. This crash resulted in a Type B injury for the bicyclist. Central Road and Mount Prospect Road - 06/24/2014. The bicyclist was traveling southbound in the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection. The bicyclist was struck by a vehicle on the north leg turning right onto westbound Central Road. The driver stated that they saw the bicyclist, but did not expect the bicyclist to reach the intersection that quickly. The report indicated that the bicyclist received a Type C injury. A Type C injury could include momentary unconsciousness, limping, complaints of pain, nausea or claims of injuries not evident. Central Road and Rand Road - 0710112013. The bicyclist was traveling westbound on the north sidewalk parallel to Central Road. When crossing Rand Road in the crosswalk the bicyclist was struck by a vehicle turning right from westbound Central Road to Rand Road. There were no injuries, property damage only. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 7 i CMORSA GROUP,,,as 84 IDOT's crash statistics for the Village from January 2011 to December 2015 reveal a total of one bicyclist fatality (on Central Road) and four bicyclist Type A injuries (none on Central Road). There were 140 bicyclist fatalities and 2,150 bicyclist Type A injuries in Illinois during this same timeframe. Conclusion The crash analysis did not identify any patterns or trends in the accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists that would indicate the need to implement any specific safety improvements for those locations. A Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis is performed to justify installing a new or maintaining an existing traffic signal at an intersection. The Central Road intersections with Pine Street and Emerson Street were identified as potentially high pedestrian traffic locations. A Traffic Signal Warrant analysis was conducted for these intersections to determine if a traffic signal installation is justified to improve crossing safety. Background The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is a document prepared and issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to specify the standards for the usage, design, and installation of traffic signals, pavement surface markings, and roadway sign. Chapter 4C of the MUTCD describes the nine characteristics or warrants of an intersection to justify the use of a traffic signal. According to the MUTCD, a traffic signal should not be installed unless one or more of the warrants are met. An engineering study analyzing the warrants will indicate whether installing a traffic signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of an intersection. Current Conditions At Central Road, Pine Street has stop signs on the north and south legs of the intersection. A popular business, Capannari Ice Cream, is located on the west side of Pine Street just south of Central Road. Capannari is known to attract a significant amount of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic in the summer. Pine Street north of Central Road is residential. At Central Road, Emerson Street has stop signs on the north and south legs of the intersection. The Mount Prospect Public Library, Village Hall and townhomes are located on Emerson Street south of Central Road. The library can generate a significant amount of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic. Emerson Street north of Central Road is residential. Data Collection The traffic volumes were collected at both intersections using Miovison which provides traffic counts using video recording equipment. 12 -hour traffic counts classified as car or truck along with pedestrian and bicycle counts were obtained at both intersections. The data was collected simultaneously on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 from 6am-6pm. The traffic volumes and crash frequency were entered into McTrans HCS software which is a program that aids in determining if one or more of the nine traffic signal warrants are met. Traffic Signal Warrant Descriptions There are nine traffic signal warrants identified in the MUTCD. These warrants include: 1. Warrant 1- Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume • Traffic volumes per hour exceed a threshold provided by the MUTCD for at least 8 hours a day for the major and minor street. 2. Warrant 2 - Four -Hour Vehicular Volume • Traffic volumes per hour exceed a threshold provided by the MUTCD for at least 4 hours a day for the major street and one direction of the minor street. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study I 8 i CtORSA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 85 3. Warrant 3 - Peak Hour • Traffic volumes per hour exceed a threshold provided by the MUTCD for one hour a day for the major street and one direction of the minor street. This is typically applied at locations such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities which experience large volumes of vehicles over a short time. 4. Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volume • Traffic volumes on a major street are heavy enough that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Pedestrian volumes must exceed a threshold provided by the MUTCD. 5. Warrant 5 - School Crossing • This is to be applied in cases where heavy traffic volumes do not allow for adequate gaps in traffic allowing school children to cross. Pedestrian volumes must exceed a threshold provided by the MUTCD. 6. Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System • This applies to intersections within an existing Coordinated Signal System to maintain proper grouping of vehicles through the coordinated intersections. 7. Warrant 7 - Crash Experience • Intersections where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Minimum traffic volumes must be met and there must 5 or more crashes within a 12 -month period. Crash types must be correctable with a traffic control signal (angle crashes). Rear end crashes are not considered correctible with a traffic signal. 8. Warrant 8 - Roadway Network • An intersection where a traffic control signal might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. 9. Warrant 9 - Intersection Near a Grade Railroad Crossing • This is intended for use at a location where the center of a railroad track is within 140 feet of the stop line for an intersection. Crash Analysis A crash analysis was conducted at each intersection to determine if Warrant 7 could be satisfied and justify a new traffic signal installation. The results of the analysis are as follows: Central Road/Pine Street intersection A crash analysis was performed at the Pine Street intersection with reports obtained from January 2012 to December 2016. During this period, there were 17 crashes at the intersection. The primary crash types were rear end (41.20, right angle (23.5%), and overtaking (17.6%). These crashes occurred during daylight in clear weather conditions. Crash Summaries and Collision Diagrams are provided in Appendix 1. Central Road/Emerson Street Intersection A crash analysis was performed at the Emerson Street intersection with report obtained from January 2012 to December 2016. During this period, there were 35 crashes at the intersection. The primary crash types were right angle (54.3%) and rear end (14.30. Eighty percent of these crashes occurred during daylight, 88.6% occurred during clear weather conditions. Crash Summaries and Collision Diagrams are provided in Appendix 1. Warrant Analysis Summary Details of the warrant analysis and traffic counts for each intersection are provided in Appendix 2. Pedestrian Traffic Counts are provided in Appendix 3. Central Road at Pine Street Intersection. No warrants were satisfied to justify a new traffic signal installation for the Central Road and Pine Street intersection. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 9 i CMO:'+L"BA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 86 Central Road at Emerson Street Intersection. Warrant 7, Crash Experience was partially met to justify a traffic signal installation for the Central Road and Emerson Street intersection. The three criteria to satisfy this warrant are: The intersection must have five or more reported crashes during a 12 -month period. The crash types must be susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal (such as a right-angle crash). o These criteria are satisfied since the intersection had 8 crashes of this type within a 12 - month period during 2015. The traffic volumes must meet volume requirements provided by the MUTCD. o These volumes have been met (see Appendix 2 for traffic counts). The volume requirements are 720 vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both directions) and 80 vehicles per hour on the minor street (one direction) for the some 8 -hour periods of the day. An adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce crash frequency. o A potential alternative is to improve the sight distance at this location. It seems that there are sight distance issues at each corner of the intersection. This may be difficult since most of the sight distance issues are caused by fences or trees located on private property. The sight distance on the south side of the west leg of the intersection could be improved with the removal of some trees in planters within the parkway. Unfortunately, in a phone conversation with IDOT we were informed that a traffic signal at this intersection will not be permitted due to its proximity to the Central Road and Main Street/IL 83 intersection. Two other Central Road intersections, We Go Trail/Lancaster Street and at Cathy Lane, were previously evaluated by Ciorba Group for the installation of a new traffic signal. No warrants were satisfied at either intersection to justify a new traffic signal installation. A review of the two existing school speed limit zones along Central Road was performed to determine if they are properly located and justified. The review also investigated the need for any additional zones along Central Road. The MUTCD has established guidelines for signing a school speed zone along with signing for school crossings outside of a school speed zone. The MUTCD does not provide specific criteria to establish school speed zone boundaries, however, the limits of school speed zones should be set under State or local statute. Section 76.09 of the Illinois Supplement to the MUTCD states that school speed zones should be limited to locations where elementary through high school buildings or grounds devoted primarily to normal school day activities are adjacent to the highway or where groups of children cross the highway in route to and from a school not adjacent to the highway. Figure 2 shows the locations of the schools along Central Road and the zones in which reduced school speed limits exist. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study I 10 i CMORBA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 87 There are five schools located along or near Central Road within the study limits. Two existing school speed zones are established on Central Road. One zone is located between approximately Waverly Place and Miller Road while the other is in front of Saint Emily Catholic School. Westbrook School's baseball field is adjacent to Central Road just east of Busse Road. A right-in/right out access drive on Central Road to the school's parking lot was added in the summer of 2015. The school does not have a reduced speed zone along Central Road, however, there is a school speed zone along Busse Road. IDOT stated that adding a reduced school speed zone along Central Road for Westbrook School would require the RRFB just east of Weller Lane to be activated only during school hours, on school days. The RRFB would not be allowed to operate on weekends or during the summer when school is closed. Since the crosswalk east of Weller Lane is a main access point to Melas Park, we believe that the school speed limit zone on Central Road should not be added so the RRFB is maintained at all times of the year. Lincoln Middle School has a reduced 20 mph school zone speed limit on Central Road between Waverly Place and Millers Lane. There is a marked crosswalk and school crossing signs at We Go Trail/Lancaster Street which is within this school speed zone. This crosswalk is located 0.6 miles north of Lincoln Middle School and 0.3 miles from Westbrook School. Pedestrian counts at this crosswalk were taken on Thursday, November 3, 2016 between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The count showed a maximum of two pedestrians per hour crossing at this location and these were classified as not school related. Therefore, a reduced school zone speed limit may not be necessary for Lincoln Middle School. Fairview Elementary School, located 0.5 miles north of Central Road, does not have a school speed limit zone along Central Road. There are marked crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and school crossing signs at Central Road and Northwest Highway. Discussions could be held with District 57 officials Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study I 1 1 i CMORSA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 88 about eliminating the school crossing signs and reverting the intersection to a standard pedestrian crossing. Saint Paul Lutheran School does not have a reduced speed limit along Central Road. There are marked crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and pedestrian crossing signs at Central Road and Owen Street 0.2 miles northeast of the school. With the signalized and marked crosswalk at Owen Street, a school speed limit zone along Central Road was not investigated. Saint Emily Catholic School is directly adjacent to Central Road and has a reduced 20 mph school zone speed limit between Marcella Road and Clayton Lane/Horner Lane. There are no marked crosswalks across Central Road at these non -signalized intersections. Pedestrian and vehicle counts were obtained at the Central Road and Clayton Lane/Horner Lane intersection from 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM and from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on Tuesday, May 16, 2017. The maximum hourly number crossing Central Road at this intersection was three pedestrians/bicyclist between 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM. These crossings were classified as not school related. There are marked crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and school crossing signs at the Central Road intersections with Rand Road and Wolf Road. These crossings are approximately 0.3 miles west and 0.3 miles east of the school, respectively. Based on the low number of pedestrians/bicyclists crossing Central Road at Clayton Lane/Horner Lane, a marked crosswalk and school crossing signs are probably not needed at this intersection. The existing school speed limit zone may also not be needed. The Village should coordinate with the Saint Emily School to discuss the report findings on the need for a marked crosswalk on Central Road at Clayton Lane/Horner Lane and the potential for eliminating the school speed limit zone on Central Rood. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 12 i CMORSA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 89 There are several safety tools (low, medium, and high cost) that could be implemented throughout the Village to improve pedestrian and bicyclists safety and convenience. Specific tools for the Central Road corridor are described in the Recommendations section of this report. Low Cost Safety Tools Marked Crosswalk- Marked crosswalks designate where pedestrians can cross help to ensure high visibility for drivers, and provide guidance. Crosswalk locations should be convenient for pedestrians and accessible for pedestrians in wheelchairs. Crosswalk markings alone are unlikely to increase pedestrian safety. They should be used along with additional measures to improve crossing safety, especially for roadways with an ADT greater than 10,000. Advance Warning Signs- These signs give drivers advanced notice of pedestrian crossing locations. The signs can be fluorescent yellow, oversized or potentially mounted on an overhead cantilever to attract the attention of motorists. In Road State Law Stop for Pedestrian Signs- These signs remind drivers that it is state law to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. Signs are placed at the centerline of the pedestrian crossing. State Law Stop for Pedestrian signs can be used at uncontrolled intersections and midblock crossings. One problem is that the sign can easily be hit by vehicles on roadways with high traffic volumes. No Right Turn on Red Signs —Conflicts can frequently occur between pedestrians/bicyclists crossing a signalized street and vehicles turning right on red. Providing No Right Turn on Red (RTOR) restrictions during the busiest times of the day could alleviate this conflict and the potential for injuries. Full time restrictions may be needed near schools or areas with constant pedestrian activity. A negative effect of this restriction is the possibility of reduced traffic flow efficiency. According to the MUTCD, a No Turn on Red sign should be considered when an engineering study finds that one or more of the following conditions exists: • Inadequate sight distance to vehicles approaching from the left (or right, if applicable); • Geometrics or operational characteristics of the intersection that might result in unexpected conflicts; • An exclusive pedestrian phase; • An unacceptable number of pedestrian conflicts with right -turn -on -red maneuvers, especially involving children, older pedestrians, or persons with disabilities; • More than three right -turn -on -red accidents reported in a 12 -month period for the particular approach; or • The skew angle of the intersecting roadways creates difficulty for drivers to see traffic approaching from their left. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 13 i CfORBA GROUP Enrliw� ,,,as 90 If installed, enforcement plays a key role in reducing right turn on red crashes. Speed Feedback Signs — These signs display passing vehicle speeds. They are a visual reminder to vehicles to be aware of the speed limit. These signs can be installed on a temporary or permanent basis. People routinely travelling on the same roadway may become desensitized to the speed feedback signs. Pedestrian Guidance Signs — These signs are placed at crosswalks to provide pedestrians information and guidance for crossing a roadway. Medium Cost Safety Tools Pedestrian Refuge Islands- A pedestrian refuge island offers a protected area that allows pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Refuge islands allow for easier crossings for roadways with two-way traffic, especially for the elderly and those with disabilities. The "In Road State Law Stop for Pedestrian Signs" mentioned above can be added at the ends of the median to help emphasize the pedestrian crossing. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons- RRFB's can be used at uncontrolled or midblock crossings. Pedestrians push a button to activate the yellow rapid flashing lights, this alerts drivers to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The Illinois Department of Transportation has issued a moratorium on the use of these on state routes in Illinois due to patent issues. Illuminated crosswalks - Illuminated crosswalks increase the visibility of crosswalks in low light situations. They can be used at any marked crosswalk. Ongoing maintenance is required however, to keep all the lights operational. HAWK Beacons- High -Intensity activated crosswalk beacons are used to stop traffic and allow pedestrians to cross safely. These beacons are dark until activated by a pedestrian. Once activated, the signal first flashes yellow, then steady yellow, and steady red over a period of several seconds. A pedestrian volume warrant must be satisfied to provide a HAWK Beacon. With the Central Road traffic volumes, a minimum pedestrian crossing volume of 20 pedestrians per hour must be satisfied to warrant a HAWK Beacon. IDOT has been against the use of these on State routes. If used, the beacor should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by stop or yield signs. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study I 14 i CtORSA GROUP Enrtiw� ,,,as 91 High Cost Safety Tools Bump Outs- Bump outs extend the sidewalk into a parking lane. They reduce the distance for pedestrians to cross in a crosswalk and help reduce traffic speeds. Bump Outs also improve the visibility of the crosswalk. Traffic Signals- A traffic signal with protected crossings and pedestrian signal heads provides a high level of protection for pedestrians and bicyclists. An engineering study must first be done to determine if a traffic signal is warranted. Pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers is preferred. This provides pedestrians with additional information regarding the remaining time to complete the crossing. Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) make it easier for pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired to cross an intersection by providing audible and/or vibrotactile information about when the WALK interval begins and when it is no longer safe to cross. The audible signals can also provide directional guidance which can be very beneficial at large or skewed intersections. Pedestrian Detectors are also available that use microwave or infrared technology to detect pedestrians and then activate the WALK signal. These detectors can also be used to monitor pedestrians crossing an intersection and extend the clearance interval, if needed, to a preset maximum timing. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 15 CIORSA GROUP rtis 92 Studies on the Effects of adding Pedestrian Facilities The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) research on pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled intersections is summarized in Figure 4. This study indicates that the crash rate for pedestrians at marked crosswalks without other additional improvements can be significantly higher than at unmarked crosswalks. A marked crosswalk is one that has pavement markings only. M 'a 1.2 w 0 cu � �s U 08 c 0,6 �a 0A o 0,2 No Median No Raised Median No Raised Median No Raised Median Raised Medan Racsed Median All ADT"s •, 12,000 ADT 12,000-15,000 ADT , 15,000 ADT 15,000 ADT 15,000 ADT 2. Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes 3 to 3 Lanes 3 to 8 Lanes3 to 5Lanes (214 Sites) (260 Sites) )149 Sites) (417 Sites) (37 Sites) (173 Sites) Figure 4. Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Reference. C. V. Zeeger, J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, P. A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes and B. Campbell, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, September 2005. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 16 f Pt A GROUP Lnr�iivn ,,,1s 93 One reason for the higher crash rate at marked crosswalks is called a "multiple threat" crash. This occurs when a motorist stops to let a pedestrian cross and the pedestrian is struck by a motorist traveling in the same direction whose view is obstructed by the stopped vehicle. The study states that another reason for these higher crash rates is that pedestrians over 65 years old were more likely to cross at these locations. Compared to other age groups, these pedestrians have a higher risk of being struck by cars. The FHWA also developed a safety guidance table for uncontrolled intersections which is provided in Appendix 5. This table indicates guidance for crosswalk usage based on the roadway type (number of travel lanes and median type), the vehicle ADT and speed limit for the roadway to be crossed. In general, providing marked crosswalks alone is insufficient since this may increase the pedestrian crash risk. Additional treatments, such as traffic calming measures, traffic signals with pedestrian crossing signals when warranted or other substantial crossing improvements should be considered. Ciorba Group contacted Jeff Shaw with the FHWA to discuss these study findings. The telephone conversation summary is provided in Appendix 6. Mr. Shaw stated that the study did not always provide the best guidance to implement improvements at existing crossing locations. He believed that adding medians with warning signs on high volume streets would improve crossing safety. Items such as a raised crosswalk might be good for pedestrians, but it would have impacts on traffic by slowing vehicles at crosswalks which would probably not make it a preferable solution. Other improvements to consider include providing highly visible crosswalks (continental, ladder or zebra crosswalks), florescent yellow warning signs, oversized warning signs or signs mounted on a cantilever. He stated that a background color can be provided between the white crosswalk lines but there is no evidence that it makes the crossing safer. Green could not be used since this color is reserved for bike lanes. Potential funding options for pedestrian and bicycle projects for local transportation projects are provided in Appendix 7. Some of the main funding sources are: • Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program (ITEP) — All pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure improvements with a relationship to surface transportation are eligible for funding. Safety and educational programs are also eligible. Recreational improvements are not eligible. • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) — The purpose of this fund is to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion. Funding is typically awarded to projects having the greatest improvement to air quality. Safety and educational programs are also eligible. • Surface Transportation Program (STP) — This funding is for state and local road and transit projects. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements are eligible; however, the Village belongs to the Northwest Council of Mayors (NWCM). Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are not a high priority as established by the NWCM Technical Committee. • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) —This program provides funds for safety projects that will reduce crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injuries. Eligibility is mainly based on fatalities or Type A injuries occurring at a specific location. • Safe Routes to School (SRTS) — The purpose of this fund is to enable and encourage children to walk and cycle to school. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements are eligible within a two-mile radius of a K-8 school. Safety and educational programs are also eligible. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study 1 17 M rL 1 GROUP P r1is 94 There are many ways that pedestrian and bicyclist safety can be improved along Central Road. Options include: Education There are several educational strategies that could be used to increase safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Some of these include: • Providing safety information and guidelines for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists using the Village website, handouts, etc. • Educating targeted groups (such as school children, students in driver education programs, older adults, etc.) about improved safety guidelines for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. This could be done in the school or other location through handouts, video presentation, seminar, etc. • Highlight pedestrian or bicycle crossing features when introducing new infrastructure improvements. Enforce Traffic Laws Police enforcement is essential to preserve the pedestrian right-of-way and provide a safe environment for pedestrians. Educational programs can make the driver aware of the benefits of following traffic regulations, but good and bad driving behavior can be a function of direct consequences that follow driver behavior. In addition to enforcing the law on speeding, driving under the influence and red light running, additional attention could also be spent on enforcement of crosswalk laws such as not yielding or stopping for pedestrians. Enforcement can increase driver compliance at crosswalks, increase driver awareness of pedestrians and make engineering solutions more effective. Improve Sight Distance Making pedestrians and bicyclists more visible to motorists will improve safety. Many of the Central Road intersections have a reduced sight distance due to shrubs, trees or fences located within the motorist's line of sight. Where possible, shrubs and trees that are within the public right-of-way should be trimmed or removed. Unfortunately, numerous sight distance issues are caused by objects that are within private property. Working with property owners to remove obstructions should improve sight distance issues. Crosswalk Treatment All existing marked crosswalks at signalized intersections should remain in place and restriped on an as needed basis. Providing north/south marked crosswalks on Central Road at Arthur Avenue is recommended. Crosswalk and Crosswalk Ahead signs could be added at the Central Road intersections with Busse Road, Main Street/IL 83, Arthur Avenue and Mount Prospect Road. We recommend adding a north/south marked crosswalk on the east leg of the Central Road and Busse Road intersection. Constructing additional safety measures should be considered for the marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections on Central Road. Intersections with marked crosswalks and no stop or yield control along Central Road include: We Go Trail/Lancaster Street, Cathy Lane and Emerson Street. A multi-year program could be developed to implement the improvements. Medium cost improvements as described in the Safety Toolbox Options section to improve crosswalk safety at these locations could include: • Adding medians with pedestrian crossing warning signs as a mid -street refuge islands. • Provide highly visible crosswalks with continental, ladder or zebra striping. • Provide florescent yellow warning signs, oversized warning signs or signs mounted on a cantilever in advance of the crosswalk. • Provide a sign for pedestrians informing them to make sure all traffic is stopped prior to crossing the roadway. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study I 18 M :+L 1 GROUP E r1is 95 An enhanced crosswalk as described above is recommended at the Central Road and Pine Street intersection. Exhibits that illustrate an enhanced crosswalk across Central Road are included in Appendix 4. Other Recommendations Mount Prospect has several Central Road intersections in the downtown area that do not have compliant ADA tiles. It is recommended that they be replaced with tiles with truncated domes that satisfy ADA standards. The two bicycle crashes at the Central Road/Busse Road intersection (see Crash Analysis section) occurred while the driver was making a right turn on red. Eliminating this maneuver may help make the intersection safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. Bump outs decrease the crossing distance for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, since Central Road does not have a parking lane and eliminating a travel lane would be unacceptable to IDOT (and the motoring public), construction of bump outs is not a viable option. It is also recommended that the Village discuss with Lincoln Middle School officials the elimination of the existing school speed limit zone between Waverly Place and Millers Lane. Our study found that students do not appear to be using the We Go Trail/Lancaster Road crosswalk. The Village should also discuss with the Saint Emily Catholic School eliminating the school speed limit zone between Marcella Road and Clayton Lane/Horner Lane. No students were seen crossing at this location during the traffic counts for this study. Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study I 19 M rL 1 GROUP E rtis 96 ROUTE: Central Road LOCATION: Pine Street MUNICIPALITY: Mount Prospect COUNTY: Cook TIME PERIOD COVERED: 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2016 REFERENCE MARKERS / NODES 1 - 2 REMARKS: Selected Accidents DATE: 5/16/2017 TIME OF DAY # ACC % DIRECTION # ACC % DIRECTION # ACC 6 AM - 10 AM 5 29.4% North 1 2.8% Northeast 0 0.0% 10 AM - 4 PM 6 35.3% South 6 16.7% Northwest 0 0.0% 4 PM - 7 PM 6 35.3% East 23 63.9% Southeast 0 0.0% 7 PM - 12 AM 0 0.0% West 6 16.7% Southwest 0 0.0% 12 AM - 6 AM 0 0.0% Total 36 Unspecified 0 0.0% Unspecified 0 0.0% .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Total ..................................................................7...,...........,,..,,..,..,,..,,...,,..,,...............................,.,,... ACCIDENT TYPE # ACC % ACCIDENT TYPE # ACC WEATHER # ACC % Rear End 7 41.2% Pedestrian 0 0.0% Clear 17 100.0% Overtake 3 17.6% Bicycle 0 0.0% Cloudy 0 0.0% Right Angle 4 23.5% Parked Vehicle 0 0.0% Rain 0 0.0% Left Turn 2 11.8% Backing 0 0.0% Snow 0 0.0% Right Turn 1 5.9% Run Off The Road 0 0.0% Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain 0 0.0% Fixed Object 0 0.0% Animal 0 0.0% Fog/Smog/Smoke 0 0.0% Head On 0 0.0% Other 0 0.0% Unspecified 0 0.0% Sideswipe 0 0.0% Unspecified 0 0.0% Total 17 Total 17 SURFACE # ACC % ACCIDENT SEVERITY # ACC % Dry 17 100.0% Fatal 0 0.0% Wet 0 0.0% Injury 3 17.6% Mud/Slush 0 0.0% Property Damage 14 82.4% Snow/Ice 0 0.0% Non -Reportable 0 0.0% Unspecified 0 0.0% Total 17 Total ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 TIME OF YEAR # ACC % TYPE OF VEHICLE # ACC % Winter (Dec -Feb) 3 17.6% Passenger Cars 36 100.0% Spring (Mar -May) 3 17.6% Commercial Vehicles 0 0.0% Summer (Jun -Aug) 5 29.4% Total 36 Fall (Sep -Nov) 6 35.3% Total ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 DAY OF WEEK # ACC % LIGHT CONDITION # ACC % Sunday 2 11.8% Daylight 17 100.0% Monday 1 5.9% Dawn/Dusk 0 0.0% Tuesday 4 23.5% Night 0 0.0% Wednesday 4 23.5% Unspecified 0 0.0% Thursday 2 11.8% Total 17 Friday 2 11.8% Saturday 2 11.8% Total 17 SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT SEVERITY BY YEAR: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Fatal Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 Injury Accidents 0 1 0 1 1 Property Damage Accidents 3 2 3 1 5 Non -Reportable Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 Total Accidents 3 3 3 2 6 l �SA +Sofi d are 3.(V 98 Number = I MUNICIPALITY: Mount Prospect COUNTY: Cook FILE: Central INTERSECTION: Central Road -Pine Street CASE #: PERIOD: 5 YEARS 0 MONTHS FROM 11112012 TO 1213112016 BY: MLD DATE: 511612017 1 -x -1--4--11-x-1 .......... ........... 1151 11E 19 18] 131 Pine Street 1121 - ................. Eastbound dilffik-�� Central Road I HSA &:)ftvvare::3,0 99 SYMBOLS MANNER OF COLLISION ........... 0 MOVING VEHICLE ID PEDESTRIAN REAR END HEAD ON TURNING VEHICLE 13 BICYCLIST LEFT TURN A RIGHT TURN BACKING VEHICLE A ANIMAL 4VII/I . ............... LEFT TURN RIGHT TURN PARKED VEHICLE FIXED OBJECT OVERTAKE RIGHT ANGLE RECORD NUMBER E-1 Fatal ,. . . ........... . �) OUT OF CONTROL irrSIDE SWIPE HSA &:)ftvvare::3,0 99 ROUTE: Central Road LOCATION: Emerson Street MUNICIPALITY: Mount Prospect COUNTY: Cook TIME PERIOD COVERED: 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2016 REFERENCE MARKERS / NODES 1 - 2 REMARKS: Selected Accidents DATE: 5/16/2017 TIME OF DAY # ACC % DIRECTION # ACC % DIRECTION # ACC 6 AM - 10 AM 7 20.0% North 24 33.3% Northeast 0 0.0% 10 AM - 4 PM 18 51.4% South 7 9.7% Northwest 0 0.0% 4 PM - 7 PM 8 22.9% East 13 18.1% Southeast 0 0.0% 7 PM - 12 AM 2 5.7% West 28 38.9% Southwest 0 0.0% 12 AM - 6 AM 0 0.0% Total 72 Unspecified 0 0.0% Unspecified 0 0.0% .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Total ................................................................3.5............................................................................... ACCIDENT TYPE # ACC % ACCIDENT TYPE # ACC WEATHER # ACC % Rear End 5 14.3% Pedestrian 0 0.0% Clear 31 88.6% Overtake 3 8.6% Bicycle 1 2.9% Cloudy 0 0.0% Right Angle 19 54.3% Parked Vehicle 0 0.0% Rain 0 0.0% Left Turn 2 5.7% Backing 2 5.7% Snow 0 0.0% Right Turn 3 8.6% Run Off The Road 0 0.0% Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain 0 0.0% Fixed Object 0 0.0% Animal 0 0.0% Fog/Smog/Smoke 0 0.0% Head On 0 0.0% Other 0 0.0% Unspecified 4 11.4% Sideswipe 0 0.0% Unspecified 0 0.0% Total 35 Total 35 SURFACE # ACC % ACCIDENT SEVERITY # ACC % Dry 31 88.6% Fatal 0 0.0% Wet 3 8.6% Injury 7 20.0% Mud/Slush 0 0.0% Property Damage 28 80.0% Snow/Ice 1 2.9% Non -Reportable 0 0.0% Unspecified 0 0.0% Total 35 Total ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 TIME OF YEAR # ACC % TYPE OF VEHICLE # ACC % Winter (Dec -Feb) 6 17.1% Passenger Cars 69 98.6% Spring (Mar -May) 11 31.4% Commercial Vehicles 1 1.4% Summer (Jun -Aug) 6 17.1% Total 70 Fall (Sep -Nov) 12 34.3% Total ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 DAY OF WEEK # ACC % LIGHT CONDITION # ACC % Sunday 3 8.6% Daylight 28 80.0% Monday 2 5.7% Dawn/Dusk 1 2.9% Tuesday 7 20.0% Night 6 17.1% Wednesday 5 14.3% Unspecified 0 0.0% Thursday 7 20.0% Total 35 Friday 6 17.1% Saturday 5 14.3% Total 35 SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT SEVERITY BY YEAR: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Fatal Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 Injury Accidents 1 1 1 3 1 Property Damage Accidents 8 3 7 6 4 Non -Reportable Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 Total Accidents 9 4 8 9 5 l �SA +Sofi d are 3.(V 100 puuuo� IVmuu „IIII IIS I I I ouuui I Key Number = 2 MUNICIPALITY: Mount Prospect COUNTY: Cook FILE: Central INTERSECTION: Central Road -Emerson Street CASE #: PERIOD: 5 YEARS 0 MONTHS FROM 1/1/2012 TO 12/31/2016 BY: MLD DATE: 5/16/2017 Eastbound Emerson Street yi'fffiu If I I_48 J` Central Road I milll�n�������������������������������������� �- 1---- 128130d 31 52� 38 40 43 1[ C[ Jf471 49 51 -20_�� 36_� q��f1N� 32 145_ HSA Software:3,0 101 SYMBOLS MANNER OF COLLISION 0 MOVING VEHICLE ID PEDESTRIAN ENDS°�i111p,niin HEAD ON TURNING VEHICLE 13 BICYCLIST LEFT TURN A RIGHT TURN �IniIV! n�iul l BACKING VEHICLE A ANIMALLEFT ,,,,,,,,,,,U, TURN ii„, RIGHT TURN PARKED VEHICLE FIXED OBJECT OVERTAKE RIGHT ANGLE 1>»�� [99� RECORD NUMBER 1 Fatal ,,�)„ OUT OF CONTROL irr!oP1 SIDE SWIPE HSA Software:3,0 101 Warrants Summary Central Road and Pine Street Page 1 of 2 Speed 35 Po ulation < 10,000 C....m.� P Warrants Summary oordinated Signal System Information al (ft) 760 E ear 3 C,� Adequate Trials of Alternatives 5 -yr Growth Factor 0 Analyst Marie Daboub RT Intersection Central Rd and Pine St Agency/Co Ciorba Group 2 Jurisdiction Mount Prospect Date Performed 5/24/2017 0 Units U.S. Customary Project ID 20689.01 LTR Time Period Analyzed 6am-6pm East/West Street Central Road North/South Street Pine St File Name Pine.xhy 789 Major Street East-West Project Description 20689.01 1 15 General I 2/0 -- -- lRoadway Network Speed 35 Po ulation < 10,000 C....m.� P Two Ma or Routes 1 oordinated Signal System Weekend Count C___r al (ft) 760 E ear 3 C,� Adequate Trials of Alternatives 5 -yr Growth Factor 0 Geometry and Traffic EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane usage LTR LTR LTR LTR Vehicle Volume Averages (vph) 13 819 6 5 789 9 2 1 10 1 1 15 Peds (ped/h) / Gaps (gaps/h) _ 2/0 -- -- 1 /0 -- -- 3/0 -- -- 3/0 -- Delay (s/veh) / (veh-hr) --1 0/0 -- -- 0/0 -- -- 0/0 -- -- 0/0 -- Warrant 1: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume 1 A. Minimum Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) --or-- ._._ 1 B. Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) --or-- ._._ 1 (80%) Vehicular --and-- Interruption Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 2: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume 2 A. Four -Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) ..... Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 A. Peak -Hour Conditions Minor dela and-- minor volume --and-- total volume or-- __ 3 B. Peak- Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) ._._ Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume 4 A. Four Hour Volumes --or-- 4 B. One -Hour Volumes Warrant 5: School Crossing 5. Student Volumes --and-- __ 5. Gaps Same Period __ Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System __ 6. Degree of Platoonin Predominant direction or both directions Warrant 7: Crash Experience 7 A. Adequate trials of alternatives, observance and enforcement failed --and-- 7 B. Reported crashes susceptible to correction by signal (12 -month period) --and-- ._._ 7 C. (80%) Volumes for Warrants 1 A, 1 B --or-- 4 are satisfied i[IX file:///C:/Users/mdaboub/AppData/Local/Temp/w2k973F.tmp 5/25/2017 Warrants Summary Warrant 8: Roadway Network Page 2 of 2 8 A. Weekday Volume Peak hour total --and-- projected warrants 1, 2 or 3 --or-- 18 B. Weekend Volume Five hours total Warrant 9: Grade Crossing 9 A. Grade Crossing within 140 ft --and-- 9 B. Peak -Hour Vehicular Volumes Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 5/25/2017 2:12 PM 104 file:///C:/Users/mdaboub/AppData/Local/Temp/w2k973F.tmp 5/25/2017 Central Road and Pine Street Leg Direction Start Time 2017-05-16 06:00:00 2017-05-16 07:00:00 2017-05-16 08:00:00 2017-05-16 09:00:00 2017-05-16 10:00:00 2017-05-16 11:00:00 2017-05-16 12:00:00 2017-05-16 13:00:00 2017-05-16 14:00:00 2017-05-16 15:00:00 2017-05-16 16:00:00 2017-05-16 17:00:00 Grand Total % Approach % Total Lights % Lights Articulated Trucks % Articulated Trucks Buses and Single -Unit Trucks % Buses and Single -Unit Trucks Bicycles on Road % Bicycles on Road North East South West Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound App Total App Total App Total App Total Int Total 17 519 6 713 1255 28 860 7 1121 2016 22 873 16 938 1849 21 658 18 808 1505 18 553 17 720 1308 14 663 21 668 1366 17 705 15 691 1428 16 682 16 666 1380 17 758 14 737 1526 24 1016 18 927 1985 17 1191 9 1014 2231 19 1187 13 1062 2281 230 9665 170 10065 20130 1.1 % 48.0% 0.8% 50.0% 223 9334 165 9705 19427 97.0% 96.6% 97.1% 96.4% 96.5% 0 86 0 83 169 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 6 244 5 269 524 2.6% 2.5% 2.9% 2.7% 2.6% 1 1 0 8 10 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Warrants Summary Central Road and Emerson Street Page 1 of 2 Speed 35 Po ulation < 10,000 C....m.� P Warrants Summary oordinated Signal System Information al (ft) 375 E ear 9 C,� Adequate Trials of Alternatives 5 -yr Growth Factor 0 Analyst Marie Daboub RT Intersection Central Rd and Emerson St Agency/Co Ciorba Group 2 Jurisdiction Village of Mount Prospect Date Performed 5/24/2017 0 Units U.S. Customary Project ID 20689.01 LTR Time Period Analyzed 6am-6pm East/West Street Central Road North/South Street Emerson Street File Name Emerson.xhy 683 Major Street East-West Project Description 20689.01 4 8 General I 6/0 -- -- lRoadway Network Speed 35 Po ulation < 10,000 C....m.� P Two Ma or Routes 1 oordinated Signal System Weekend Count C___r al (ft) 375 E ear 9 C,� Adequate Trials of Alternatives 5 -yr Growth Factor 0 Geometry and Traffic EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Lane usage LTR LTR LT R LTR Vehicle Volume Averages (vph) 4 713 98 63 683 7 19 11 66 2 4 8 Peds (ped/h) / Gaps (gaps/h) _ 6/0 -- -- 1 /0 -- -- 1 /0 -- -- 2/0 -- Delay (s/veh) / (veh-hr) 1 0/0 -- -- 0/0 -- -- O/ol 1 0/0 -- Warrant 1: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume 1 A. Minimum Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) --or-- ._._ 1 B. Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) --or-- ._._ 1 (80%) Vehicular --and-- Interruption Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 2: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume 2 A. Four -Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) ..... Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 A. Peak -Hour Conditions Minor dela and-- minor volume --and-- total volume or-- __ 3 B. Peak- Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) ._._ Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume 4 A. Four Hour Volumes --or-- 4 B. One -Hour Volumes Warrant 5: School Crossing 5. Student Volumes --and-- __ 5. Gaps Same Period __ Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System __ 6. Degree of Platoonin Predominant direction or both directions Warrant 7: Crash Experience 7 A. Adequate trials of alternatives, observance and enforcement failed --and-- 7 B. Reported crashes susceptible to correction by signal (12 -month period) --and-- ICS) 7 C. (80%) Volumes for Warrants 1 A, 1 B --or-- 4 are satisfied C7� file:///C:/Users/mdaboub/AppData/Local/Temp/w2k7A43.tmp 5/25/2017 Warrants Summary Warrant 8: Roadway Network Page 2 of 2 8 A. Weekday Volume Peak hour total --and-- projected warrants 1, 2 or 3 --or-- 18 B. Weekend Volume Five hours total Warrant 9: Grade Crossing 9 A. Grade Crossing within 140 ft --and-- 9 B. Peak -Hour Vehicular Volumes Copyright © 2014 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Version 6.65 Generated: 5/25/2017 4:01 PM `IIYA file:///C:/Users/mdaboub/AppData/Local/Temp/w2k7A43.tmp 5/25/2017 d d L co C O U) L d W C R O w i C 0) V N O (n N ti Ln Ln M Ln co M I- O o O o wo r o N O CO LO N M M M Ln o) N M r Ln OO r 00 IVM r r N r r r r r r r r N N 0 C) LD O N O O N r d9 H r Ln N Ln O r I` Ln O O O 4e 4e N � N� to -0-0 O N CO N O Ln M N r N CD M O CD o o LO 0 0 �r r O I- O t0 tD tD I- CO O O CO LCA CO 00 N to O 0 O r r r 67 00 C) co O N O W Q _0 m N O tD w I- it M w I- N N O WN NT 0 0 o m m m 0 0 0 N M CD o o o r -.-0 0 o4- r r r r r r co r M O Ln N o O r Ln r 00 O r O L F- O � Q L 0 O CO Z Q M N tD O I- I- M r W N W Ln r M r� O W Ln N r r N O N WtD 'r, Ile 00 tD G9 M 0 0 O O O 1� I- WLn to to LD ti M r N O r- r r r C1 w co r N O Q Iq d9 N !Z W Q 810O� O� M� I- r r N r r r r r r r r 00 M ti CD C M w O r O r N O M M � � O L ZU)Q N en u 3 V L M L yr O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O N V O O O O O O O O O O O O(n C Cfl I` w O O N M Ln Cfl I-- _ H0 W O O O O O r r r r r r r r t1 +O+ Cl)N C C N Cfl Cfl (.0(D (D (.0 co Cfl co O CO O r r r r r r r r r r r r 0) r O Q1 i i i i i i i i i i i i O N �' 7 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Im V N N V V U L I` I` C Q- O s V N � 4% r r r r r r r r r r r r :a Q H J Q N m m Q Cn N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 J Q m m 108 Central Road and Lancaster Street Pedestrian Counts Leg Start Time North Peds CW Peds CCW Peds CW East Peds CCW South Peds CW Peds CCW West Peds CW Peds CCW 2016-11-03 06:00:00 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 2016-11-03 07:00:00 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2016-11-03 08:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2016-11-03 09:00:00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016-11-03 10:00:00 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2016-11-03 11:00:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016-11-03 12:00:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2016-11-03 13:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2016-11-03 14:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2016-11-03 15:00:00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016-11-03 16:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2016-11-03 17:00:00 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 TOTAL 10 4 1 0 5 8 2 3 Note: CW = Clockwise crossing, CCW = Counterclockwise Crossing n Central Road and Cathy Lane Pedestrian Counts Leg Start Time North Peds CW Peds CCW Peds CW East Peds CCW South Peds CW Peds CCW West Peds CW Peds CCW 2016-11-03 06:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2016-11-03 07:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2016-11-03 08:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2016-11-03 09:00:00 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2016-11-03 10:00:00 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2016-11-03 11:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2016-11-03 12:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2016-11-03 13:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2016-11-03 14:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2016-11-03 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 2016-11-03 16:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2016-11-03 17:00:00 1 3 0 0 3 4 1 1 TOTAL 1 5 0 0 11 17 6 5 Note: CW = Clockwise crossing, CCW = Counterclockwise Crossing 3 3 3 Central Road and Pine Street Pedestrian Counts Leg Start Time North Peds CW Peds CCW Peds CW East Peds CCW South Peds CW Peds CCW West Peds CW Peds CCW 2017-05-16 06:00:00 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2017-05-16 07:00:00 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 2017-05-16 08:00:00 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 2017-05-16 09:00:00 0 1 0 0 4 5 4 3 2017-05-16 10:00:00 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2017-05-16 11:00:00 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2017-05-16 12:00:00 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 2017-05-16 13:00:00 2 0 0 1 2 4 1 1 2017-05-16 14:00:00 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 2017-05-16 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 2017-05-16 16:00:00 1 3 0 2 4 2 0 1 2017-05-16 17:00:00 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 TOTAL 20 15 5 8 18 21 13 9 Note: CW = Clockwise crossing, CCW = Counterclockwise Crossing 3 3 N Central Road and Emerson Street Pedestrian Counts Leg North Start Time Peds CW Peds CCW Peds CW East Peds CCW South Peds CW Peds CCW West Peds CW Peds CCW 2017-05-16 06:00:00 0 3 3 2 0 1 1 4 2017-05-16 07:00:00 2 3 1 0 0 1 2 5 2017-05-16 08:00:00 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 4 2017-05-16 09:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 2017-05-16 10:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 2017-05-16 11:00:00 0 1 0 0 1 1 6 1 2017-05-16 12:00:00 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2017-05-16 13:00:00 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 2017-05-16 14:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2017-05-16 15:00:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2017-05-1616:00:00 2 1 1 0 1 0 10 4 2017-05-1617:00:00 0 1 2 1 0 0 12 2 TOTAL 7 12 8 4 9 9 39 33 Note: CW = Clockwise crossing, CCW = Counterclockwise Crossing Central Road and William Street Pedestrian Counts Leg Start Time N Pine St Peds CW Peds CCW W Central Rd Peds CW Peds CCW N Pine St Peds CW Peds CCW W Central Rd Peds CW Peds CCW 2017-06-10 08:00:00 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2017-06-10 09:00:00 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2017-06-10 10:00:00 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2017-06-10 11:00:00 3 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 2017-06-10 12:00:00 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2017-06-10 13:00:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2017-06-10 14:00:00 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2017-06-10 15:00:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017-06-10 16:00:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017-06-10 17:00:00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 11 10 0 0 2 10 0 0 Note: CW = Clockwise crossing, CCW = Counterclockwise Crossing Central Road and Clayton Lane/ Horner Lane Pedestrian Counts Leg 0 North 0 East Start Time Peds CW Peds CCW Peds CW Peds CCW 2017-05-16 08:00:00 2 1 2 0 2017-05-16 09:00:00 2 1 0 0 2017-05-16 14:00:00 0 0 0 0 2017-05-16 15:00:00 0 1 1 0 TOTAL 4 3 3 0 Note: CW = Clockwise crossing, CCW = Counterclockwise Crossing South Peds CW Peds CCW 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 West Peds CW Peds CCW 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 Central Road at We Go Trail/Lancaster Street Recommended Improvements Estimated Construction Cost = $65,000 CIORBA GROUP; 7 Central Road at Cathy Lane Recommended Improvements Estimated Construction Cost = $70,000 CIORBA GROUP; ;;118 Central Road at Pine Street Recommended Improvements Estimated Construction Cost = $145,000 HECIORBA GROUP; ;;119 Central Road at Emerson Street Recommended Improvements Estimated Construction Cost = $50,000 CIORBA GROUP; 20 130 I� Ix Iw I I I MAST ARM LENGTH AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS MAST ARM LENGTH AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS SIGN PANEL - TYPE 2 SIGN PANEL - TYPE 2 CENTRAL ROAD (RI -9a) lRl-9a) _ _ _ T _---_ _______ -� ______ �- II II ______ ______________C_J_ II II_______________________________________________________________________J II II PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = $25,000 FOR 2 CANTILEVER ASSEMBLIES WITH SIGNS SECTION COUNTY lorba roup, InC. CENTRAL ROAD RTE.* SHE TS rv0. 0RAwry soRAwry-Rover REV ISEO VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT CANTILEVER SIGNS 1100 14 -00162 -00 -SP COOK xK enu-. sone ac = CxEIXEO - fCxK-ROxY REVISED - CONTRACT NO.K 888 Fax �r.,.,�s.ao� o* oonE=nizerza» OATE - EGIt the Pen R &E0 - I SCALE: I SHEET OF SHEETS Sin. i0 STA. .NO macer 3 N 3 *Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mph), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. **The raised median or crossing island must me at least 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide and 1.8 meters (6 feet) long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with MUTCD and Amerian Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked cross- walks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These loca- tions should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing im- provements, to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. 1i 123 Vehicle ADT < 9,000 Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT Vehicle ADT > 9,000-12,000 > 12,000-15,000 > 15,000 Speed Limit* Roadway Type (Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) < 48.3 56.4 64.4 < 48.3 56.4 64.4 < 48.3 56.4 64.4 < 48.3 56.4 64.4 km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h (30 (35 (40 (30 (35 (40 (30 (35 (40 (30 (35 (40 mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) mph) Two lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N Three lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N Multilane (four or more lanes) with raised median** C C P C P N P P N N N N Multilane (four or more lanes) without raised me- C P N P P N N N N N N N dian *Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mph), marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. **The raised median or crossing island must me at least 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide and 1.8 meters (6 feet) long to serve adequately as a refuge area for pedestrians, in accordance with MUTCD and Amerian Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked cross- walks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, and other factors may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum utilization of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) be confirmed at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These loca- tions should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk. N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased by providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic -calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing im- provements, to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. 1i 123 CIORBA GROUP Date: 7/19/2017 RECORD OF PHONE CALL Job No.: 20689.01 Time: 3:50 PM Project: Subject: Contact: Daryl Drew Representing: IDOT Incoming ❑ Outgoing Phone Number: By: Mark Johnson Conversation Summary: Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study Traffic Signals at Central/Emerson • 1 informed Daryl Drew at IDOT that the Central/Emerson intersection satisfied MUTCD Signal Warrant 7 — Crash Experience and asked if a signal could be provided at that location. I informed him that the Central/IL 83 signalized intersection was 1 block (approximately 370') west of Emerson and the proposed signals at Emerson (if installed) would have to be coordinated with the IL 83 Signals. • He stated that IDOT would not allow a signal at Central/Emerson since the Central/IL 83 intersection was too dose. The minimum distance that IDOT would consider for signalized intersection spacing would be 1,000'. • He stated that some concerns IDOT would have are: o Potential traffic queueing at one intersection could extend into the other intersection. o If the signal at the more distant intersection was green but the signal at the closer intersection was red, traffic approaching the closer intersection may travel through the red light because they see the green light at the distant intersection. 5507 N. Cumberland Avenue • Chicago, Illinois 60656 • Tel 773.775.4009 • Fax 773.775.4014 • www.ciorba.com 125 CIORBA GROUP Date: 7/20/2017 RECORD OF PHONE CALL Job No.: 20689.01 Time: 1:30 PM Project: Subject: Contact: Jim Stoner Representing: IDOT Incoming ❑ Outgoing Phone Number: By: Mark Johnson Conversation Summary: Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study School Speed Zones • 1 asked Jim Stoner at IDOT about what data or studies would be required to establish a school zone along Central Road. He asked what location was being considered and I mentioned the area near the Westbrook School which would include the Central crossing by Weller. • Jim stated that if a school zone was to be reestablished at this location, the rapid flashing beacon could only be operated during school hours on school days. It would not operate on weekends or during the summer when school was not in session. The Village would not be able to have both the reduced speed associated with a school zone and the rapid flashing beacon operating full time. 5507 N. Cumberland Avenue • Chicago, Illinois 60656 • Tel 773.775.4009 • Fax 773.775.4014 • www.ciorba.com 126 CIORBA GROUP Date: 7/21/2017 Time: 12:50 PM Contact: Representing Incoming ❑ Jeff Shaw ALTA011 Phone Number: By: Mark Johnson Conversation Summary: • ••• .1 RECORD OF PHONE CALL Job No.: 20689.01 Project: Central Road Pedestrian Crossing Study Subject: FHWA Unsignalized Crosswalk Guidelines I mentioned that Mount Prospect would like to improve the safety of some existing marked crosswalks that cross Central Road which is a multilane minor arterial with an ADT ranging from 12,000 to 23,000 vehicles per day. The majority of the roadway is under IDOT jurisdiction. The speed limit is 35 MPH. He said he was familiar with the Central Road corridor and had been at the area to perform a pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis of the area. • 1 mentioned an FHWA study from 2005 comparing the safety of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks for roadways matching Central Road. It indicates that marked crosswalks can be more dangerous than marked crosswalks and should only be provided if other treatments are added such as traffic -calming, signals, or other substantial improvements. Is this still the case? o He stated that the study provided data but did not provide the best way to implement improvements for existing crossings. The goal should not be to remove all existing striped crosswalks at unsignalized locations. However, a standard crosswalk with two transverse lines should not just be added at the crossing of a roadway with a high ADT. 5507 N. Cumberland Avenue • Chicago, Illinois 60656 • Tel 773.775.4009 • Fax 773.775.4014 • www.ciorba.com 127 July 27, 2017 I mentioned that Mt. Prospect plans on improving existing marked crossings by adding center medians, warning signs and highly visible crosswalks. Unfortunately, the crossing locations don't satisfy signal requirements. o He stated that medians with warning signs would improve crossing safety. Items such as a raised crosswalk might be good for pedestrians, but it would have impacts on arterial traffic which would probably not make it a preferable solution. Items to consider would be providing highly visible crosswalks (continental, ladder or zebra crosswalks), florescent yellow warning signs, oversized warning signs or signs mounted on a cantilever. Another possibility is providing high friction asphalt in advance of the crosswalk to decrease the stopping distance of a vehicle. The stop distance would be based on AASHTO design guidelines. • 1 asked if there is any advantage to providing a background color between crosswalk stripes. o He stated that a background color can be provided between the white crosswalk lines but there is no evidence that it makes the crossing safer. Green could not be used since this color is reserved for bike lanes. • 1 asked if he could provide any information regarding national or statewide pedestrian/bicyclist crash data. o He stated that Lisa Heaven -Baum (IDOT District 1) or Filiberto Sotelo (IDOT Central Office) would be the best people to provide this information. • Page 2 128 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities U.S. Department of Transportation Transit, Highway, and Safety Funds Revised August 12, 2016 This table indicates potential eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle projects under U.S. Department of Transportation surface transportation funding programs. Additional restrictions may apply. See notes and basic program requirements below, and see program guidance for detailed requirements. Project sponsors should fully integrate nonmotorized accommodation into surface transportation projects. Section 1404 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act modified 23 U.S.C. 109 to require federally -funded projects on the National Highway System to consider access for other modes of transportation, and provides greater design flexibility to do so. Key: $ = Funds may be used for this activity (restrictions may apply). $* = See program -specific notes for restrictions. —$ = Eligible, but not competitive unless part of a larger project. Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities U.S. Department of Transportation Transit, Highway, and Safety Funds Activity or Project Type TIGER TIFIA FTA ATI CMAQ HSIP NHPP STBG TA RTP SRTS PLAN NHTSA 402 NHTSA 405 FLTTP Access enhancements to public transportation (includes benches, bus pads) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ADA/504 Self Evaluation / Transition Plan $ $ $ $ $ Bicycle plans $ $ $ $ $ $ Bicycle helmets (project or training related) $ $SRTS $ $* Bicycle helmets (safety promotion) $ $SRTS $ Bicycle lanes on road $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bicycle parking _$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bike racks on transit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bicycle share (capital and equipment; not operations) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bicycle storage or service centers at transit hubs _$ _$ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bridges / overcrossings for pedestrians and/or bicyclists $ $ $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Bus shelters and benches $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Coordinator positions (State or local) $ 1 per State $ $SRTS $ Crosswalks (new or retrofit) $ $ $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Curb cuts and ramps $ $ $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Counting equipment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $* $ Data collection and monitoring for pedestrians and/or bicyclists $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $* $ Historic preservation (pedestrian and bicycle and transit facilities) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Landscaping, streetscaping (pedestrian and/or bicycle route; transit access); related amenities (benches, water fountains); generally as part of a larger project _$ _$ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lighting (pedestrian and bicyclist scale associated with p edestrian/bicyclist project) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Maps (for pedestrians and/or bicyclists) $ $ $ $ $ $ $* Paved shoulders for pedestrian and/or bicyclist use $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ 130 Key: $ = Funds may be used for this activity (restrictions may apply). $* = See program -specific notes for restrictions. —$ = Eligible, but not competitive unless part of a larger project. U.S. Department Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities of Transportation Transit, Highway, and Safety Funds Activity or Project Type TIGER TIFIA FTA ATI CMAQ HSIP NHPP STBG TA RTP SRTS PLAN NHTSA 402 NHTSA 405 FLTTP Pedestrian plans $ $ $ $ $ $ Recreational trails $ $ $ $ Road Diets (pedestrian and bicycle portions) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Road Safety Assessment for pedestrians and bicyclists $ $ $ $ $ Safety education and awareness activities and programs to inform pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on ped/bike safety $SRTS $SRTS $ $* $* $* Safety education positions $SRTS $SRTS $ $* Safety enforcement (including police patrols) $SRTS $SRTS $ $* $* Safety program technical assessment (for peds/bicyclists) $SRTS $SRTS $ $* $ Separated bicycle lanes $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Shared use paths / transportation trails $ $ $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Sidewalks (new or retrofit) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Signs / signals / signal improvements $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Signed pedestrian or bicycle routes $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Spot improvement programs $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Stormwater impacts related to pedestrian and bicycle projects $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Traffic calming $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Trail bridges $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Trail construction and maintenance equipment $RTP $RTP $ Trail/highway intersections $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Trailside and trailhead facilities (includes restrooms and water, but not general park amenities; see guidance) _$* $* $* $* $ Training $ $ $ $ $ $ $* $* Training for law enforcement on ped/bicyclist safety laws $SRTS $SRTS $ $* Tunnels / undercrossings for pedestrians and/or bicyclists $ $ $ $ $* $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Abbreviations ADA/504: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 / Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grant program TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (loans) FTA: Federal Transit Administration Capital Funds ATE Associated Transit Improvement (1% set-aside of FTA) Com: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program NHPP: National Highway Performance Program STBG: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program TA: Transportation Alternatives Set -Aside (formerly Transportation Alternatives Program) RTP: Recreational Trails Program SRTS: Safe Routes to School Program / Activities PLAN: Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) or Metropolitan Planning fiords NHTSA 402: State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program NHTSA 405: National Priority Safety Programs (Nonmotorized safety) FLTTP: Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs (Federal Lands Access Program, Federal Lands Transportation Program, Tribal Transportation Program, Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects) Prouram-specific notes Federal -aid funding programs have specific requirements that projects must meet, and eligibility must be determined on a case-by-case basis. For example: 131 • TIGER: Subject to annual appropriations. • TIFIA: Program offers assistance only in the form of secured loans, loan guarantees, or standby lines of credit, but can be combined with other grant sources, subject to total Federal assistance limitations. • FTA/ATI: Project funded with FTA transit funds must provide access to transit. See Bikes and Transit and the FTA Final Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycleprovements under Federal Transit Law. o Bicycle infrastructure plans and projects funded with FTA funds must be within a 3 mile radius of a transit stop or station, or if further than 3 miles, must be within the distance that people could be expected to safely and conveniently bike to use the particular stop or station. o Pedestrian infrastructure plans and projects funded with FTA funds must be within a'/ mile radius of a transit stop or station, or if further than % mile, must be within the distance that people could be expected to safely and conveniently walk to use the particular stop or station. o FTA funds cannot be used to purchase bicycles for bike share systems. o FTA encourages grantees to use FHWA funds as a primary source for public right-of-way projects. • CMAQ projects must demonstrate emissions reduction and benefit air quality. See the CMAQ guidance at www.thwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality /meq/ for a list of projects that may be eligible for CMAQ funds. Several activities may be eligible for CMAQ funds as part of a bicycle and pedestrian -related project, but not as a highway project. CMAQ funds may be used for shared use paths, but may not be used for trails that are primarily for recreational use. • HSIP projects must be consistent with a State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan and either (1) correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature, or (2) address a highway safety problem. • NHPP projects must benefit National Highway System (NHS) corridors. • STBG and TA Set -Aside: Activities marked "$SRTS" means eligible only as an SRTS project benefiting schools for kindergarten through 8th grade. Bicycle transportation nonconstruction projects related to safe bicycle use are eligible under STBG, but not under TA (23 U.S.C. 217(a)). • RTP must benefit recreational trails, but for any recreational trail use. RTP projects are eligible under TA and STBG, but States may require a transportation purpose. • SRTS: FY 2012 was the last year for SRTS funds, but SRTS funds are available until expended. • Planning funds must be used for planning purposes, for example: o Maps: System maps and GIS; o Safety education and awareness: for transportation safety planning; o Safety program technical assessment: for transportation safety planning; o Training: bicycle and pedestrian system planning training. • Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation Programs (FLTTP) projects must provide access to or within Federal or tribal lands: o Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP): Open to State and local entities for projects that provide access to or within Federal or tribal lands. o Federal Lands Transportation Program: For Federal agencies for projects that provide access within Federal lands. o Tribal Transportation Program: available for federally -recognized tribal governments for projects within tribal boundaries and public roads that access tribal lands. • NHTSA 402 project activity must be included in the State's Highway Safety Plan. Contact the State Highway Safety Office for details: hitp://www. hg sa.org/html/about/shsos.html • NHTSA 405 funds are subject to State eligibility, application, and award. Project activity must be included in the State's Highway Safety Plan. Contact the State Highway Safety Office for details: http://www. hg sa.org/html/about/shsos.html Cross -cutting notes • FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Guidance: http://www.thwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/ • Applicability of 23 U.S.C. 217(i) for Bicycle Projects: 23 U.S.C. 217(i) requires that bicycle facilities "be principally for transportation, rather than recreation, purposes". However, sections 133(b)(6) and 133(h) list "recreational trails projects" as eligible activities under STBG. Therefore, the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 217(i) does not apply to recreational trails projects (including for bicycle use) using STBG funds. Section 217(i) continues to apply to bicycle facilities other than trail -related projects, and section 217(i) continues to apply to bicycle facilities using other Federal -aid Highway Program funds (NHPP, HSIP, CMAQ). The transportation requirement under section 217(i) is applicable only to bicycle projects; it does not apply to any other trail use or transportation mode. • There may be occasional DOT or agency incentive grants for specific research or technical assistance purposes. • Aspects of many DOT initiatives may be eligible as individual projects. For example, activities above may benefit Ladders of Opportunity; safe, comfortable, interconnected networks, environmental justice, equity; etc. 132 P fJ 1 W CA) Highway Safety Section402--State Transportation High -Priority Congestion Mitigation and Surface Transportation Safe Routes to School Recreational Traits Program Improvement and Community Motor Fuel Tax Enhancements Projects Air Quality Improvement Program Program Highway Safety Grant Program Local Grant IDOT State or Federal CMAP Northwest Council of IDOT IDNR IDOT IDOT IDOT Administrator Government Mayors To foster cultural, historic, To fund key To enable and encourage To develop and maintain To fund highway aesthetic, and transportation projects To improve air quality and children to walk and cycle recreational trails and trail- infrastructure safety To create safety To fund state and local Program reduce traffic congestion in To fund state and local to school through projects aimed at programs aimed at Purpose environmental aspects of deemed important by areas that do not meet air road and transit projects education, encouragement, related facilities far both reducing highway reducing traffic road and transit our transportation elected officials quality standards enforcement, engineering, nonmotorized and motorized fatalities and serious crashes projects infrastructure (earmarks) and evaluation strategies recreational trail uses injuries All bike/ped infrastructure All bike/ped Most bike/ped Eligible that has a relationship to infrastructure or as infrastructure, including All bike/ped infrastructure Bike traits. traitside, and Bike lanes, bike Most bike/ped Infrastructure surface transportation (as dictated in the bike paths, lanes, racks. All bike/ped infrastructure within atwo-mile radius of trailhead facilities, both parking, crosswalks. None infrastructure opposed to recreation authorizing legislation lockers, and bike sharing a K-8 school development and maintenance and signage alone) programs States can spend 10% Safety programs such Encouragement, Safety and environmental of their HSIP funds on as bike or pedestrian Eligible Non- Safety and educational As As dictated in the Most bike/ped safety and enforcement, and education; assessment of trail public awareness safety education, Infrastructure programs for pedestrians legislation education programs None education activities, for conditions; state program campaigns, education helmet distribution, or None and cyclists children in grades K-8 administration programs, and distribution of safety enforcement activities information 30% of state's funding must be used for nonmotorized trail projects; 30% for motorized; 40% Minor distinctions 1) Must be spent in non- for projects that encourage Project must address Project must address between allowable Key Project Must relate to surface No official attainment and maintenance N/A Requires a state -approved diversity of use of trail corridor, Highs written in State goals written in State uses for counties, Requirements transportation requirements areas; 2) Will be evaluated school travel plan trailhead, etc.; projects Highway Safety Plan Highway Safely Plan townships, and on air quality encouraged to have municipalities environmental benefit and use specified in statute youth conservation and service corps Irregular Specified in federal Timing under review. Irregular Irregular Annual updates to plan Funds distributed by IDOT Application schedule at call of Illinois Department of surface transportation Generally, an annual call for proposals by Chicago Varies at call of local schedule at call of Illinois Department of schedule at call of Illinois Department of Natural and calls for proposals Generally each spring at call of IDOT Division on monthly basis to counties and certain Process bill (may be change in council of governments by IDOT Division of Transportation annual appropriations) Metropolitan Agency for Planning Transportation Resources Traffic Safety of Traffic Safety local governments on a formula basis No match required but Local Match local government is Typically 20% None Typically 20% 20% None Typically 20%; some 50% 10% Typically 20% required to have Required certain minimum tax rate P fJ 1 W CA) Central Road, Northwest Highway and Prospect Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Concept In 2013, the Village of Mount Prospect developed a Downtown Implementation Plan. The suggested improvements to the Central Road intersections at Northwest Highway and Prospect Avenue are shown in Figure 3. Comments pertaining to each leg of the intersection crosswalk improvement concept are noted below. Figure 3. Mount Prospect Downtown Implementation Plan, Central Road and Northwest Highway and Prospect Avenue West Leg- Central Road • Concept plan provides a pedestrian refuge island, which allows a more defined and safer area for pedestrians. It also allows pedestrians to just cross one direction of traffic at a time. • The crosswalk is moved closer to the tracks, it will likely be within the railroad right of way. The railroad and ICC may have an issue with this design. • It is preferred to have a slight skew within a refuge island so pedestrians are guided to face oncoming traffic. • The trees in the refuge island may hide pedestrians from the view of the motorists. South Leg — Prospect Avenue • The east/west crosswalk is at a stop location along the south side of Central Road. This seems better than the existing location at Hi Lusi Avenue. 135 • This concept removes the right turn lane along Prospect Avenue. This may result in reduced traffic flow for left turning vehicles. This could impact traffic flow efficiency and may require additional green time for Prospect Avenue traffic. • The southbound lane width is decreased, which may result in turning vehicles encroaching into the northbound lane. South Lea — Northwest Highway • There is a shorter crosswalk distance, not on skew. The crosswalk is decreased from 130 feet to 60 feet. • The pedestrian refuge island allows more defined refuge for pedestrians after crossing two to three lanes of traffic. It also allows pedestrians to just cross one direction of traffic at a time. The island may need to be widened to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. • The crosswalk is set back from the intersection. This will increase the distance for east/west travelers to walk to get to the crosswalk. Pedestrians might not use this. • Since the crosswalk is far from the edge of Central Road's travel way, an additional pedestrian crossing sign should be installed along Central Road. • There is poor sight distance for northbound drivers turning left. With the existing signal configuration, the left turn signal would be approximately 250 feet away from the proposed stop bar location. • The proposed northbound left turn stop bar location is shifted approximately 50 feet away from its existing location. This provides for a left turn storage length significantly less than the 100 feet currently provided. The proposed stop bar location will also require more time for vehicles to complete a left turn. This could impact traffic flow efficiency. • The existing left turn signal is difficult to see. A left turn signal on a mast arm may improve this. • Proposed sidewalk along the west side of Northwest Highway might be within railroad right of way. The railroad and ICC may have concerns with this. East Lea- Central Road • Concept plan provides a pedestrian refuge island, which allows a more defined area for pedestrians after crossing two lanes of traffic. It also allows pedestrians to just cross one direction of traffic at a time. 136