Portland, Maine CMAQ application, annotated

If you have looked at the DPW application for funds and it seemed OK, try this one: it has the problems denoted in red. I've removed the page numbers and formatting so as to fill the space.

STEVENS AVENUE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY

(CMAQ)

APPLICATIONS

FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. CM‑6869(00)/PIN 6869.00

This booklet contains copies of the CMAQ applications filed by the City of Portland with the State of Maine, for funding the Stevens‑Avenue Traffic Calming Project

Prepared by The Alliance for Transportation Choice

P.O. Box 10625, Portland ME 04.104 IA 8 71‑9228

July 21, 1997

(Editors note: compiled 10/1999, from booklet found at Burbank library, Portland, Maine.)

CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST FORM Copies to be submitted (with supporting material) at least 12 days before Council meeting: Copies to:

Nadeen Daniels. Assistant City Manager/Director P W
William J Bray, Deputy Director PW
Sonia Bean, Secretary‑ City Manager
Elizabeth Boynton, Corporation Council
MaryAnn Conroy, Principal Traffic Engineer (original)
Mary's job prior to being the City Traffic Engineer was running a Gibson Girl charm school

(William Bray signature)

William J. Bray, Dep. Director PW Date

1. Council Meeting at which action is requested: Date: March 18, 1996

2. Can action be taken at a later date? No. If no, why not? Trial Project Improvements need to be completed this summer

If there is a memo addressing the following issues. you may attach and reference the memo, but please highlight it so staff can easily answer I ‑ V

I. SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

In July of 1994, the City, applied for special Federal Highway Improvement funds for Traffic Calming Improvements for Stevens Avenue. We requested $287,000 of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to complete temporary and permanent improvements along this arterial as well as an education program (see attachment A).

In October of 1994, Dana Connors, then Commissioner of the Maine Department of Transportation, selected the City's project for traffic Calming Improvements" for Stevens Avenue for funding. The City/state Agreement formalizes the details of the grant acceptance by the City (see attachment B).

This project was defined in detail for the Public Safety Committee on January 10th and at a City Council Workshop on January 29th, 1996.

II. REASON FOR SUBMISSION: (What issue / problem will this address?)

The City/State Agreement must be accepted and approved by the Portland City Council prior to expenditure of funds.

III. INTENDED RESULT: (How does it resolve the issue/problem?)

Favorable City Council action will permit the proposed project to proceed forward. The Memorandum of Agreement will be signed by both parties, at that time, a contract will be prepared for a qualified consulting engineering firm to complete the necessary design work. Public Works, Traffic staff will be overseeing the project. 'The temporary improvements are scheduled to be implemented before start of the 1996‑97 school year.

IV. FINANCIAL IMPACT:

As detailed in Section II.A, in the Memorandum of Agreement, the City is obligated to pay 19.72% of the cost of the project or a total of $56,596.40. Under terms of the Agreement, the City is eligible for reimbursement of all expenses incurred on the project excluding administration, supervision and overhead. The FY95 CIP has identified $25,000 for this project. The FY96 CIP has identified the remaining $33,000.

V. STAFF ANALYSIS& RECOMMENDATION:

Public Works Traffic Section personnel submit this Agreement for approval from the City Council. A major effort has been put forth 'in preparation of the grant application, as well as lobbying both MDOT and FHWA for approval of the project.

We feel that the improvements and test program will teach us valuable information on traffic calming standards and details as well as improve pedestrian safety. Therefore, we recommend approval of the attached Memorandum of Agreement.

Attachment(s)

Prepared by:

MaryAnn Conroy, Principal Traffic Engineer Date

MEMORANDUM‑TRAFFIC

DATE: March 6, 1996

TO: Bob Ganley, City Manager

FROM: Nadeen Daniels, Director of Public Works

RE: Stevens Avenue Traffic Calming Project

CC: Councilor Harlow

Councilor Kane

Sonia Bean, Secretary ‑ City Manager

Elizabeth Boynton, Corporation Council

William I Bray, Deputy Director PW

Bruce Bell, Operations Manager

Mary Ann Conroy, Principal Traffic Engineer

Joe Gray, ‑Planning

Paula Craighead, resident

The Traffic Section requests that the attached Council Order be submitted at the March 18th Council Meeting.

Since 1992, the Traffic Staff has been working with the Stevens Avenue area residents, businesses and other City Staff to study pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular movement on Stevens Avenue.

The study was initiated at the request of the neighborhood residents who are concerned about safety issues along Stevens Avenue. The safety issue was exasperated on January 7, 1992, when a crossing guard in a crosswalk was struck by a vehicle which "failed to yield". This is an overstatement: the guard was almost hit, when a car that was rear-ended got pushed into the crosswalk by the car behind it. This incident generated Paula Craighead's letter to DPW head George Flaherty.

Stevens Avenue passes through a densely developed residential neighborhood which includes the presence of 2,500 school children, residents, an elderly complex, churches and a central business district. All of which really don't make much of a difference to a traffic engineer. Conditions are conditions.

Specifically, the neighborhood asked that we research and review the traffic control measures that could (1) effectively slow down traffic, (2) improve pedestrian mobility, and (3) improve overall safety along this area. Seeing that slow traffic was already the problem (see letter above) , this is disingenuous and makes no sense, if you knew what was going on.

The development of the mitigation strategies required continuous involvement of a Study Committee, a team of consultants and the community. This diverse group insured development of a product which would accomplish the identified goals and also be acceptable to the community. Except that the only people from the community were the 30 supporting the project. 526 people, including all businesses and residents actually on Stevens signed a petition against the project. Those petitions were "lost" by the city clerks office within a week of filing.

The Study Committee consisted of (15) residents, (5) school officials, (6) business owners, and (9) staff. Several public meetings, one on one meetings and Committee Meetings took place periodically. Again, only supporters were allowed in. Staff were made to do their job, if they had qualms about the project.

Over the four year review process, we have jointly developed a plan of action to implement "Traffic Calming" measures along Stevens Avenue. We have completed our final report and preliminary designs.

In July 1994, the City applied for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for Traffic Calming Improvements for a total cost of $287,000. In October of 1994, MDOT approved and funded 80% of the project.

The attached City/State Agreement formalizes the details of the grant acceptance by the City. The City is responsible for 20% of the total project cost or $57,400. The 95 CIP included $25,000 for this project and the 96 CIP included the remaining $33,000.

The plan includes three distinctive areas: (1) temporary improvements and monitoring, (2) permanent improvements, and (3) an Educational program. The permanent improvements will be determined in detail after careful review of the monitoring data.

The temporary improvements (the asphalt berms) were so unpopular they lasted only 3 weeks before they were taken out. In actuality the“temporary" improvements were never meant to be removed. Calling them“improvements" also implies that they are such, which the changes manifestly were not. The consequent monitoring program and MDOT accident data showed an 8% drop in both pedestrians and bikers, in addition to a 58% increase in accidents, and a pollution increase of more than 450 tons a year. . The "careful review" showed that the whole thing was a disaster. By that time, nobody wanted to take responsibility for it, so it sits on the road today like the political hot potato it was and is.

The results of this project significantly interest all municipalities in the State of Maine as well as MDOT. Some of these transportation concepts are very innovative for our region. Therefore, we have included a very extensive and detailed monitoring program to test the temporary improvements prior to any permanent construction on this project Results of said monitoring program, in addition to public opposition were ignored .

The Executive Summary prepared by the team of Consultants was submitted and presented to the Public Safety Committee on January 10th and the full City Council at their January 29th Workshop.

The Traffic Section recommends approval of the proposed City Council Order. It was "recommend it or lose your job".

CONGESTION MITIGATION/AIR QUALITY

PROGRAM APPLICATION

FOR

STEVENS AVENUE

PORTLAND, MAINE

SUBMITTED BY

CITY OF PORTLAND

I.4 Project Type

Based upon the categories contained in the CMAQ Proposal Selection Policy, the project is applicable to the following categorie

Type: Transportation Control Measures

              (ix) programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the
              convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas; never built- school kids are
              not allowed to ride their bikes to any school in Portland other than Lyseth. (March 2015 update:
              some kids now do- the policy was changed about 2009).

(x) programs and ordinances to facilitate non‑automobile travel, provision and utilization of mass transit, and to generally reduce the need for single‑occupant vehicle travel, as part of transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity. Empty verbiage: there was no money for any of this at the time, and it was never done.

Type 3: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Programs

Construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and traffic calming measures to enhance the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Never built. Considering that there have been NO pedestrian or bicycle oriented problems with Stevens in over 60 years, this is misleading.

I.5 Project Description

The CMAQ funds will be used to implement traffic calming measures along portions of Stevens Avenue. Traffic calming incorporates physical alterations of the street along with signage to decrease speeds and increase the safety of both motorized and non‑motorized traffic.

This project will be a demonstration project of traffic calming measures on a minor arterial with an Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume of 14,500 vehicles per day through a neighborhood with numerous institutional uses including public schools (2,500 school children), colleges, churches, and elderly housing. The information learned from the project will be utilized for projects in other communities throughout the state and the northeast. Hopefully not. It's useless; known for years.

14,500 cars a day does not equate to a minor arterial. Just 3,000 cars a day makes it a major arterial, according to the AASHTO Green Book, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Adding that it is a primary emergency vehicle access route, and a transit route, --it's not a minor arterial in any way, and the DPW knew it. But they were being forced to comply.

The permanent and temporary traffic calming plan which the funds will be used to construct are included in the back of this application and include the following construction.

a. Construction of permanent traffic calming measures on Stevens Avenue south of Pleasant Street to north of Woodford Street. Traffic calming, measures planned for this section include:

Textured and/or colored pavement in the parallel parking lane to visually narrow the street width Bollards at neck downs to channelize pedestrian traffic A raised crosswalk directly in front of the Longfellow school Ten foot wide flush crosswalks with interlocking concrete pavers at various points along the corridor Tree plantings (to be furnished by the City) Signage (to be furnished by the City)

b. Construction of permanent traffic calming measures in front of the Lincoln Middle School consisting of the following:

Extended raised area of Stevens Avenue fronting the school. Neck downs with bollards Five ten foot wide flush crosswalks with interlocking concrete pavers. Signage (to be furnished by the City). Tree plantings (to be furnished by the City)

c. Temporary traffic calming measures on Stevens Avenue between Pleasant Street and Lincoln School:

d. Topographic survey for the areas where the permanent traffic calming measures are planned.

e. A monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of both the permanent and temporary traffic calming measures. This monitoring will include air quality testing. The quality of which was ignored in the end. Below you will find reference to "removal" of the project if the air quality is worsened. That didn't happen

f. To design both the permanent and temporary measures.

g. A city wide educational and marketing project in the adjacent schools to promote public awareness
of the transportation mode choice/air quality relationship. Which was never done

I.6 Estimated Project Costs

1.6.a Construction Costs

A complete construction cost estimate is included as Attachment 2 to this application.

I.6.b Amount of CMAQ request

In addition to the construction costs in areas where the permanent plan will be implemented, CMAQ funds are requested to design the permanent plan; to install and monitor a temporary devices plan which will be reflective of the permanent traffic calming for the balance of the corridor, and for an educational program. The temporary devices will be in place for a period of 12 months during which time a traffic study replicating that of the Phase I Traffic Study analysis will be performed to test the effectiveness of the measures. The data collected from this monitoring program will be utilized not only to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed permanent plan on Stevens Avenue, but can be transferred to other communities and arterials throughout the State.

The “temporary devices” were a series of asphalt berms (see photos) that were so poorly operationally designed that they lasted just 3 weeks before public outcry forced them off the road. The public did not like the design configuration, as it was ugly, created mobility hazards, and decreased safety for their children.
The "educational" program never materialized.
The tables were left on the road for a year, and were re-studied, but only after I went in the last part of April 1998 to ask when the studies were being done (just curious!) . There was a big "OOPS" at DPW, and they got right out there. They actually did the study twice, once in April, then, realizing that "conditions" weren't the same, did them again a month later in May, which was when the first study was done.
All of the data was ignored, so things never changed.

The amount of CMAQ funds requested are as follows:

Construction Cost $ 214,000.00

Education Program 10,000.00

Monitoring ‑ Evaluation of Pilot Program 15,000.00

Temporary Improvements 30,000.00

Engineering & Survey for Permanent Improvements 18,000.00

Total Requested $ 287,000.00

The total project costs are $287,000.00 and the amount of CMAQ funds requested are 80% of this amount, or $229,600.00.

I.6.c Amount of Non‑Federal Match

The City of Portland will provide 20% of the project funds, $57,400.00, as the local match. In addition to these monies, the City will provide the landscaping improvements.

1.7 Post CMAQ Funding

When the permanent traffic calming improvements planned for Stevens Avenue are completed, the City of Portland will maintain the street. The City agrees to maintain the temporary measures for a 24 month period. If a subsequent grant is not approved, then the City agrees to remove the temporary measures*. A letter from the commitment from the City is attached to this application as Attachment 3.

(*Which sounds nice, but as DPW head William Bray told a caller one day "The humps were never meant to be removed.” Removal was a lie to get funding. The “subsequent grant” was not approved , as air pollution went up 46% (city) or 400-600% (FHWA).)

1.8 Proposed Construction/Implementation Schedule

Should the project receive CMAQ funding, the following implementation schedule will be followed:

Traffic Calming Event Beginning Date Completion Date

Survey and Design Improvement 10/1/95 4/l/96

Implement Permanent &

Temporary Measures 4/l/96 8/l/96

Monitor Permanent &

Temporary Measures 3/1/96 7/1/97

I.9 Matching Funds

The City of Portland will provide the non‑federal CMAQ cost share of $57,400.00. A letter from the City is included as Attachment 3.

I.10 Who Would Design and Construct/Implement This Project?

A qualified professional will be retained to design the project through a qualification‑based contract selection procedure. These professionals will be selected through a formal Request for Proposals and interview procedure complying with local State and Federal guidelines. The project construction will be publicly advertised for bid to contractors including the City's new public works construction company and the lowest qualified bidder will be awarded a contract to implement the project.

The qualified professional also got told what the city wanted to hear, and supplied it .

Part 11 ‑ Specific Information

II.A.1 Initial Ozone Precursor Reductions

Data used in analysis

Traffic calming measures should reduce the average travel speed by up to 10 mph

The AADT on Stevens Avenue is 14,500 vehicles per day

Traffic calming generally encourages more use of walking, bicycles and calmer driving. Based on data published in Germany, a 10-mile reduction in speed through traffic calming reduces idle time by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14% and gasoline use by 12%. In other words, driving in third gear slowly is better than high revving second gear. No kidding.

Based upon the above experience, and a study entitled "Winning Back the Cities" by Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, it is assumed there will be no change in VOC emission and a 32% reduction in NOX.“Winning Back the Cities” is an Australian document written in 1982, and is wrong in its conclusions, according to the EPA. The link above takes you to 3 paragraphs in a 49-page "document" - this is the entire justification from WBC cited by the city for funding.

This "Buxtehude, Germany study” and “Winning” are the only environmental data offered as evidence of air improvement anywhere in this application, and they are both wrong, according to the EPA. For a look at Buxtehude, go here.

It is assumed that traffic calming will reduce the local trips by 7.5%.

Estimated VOC reduction: None

Estimated NOX reduction:

NOX emission at 35 mph = 2.14 grams/mile traveled.

Notice the speed used to calculate the air quality improvement!
Note that this is NOT the speed at which supporters want people to travel; it’s the speed that is the slowest most efficient speed to travel at! Slower speeds generate much more pollution! They want people to do 15 MPH! Using that speed would send pollution through the ceiling, and DPW knows this.

2.14 x 0.32 = 0.68 grams/vehicle reduction per traveled mile

Corridor length = 3,950/5,280 = 0.75 miles

0.68 grams x 0.75mi x 14,500 vehicles x 0.925 x I kg. = 6.8 kg/day

veh. Mile day 1,000g

Additional benefits of 7.5% reduction in local trips:
What they are talking about here is reduction in truck traffic. Might include emergency vehicles also.

0.075 x 2.14 grams x 0.75

bv x 14.500 veh x 1kg =1.75 kg/day

veh. mile day 1,000g

'Total 6.8 + .75 = 8.55 kg,/day

II.A‑2 Potential Long‑Term Air Quality Benefits

Estimated VOC Reduction:

None

“None” is exactly right- because VOC outputs went UP 46%!

Estimated NOX Reduction:

8.55 kg/day (see calculations for initial)

This daily estimated reduction in NOX will continue throughout the 20 year design life of the project provided the temporary measures also are later implemented on a permanent basis.

II.A.3 Benefit/Cost Ratio

Estimated VOC Benefit Cost Ratio:

0 grams/day/$1

Estimated NOX Benefit Cost Ratio:

= 8.55 kg/day x 1,000 gm/kg = 8,550 gms/day

= 8,550/$229,600 = 0.037 gms/federal CMAQ dollar

Again, all based upon a speed of 35 MPH, which is not going to happen.
This is science fiction.

II.B Qualitative Analysis

This "general belief " exists because it has been known for over 25 years by traffic and environmental engineers that the slower traffic goes, the more it pollutes. Seeing that traffic calming slows traffic, Portland traffic engineers would know this. There is lots of experience nationwide on how slower traffic generates more pollution. The published data quoted (though not shown) is wrong, according to the EPA.

This demonstration project will offer the opportunity to document the air quality changes associated with traffic calming. Many of the significant traffic calming projects in Europe have been sponsored as demonstration projects by both the local and federal governments to test the effect of calming on key environmental

Research on traffic calming in Europe shows that in built up areas the

higher the vehicle speed, the greater the frequency of acceleration,

deceleration and braking, all of which add to air pollution. Contrasting this

study is German evidence showing that in residential areas idle times are

reduced by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and ‑gasoline by

12% due to the effects of slower, calmer and more uniform driving. In

Buxtehude, Germany, which has a population of 33,000 people. A traffic

calming demonstration project documented changes in different types of

emissions for two styles of driving when the speed was reduced from 30 to

18 mph.

Again, the erroneous Buxtehude study…….

Driving Style

Emission Type 2nd Gear Aggressive 3rd Gear Calm

CO ‑17% -13%

HC ‑10% ‑22%

NOX ‑32% ‑48%

Fuel Consumption +7% ‑7%

In addition to calming and more uniform driving, it is anticipated that implementation of traffic calming measures may reduce the number of trips within the neighborhood. For example, many of the parents who currently drive their children to and from school and related activities, may decided after traffic calming measures that the street is safe enough to allow their children to bicycle or walk to school.

Except that the school doesn’t allow them to ride their bikes. —sounds nice though……Parents have been walking their kids to school since the school was built, with no problem.

II.C Additional Considerations

II.C.1 Congestion Impacts

It is anticipated that the proposed traffic calming project will reduce congestion by reducing the number of internal neighborhood trips by making the street safer for children to bicycle or walk to school and by diverting through truck traffic to roadways where there is less congestion. This is a lie: The only other roads with less traffic are the neighborhood streets, and supporters don't want trucks on them. Forest, Warren, Congress, and Brighton, the only other major roads anywhere near Stevens, all carry more traffic. Sounds good though, for funding.

The peak hour traffic along one of the more congested areas of Stevens Avenue, near Deering High School is 1,047 vehicles per hour (vph). The City estimates that this project may result in a 7.5% reduction in local trips (non‑through) and a 25% reduction in truck traffic which will reduce the peak hour traffic in front of the high school from 1,047 vph to 969 vph,

which is calculated as follows:

PM peak hour two way traffic = 1,047

5% of traffic is trucks (1,047 x 0.05 = 52)

70% of traffic is non‑through traffic [0.7 x (1,047 ‑ 52)=6971]

Computed reduction in traffic: 0.075 x 697 = 52 ‑

Reduction in truck traffic: 52 x 0.5 = 26

Total traffic reduction: 52 + 26 = 78

Percent reduction in congestion: 100 x (78/1,047) = 7.4%

II.C.2 VMT Impacts

The project is estimated to reduce the VMT/day as follows:

AADT = 14,500

0.074 x 14,500 vpd x 0.75

= 805 VMT/day reduction

II.C.3 Education

The project provides an excellent stage to promote a City wide public awareness of the transportation mode choice/air quality relationship. The marketing approach will include the community, bus access and public officials in the program. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities are intended to be highlighted in this project to promote their use. Highlighting will be accomplished through textured paving, painting, bump outs at pedestrian crossings, and signage. The location of the project relative to five schools/colleges provides an excellent tool for both the faculty and City to teach students about the benefits of reduced congestion, transportation mode choice and air quality relationships. Never done. I'll bet the the City never taught them how air quality gets worse as traffic slows either.

II.C.4 Other Long‑Term Project Benefits

The purpose of the traffic calming project is to make the Stevens Avenue environment safer and more attractive. This usually results in a greater level of pedestrian and bicycle activity. In Berlin's Federal demonstration project, non‑motorized traffic on a wide range of streets increased by between 27% and 114%. Similar results are documented throughout Europe and it is hoped that these effects can be realized on Stevens Avenue. Thus the results of a demonstration project on Stevens Avenue could be utilized to evaluate future projects. The increase in non-motorized traffic in Germany is due to the closure of the streets. European streets in cities are generally much narrower than those here. It's either bike or walk. That can't be done on Stevens. As for safety, accidents went up 58% after the demo project was installed. More smog is not safer environmentally. The thing about this is that the DPW being the experts they say they are, should have known this.

II.C.5 Affect on Motorized Trips

The project is expected to reduce motorized trips by encouraging use of Stevens Avenue by bicycles and pedestrians. The percent reduction is forecast to be 7.44 or 78 trips during the peak hour as discussed in II.C., What it actually did is reduce pedestrians and bikers by 8% each.

AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE

STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AND THE

CITY OF PORTLAND

REGARDING

TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG STEVENS AVENUE

FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. CM‑6869(00)/PIN 6869.00

This AGREEMENT is entered into on this day of 1996 by and between

the STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (hereafter DEPARTMENT) and

the CITY OF PORTLAND, a body corporate and politic located in the County of Cumberland

(hereafter CITY) regarding the development, design, construction and/or implementation of traffic

calming measures along portions of Stevens Avenue in Portland (hereafter project) as follows:

I. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

A. The CITY shall submit an acceptable line item budget to the DEPARTMENT for approval which contains an itemization of project costs as directed by the DEPARTMENT. Once such a budget is approved, expenditures may exceed any single cost category or budget line item amount by up to ten (10%) percent without modification provided that the total of all such expenditures does not exceed the total amount allowable for the project as hereinafter provided under Paragraph N below.

B. The CITY shall not perform or authorize any services or work under this Agreement without first receiving the express approval to do so in writing from the DEPARTMENT.

1. Such approval shall be contingent upon the DEPARTMENT receiving authorization from the Federal Highway Administration (hereafter FHWA) for federal participation in the project costs here before described under Paragraph A above. The DEPARTMENT shall not unreasonably withhold such approval.

2. All costs incurred by the CITY prior to receiving such approval from the DEPARTMENT shall be ineligible for federal participation and therefore not reimbursable by the DEPARTMENT under the provisions of Article II.

3. The CITY shall develop and prepare all of the necessary design plans, specifications, estimates, bid documents and contracts for the project as directed by the DEPARTMENT in accordance with the DEPARTMENT's current standards and procedures for federal‑aid projects. The CITY shall submit all such plans, specifications, estimates, documents and contracts to the DEPARTMENT for review and approval.

PIN 6869.00

All design features shall conform to AASHTO standards or equivalent.

Unless the guidelines interfere with what the City Council wanted to do, in which case they were ignored. Right off the bat, Stevens is a major arterial, which was changed on paper to "minor arterial" to make it more allowable for speed tabling.

2. All plans shall adhere to the DEPARTMENT's utility accommodation policy as set forth in its "Policy On Above Ground Utility Locations" as revised November 1987.

D. The CITY may contract for engineering and design related services as necessary to develop, design, construct or implement the project, provided nevertheless:

1. The selection and retention of any individual or firm to provide or furnish any engineering or design related services for the project (hereafter consultant) shall be accomplished in accordance with the DEPARTMENT's current consultant selection and retention procedures.

2. No contract for such services shall be awarded without the express approval of the DEPARTMENT and FHWA pursuant to the provisions set forth under Part 172 of Title 23 in the United States Code of Federal Regulations (hereafter CFR) specifically, those provisions set forth therein under Section 172.5(d). That got ignored.

a, The CITY shall specifically monitor all work performed under any such contract pursuant to the provisions of 23 CFR 172.13.

b. The DEPARTMENT may accept or reject any work performed or procured under any such contract pursuant to the provisions 23 CFR 172.5(d).

E. The CITY shall develop and prepare all environmental studies ‑and reports necessary for the project as directed by the DEPARTMENT. All such studies and reports shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT from time to time for review, comment and acceptance. This may never have been done. I've never seen it.

F. The DEPARTMENT shall prepare and submit to FHWA for concurrence all environmental documentation required for the project under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

G. The CITY shall obtain all permits necessary to construct the project.

H. The CITY shall provide for adequate public participation as directed by the DEPARTMENT during the development of the project.

I. The CITY, at its own expense, shall acquire or furnish any additional right of way that might become necessary to construct or implement the project, provided nevertheless:

1. All such right of way shall be acquired in accordance with the Uniform Relocation

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended by the United

States Congress in 1987, pursuant to the provisions set forth under 49 CFR Part 24.

PIN 6869‑00

2. All such right of way shall be acquired prior to advertising for bids and shall be held inviolate from all encroachments. The CITY shall certify to the DEPARTMENT that all such right of way has been acquired prior to being allowed to advertise for bids as hereinafter provided under Paragraph J below.

3 No reimbursement shall be allowable under the provisions of this Agreement for the cost of acquiring any right of way.

J. Upon approval by the DEPARTMENT, the CITY shall advertise and award a contract to construct or implement the project as directed by the DEPARTMENT.

I Both the CITY and the DEPARTMENT shall have the right to accept or reject any and all bids received as a result of such advertisement.

2. The CITY shall not award any contract to construct or implement the project without the express approval of the DEPARTMENT.

3 Any contract to construct or implement the project shall prescribe that the project shall be constructed or implemented in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the DEPARTMENT and in compliance with the DEPARTMENT'S current Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges (hereafter Standard Specifications).

4. Prior to the beginning of any construction or implementation, the CITY shall arrange for a preconstruction meeting to coordinate the construction or implementation of the project with the DEPARTMENT, any and all contractors, utilities and any other parties directly involved in the construction or implementation of the project.

5, Traffic throughout all work areas of the project shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.

6. Any work involving force account procedures shall require the express approval of the DEPARTMENT prior to doing so.

K. The CITY shall provide all of the necessary supervision, inspection and documentation to ensure that the project is completed satisfactorily and constructed or implemented in accordance with the provisions and specifications of any contract.

1 The CITY shall provide a full‑time qualified employee to be in responsible charge of the project.

2. The CITY shall use procedures acceptable to the DEPARTMENT to document the quantity and quality of all work performed under this Agreement in an accurate and uniform manner. All such documentation including all source documents used as the basis of payment for such work shall become a matter of record and retained as hereinafter provided under Article III, Paragraph A.

P. The CITY shall develop and implement a maintenance plan acceptable to the DEPARTMENT which assures an appropriate level of maintenance necessary to maintain any of the permanent improvements or measures constructed or implemented under the project in order to preserve the use and function thereof as intended by the project. The city tries to keep up with the stripe painting, but doesn't do much for the ruts gouged in the table tops by undercarriages hitting them. This is nothing new, if you look at the condition of the medians around town.

II. COST SHARING & REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES

A A portion of the cost to develop, design, construct and/or implement the project (hereafter project costs) shall be provided by the DEPARTMENT using federal funds administered by FHWA under the provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Federal funds (hereafter federal share) shall be provided at the rate of eighty and twenty‑eight hundredths (80.28 %) percent of all project costs deemed eligible for federal participation (hereafter participating project costs) in accordance with all applicable federal laws and regulations as hereinbefore referenced under Article I, Paragraph 0 above.

B. The CITY shall be responsible for all of the non‑federal or matching share of all participating project costs. The CITY shall also be responsible for all project costs deemed ineligible for federal participation, including those as hereinbefore provided under Article I, Paragraph 3.2 above and as hereinafter provided under Paragraph C.5 below, unless otherwise agreed to in writing as hereinbefore provided under Article 1, Paragraph NXXXXXX above.

C. The DEPARTMENT shall reimburse the CITY for all of the federal share of all participating,, project costs hereinbefore described under Paragraph A above as follows:

1. The CITY shall bill the DEPARTMENT no less than monthly for all claims for all allowable direct and actual project costs incurred under the provisions of this Agreement. Costs are incurred whenever work is performed, a goods and services are received or a cash =0 disbursement is made. All claims for such costs shall be submitted on the CITY's billhead or invoice and be itemized in at least the same detail as itemized in the approved project budget. Each claim so submitted shall include an accumulative total for all costs incurred by cost category or budget line item. Each claim shall also include a certification from a qualified employee in responsible charge of the project that all amounts so claimed for reimbursement are correct, due and not claimed previously and that all work for which such reimbursement is being claimed was performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or any specific contract applicable thereto approved by the DEPARTMENT under the terms of this Agreement.

2. In the event that less than One Thousand ($1000) Dollars in such reimbursable costs are incurred in any one month period or regularly scheduled billing period of at least one month duration, the CITY shall defer any such claim therefore until the next month or regularly scheduled billing period in which at least One Thousand ($1000) Dollars in such reimbursable costs have been incurred or until the last or final claim is submitted for reimbursement. Payment of any such final claim may be subject to a final inspection of the project by the DEPARTMENT to determine the acceptability thereof as hereinbefore provided under Article 1, Paragraph L.

3, The DEPARTMENT shall deduct all of the CITY's share of such costs as hereinbefore described under Paragraph B above prior to making any such reimbursement. The CITY shall show such share on all bills so submitted.

4. The DEPARTMENT shall reimburse the CITY for all participating project costs after deducting the CITY's share of such costs as hereinbefore provided under subparagraph 3 above until fifty (50%) percent of all such costs have been reimbursed, following which, five (5 %) percent of all subsequent reimbursements shall be withheld and retained by the DEPARTMENT until all work undertaken by the CITY pursuant to this Agreement is completed satisfactorily.

a. All of that portion of such reimbursement so retained shall be withheld and retained by the DEPARTMENT to the extent and in the same manner set forth under the provisions of 23 M.R.S.A.

Section 52‑A.

b. Upon satisfactory completion of all work undertaken by the CITY pursuant to this Agreement, the DEPARTMENT may release a portion of such reimbursement SO retained. The remaining balance of such reimbursement so retained shall be withheld and retained until such time as all things required of the CITY under this Agreement are received, completed or accomplished to the satisfaction of the DEPARTMENT. The DEPARTMENT, at its option, may retain temporarily or permanently, from time to time, any portion of such remaining balance which it deems equitable.

5. In the event that the CITY withdraws from the project, suspends or delays work on the project or takes some other action, including any acts of commission or omission, without concurrence of the DEPARTMENT which results in the loss of federal participation in any of the reimbursable costs as provided herein, the CITY shall be ‑ responsible for all of the federal share of such costs and, if necessary, shall refund to the DEPARTMENT all of the federal share of any reimbursements received which subsequently become ineligible for federal participation.

III. RECORD RETENTION, ACCESS REQUIREMENTS & AUDIT

A. The CITY shall maintain all project records for a period of three (3) years from the date of the last or final submission of claim for reimbursement for project costs in accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR 18.42(b), except as otherwise provided under subparagraph I below.

1. In the event that any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other action involving such records has begun prior to the expiration of such period, then all records shall be retained until all action and resolution of all issues arising therefrom are complete if such action or resolution extends beyond the three year period hereinbefore described.

2. The CITY shall assure that in accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR 18.42(c), the

DEPARTMENT and FHWA, and if necessary, the Comptroller General of the United

States, or any of their authorized representatives, shall have full access at any and all

reasonable times to all records of the project for all purposes necessary to make audits,

examinations, excerpts or transcripts.

B. The CITY shall assure that all applicable audit requirements are met in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A‑128.

IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS

A, INDEPENDENT CAPACITY. The CITY, its employees, agents, representatives, consultants or contractors, shall in performance of the work under this Agreement act, in an independent capacity from and not as officers, employees or agents of the DEPARTMENT.

B. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR. Following execution of this Agreement, the DEPARTMENT shall assign a Project Leader to act as the ' Contract Administrator on behalf of the DEPARTMENT during the development of the project under this Agreement. As the DEPARTMENT's representative, the Contract Administrator shall have authority to stop the work if necessary to ensure proper execution thereof in accordance with terms of this Agreement. All bills or invoices for payment, progress reports, claims, correspondence and

all project related submissions from the CITY shall be sent directly to the Contract Administrator.

C. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

1. During the performance of any work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the CITY shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment relating specifically to any work under this Agreement because of race, color, religious creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, age or physical handicap unless related to a bonafide occupational qualification: The CITY shall take affirmative action to ensure that all such applicants are employed and all such employees are treated during any period of employment under this Agreement without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be necessarily limited to: employment, upgrading, demotions, transfers, recruitment or advertising for recruitment, layoffs or terminations, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for all forms of training and apprenticeships. The CITY shall prominently post in conspicuous places readily available to all employees and applicants for such employment hereunder, notices setting forth the provisions of this paragraph.

2. In all solicitations or advertising for employees placed by or on behalf of the CITY relating specifically to any work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the CITY shall state that all qualified applicants shall receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religious creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, age or physical handicap.

The CITY shall send to each labor union or representative of any of its employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement or any other contract or understanding under which any labor, work or services are to be furnished towards the project under the terms of this Agreement, a notice advising all such labor unions or representatives of the CITY's commitment under this Article and shall prominently post copies of such notice in conspicuous places readily available to all such employees and applicants for employment.

4. The CITY shall cause all of the foregoing equal employment opportunity provisions under these paragraphs to be included in any contracts for services or work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement in such a manner that such provisions shall be binding upon each consultant or contractor except that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to any contracts for purchasing or furnishing standard commercial supplies or raw materials. To the maximum extent feasible, the CITY or any such consultant or contractor shall list all suitable employment openings with the Maine Job Service under the Maine Department of Labor's Bureau of Employment Security. This provision shall not apply to employment openings which the CITY or any such consultant or contractor proposes to fill within its own organization. The listing of such openings with the Maine Job Service shall involve only the normal obligation which pertain thereto.

D. LIABILITY. Any amount paid out by the DEPARTMENT arising out of or from any errors, omissions or failures on the part of the CITY to meet professional standards of construction engineering and inspection shall be recovered from the CITY by reductions in any reimbursements due it under the terms of this Agreement or by any other legal means. The DEPARTMENT shall promptly notify the CITY if any potential claim arises under the provisions of this Article. The CITY shall be afforded full opportunity for a defense against any such claim. If it is subsequently determined that any such reduction in any reimbursement due the CITY by the DEPARTMENT was either arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent, then any amount so reduced shall be paid promptly.

E. FAMILIARITY WITH LAWS AND INDEMINIFICATION. The CITY is assumed to be familiar with and at all times ‑shall observe and comply with all federal and State laws as hereinbefore prescribed and all local laws, ordinances and regulations which in any manner affect the services or work undertaken by the CITY or any of its consultants or contractors pursuant to this Agreement. . The CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless the DEPARTMENT and its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, suits, actions, damages and costs of every kind or nature arising out of or from any negligent, intentional, malicious or criminal act, error or omission occurring as the result of any performance or nonperformance of the work undertaken by the CITY pursuant to this Agreement. It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto that neither the DEPARTMENT nor the CITY hereby waive any immunities or rights they may have under the Maine Tort Claims Act.

F. INSURANCE. The CITY shall require any and all consultants, contractors or subcontractors performing any of the services or work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement to be insured in accordance with the provisions set forth under Section 103.08 of the DEPARTMENT's Standard Specifications.

G. OWNERSHIP. All plans, reports, notes, papers or other tangible work produced by or on behalf of the CITY under the terms of this Agreement shall be the property of the DEPARTMENT and shall be turned over to the DEPARTMENT upon request following completion or termination of the project. The CITY shall be allowed an interest therein commensurate with its share of the project cost.

H. SUBLETTING, ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER. The CITY shall not sublet, sell, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of this Agreement or any portion thereof or any right, title or interest therein without the express written consent of the DEPARTMENT. No contract, agreement or transfer of this Agreement shall in any case release or relieve the CITY from any liability under this Agreement.

I. INTERPRETATION AND PERFORMANCE. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Maine as to its interpretation and performance.

J. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto relative to all matters of the project and neither party shall be bound by any statement, correspondence, agreement or representation made previous hereto which is not expressly contained herein.

K. TERMINATION

I The DEPARTMENT may postpone, suspend, abandon or otherwise terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the CITY and in no event shall any such action be deemed a breach of contract. In the event that the reason for termination is other than for any failure by the CITY, the DEPARTMTEINT shall give the CITY a written thirty (30) day notice of termination. Postponement, suspension, abandonment or termination may be taken for any reason by the DEPARTMENT or specifically as the result of any failure by the CITY or any contractor thereunder to perform any of the services required under this Agreement to the satisfaction of the DEPARTMENT. Upon receipt of written notification from the DEPARTMENT that this Agreement is to be postponed, suspended, abandoned or terminated for any of the foregoing reasons, the CITY or any contractor thereunder shall immediately cease all work or services subject to such termination, except any work required to protect public health and safety, and shall assemble all material that has been prepared, developed, furnished, purchased or obtained ~nder the terms of this Agreement and transmit or rum over the control of the same to the DEPARTMENT within thirty (30) days following the effective date of such termination. Such material shall include all documents, plans, computations, drawings, notes, records, and correspondence and all construction materials in place or purchased for the project pursuant to this Agreement. Upon receipt of such material, the DEPARTMENT shall reimburse or arrange a settlement with the CITY in one of the following manners:

a. If the postponement, suspension, abandonment or termination is for any reason other than that set forth under subparagraph b below, the CITY shall be reimbursed for all work or services accomplished up until the date of such termination.

b. If the postponement, suspension, abandonment or termination is the result of any failure by the CITY or any contractor thereunder to correct any unsatisfactory performance after receiving fifteen (15) days written notice from the DEPARTMENT setting forth the basis of such dissatisfaction, the CITY's reimbursement shall be limited to payment for acceptable work or services accomplished up until the date of such termination.

2. The CITY may accept the DEPARTMENT's evaluation of the work performed as hereinbefore provided or submit to arbitration as hereinafter provided under Paragraph L below. In any event, the DEPARTMENT shall not consider any further reimbursement of any kind or nature pending the outcome of any such arbitration.

L. ARBITRATION

1 Any and all claims, disputes or matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any breach thereof, which cannot be disposed of by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, may be submitted to arbitration conducted and governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association applicable to the construction industry in effect at the time of the execution of this Agreement. The provisions of this Article shall be specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law.

2, Should a demand for arbitration be submitted by either parry to this Agreement, both parties shall have full right of discovery to all books, documents or other tangible things to the extent permitted by the Maine Rules of Civil Procedures.

V. TERMS OF AGREEMENT

A. All of the provisions set forth under Articles I and II shall expire upon satisfactory completion of the terms set forth therein or three (3) years from the date hereof, whichever occurs first, unless otherwise terminated sooner or extended later by virtue of any other provisions set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. ‑

B. All of the provisions set forth under Articles III and IV, except Article IV, Paragraph E, shall expire upon satisfactory completion of the terms set forth under Article III unless otherwise terminated sooner or extended later by virtue of any other provisions set forth elsewhere in this Agreement.

C. The provision set forth under Article IV, Paragraph E shall remain in full force and effect indefinitely or until terminated, modified or amended in writing by the parties hereto or by any operation of law.

VI. APPROVAL

This Agreement has been approved and signed in duplicate by the parties below and becomes effective on the day and date first above written.

STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

By:____________________________

_________________________________

Witness Theodore H. Karasopoulos

Chief Engineer

CITY OF PORTLAND

By:________________________________

__________________________________

Witness Robert B. Ganley

City Manager

Below this line is a repeat of the above.

CONGESTION MITIGATION/AIR QUALITY

PROGRAM APPLICATION

FOR

STEVENS AVENUE

BETWEEN WALTON STREET AND FOREST AVENUE

PORTLAND, MAINE

SUBMITTED BY

CITY OF PORTLAND

APRIL, 1996

Attachment 2

Qualitative Analysis

B Qualitative Analysis

The general belief based on generalized vehicle emission tables is that traffic calming will not benefit the air quality and may in fact increase vehicle emissions. There is no experience in Maine and little in the United States that documents the effect of traffic calming on air quality. Based on published data, the City of Portland believes the proposed traffic calming measures will improve the air quality. This demonstration project will offer the opportunity to document the air quality changes associated with traffic calming. Many of the significant traffic calming projects in Europe have been sponsored as demonstration projects by both the local and federal governments to test the effect of calming on key environmental indicators.

Research on traffic calming in Europe shows that in built up areas the higher the vehicle speed, the greater the frequency of acceleration, deceleration and braking, all of which add to air pollution. Contrasting this study is German evidence showing that in residential areas idle times are reduced by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline by 12% due to the effects of slower, calmer and more uniform driving. In Buxtehude, Germany, which has a population of 33,000 people, a traffic calming demonstration project documented changes in different types of emissions for two styles of driving when the speed was reduced from 30 to 18 mph:

	Driving Style
Emission Type	2nd Gear Aggressive	3rd Gear Calm
CO	-17%	-13%
HC	-10%	- 22
NOX	-32%	-48/o
Fuel Consumption	+7%	-7%

Again, the first sentence is a lie- this was written in 1994, 4 years after passage of the Clean Air Act. There were decades of air quality experience available. Traffic engineers know that slower traffic means more pollution. As traffic calming slows traffic, which was a stated goal of the project, then more pollution is to be expected. To state that the results would be unknown is lying.

Again, the whole second paragraph is crap, as is the third: children were not allowed to ride their bikes to school by school rule, a rule in place for more than 25 years.

Attachment 3

Additional Scoring Considerations

C.1 Congestion Impacts

This sounds good, but is a lie. The project supporters did not want truck traffic on the local side streets, nor the connectors between the arterials. As all the arterials in the area other than Stevens were carrying much more traffic than Stevens, there is therefore no place for truck traffic to go.

The peak hour traffic on Stevens Avenue between St. Joseph's College and Catherine McAuley High School is 1,026 vehicles per hour (vph). The City estimates that this project may result in a 7.5% reduction in local trips (nonthrough) and a 25% reduction in truck traffic which will reduce the peak hour traffic in front of the high school from 1,026 vph to 955 vph, which is calculated as follows:

PM peak hour two way traffic = 1,026

5% of traffic is trucks (1,026 x 0.05 = 51)

80% of traffic is non‑through traffic [0.8 x (1,026 ‑ 51) = 780]

Computed reduction in traffic: 0.075 x 780 = 58

Reduction in truck traffic: 51 x 0.25 = 13

Total traffic reduction: 58 + 13 = 71

Percent reduction in congestion: 100 x (71/1,026) = 6.9%

C.2 VMT Impacts

The project is estimated to reduce the VMT/day as follows:

AADT = 14,400

0.069 x 14,400 vpd x 0.45

= 480 VMT/day reduction

C.3 Education

The project provides an excellent stage to promote a City wide public awareness of the transportation mode choice/air quality relationship. The marketing approach will include the community, bus access and public officials in the program. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities are intended to be highlighted in this project to promote their use. Highlighting will be accomplished through textured paving, painting, bump outs at pedestrian crossings, and signage The location of the project relative to five schools/colleges provides an excellent tool for both the faculty and City to teach students about the benefits of reduced congestion, transportation mode choice and air quality relationships.

OPINION OF COST

Engineer's Opinion of Cost for Conceptual Improvements

Steven's Avenue ‑ Forest Avenue to Walton Street ‑ 2400 LF

Portland, Maine

1O‑Apr‑96

Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount

202.11 Removing Portland Cement Conc Pavment SY 265 6.90 1828.50

202.202 Removing Pavement Surface SY 5550 2.50 13875.00

202.203 Butt Joint SY 450 4.50 2025.00

203.2 Common Excavation CY 310 7.30 2263.00

203.21 Rock Excavation CY 10 71.50 715.01

203.25 Granular Borrow CY 250 10.75 2687.50

301.09 Plant Mix Bit. Base Crse‑Grad B Ton 535 31.15 16665.25

304.1 Aggregate Subbase Crse‑Gravel CY 450 14.90 6705.01

403.07 Hot Bituminous Pavt ‑ Grading B Ton 550 35.50 19525.00

403.08 Hot Bituminous Pavt ‑ Grading C Ton 1200 30.60 36720.00

603.169 15" Culvert Pipe, Option III LF 1050 30.00 31500.00

604.072 Catch Basin, Type Al‑C EA 14 1445.00 20230.00

604.16 Altering Catch Basin to Manhole EA 6 570.00 3420.00

604.18 Altering Catch Basin or Manhole to Grade EA 23 335.00 7705.00

608.07 Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk SY 590 28.00 16520.00

608.15 Brick Sidewalk with Bitum. Base SY 200 94.00 18800.00

609.11 Vertical Curb Type 1 LF 580 24.85 14413. 00

609.12 Vertical Curb Type 1 ‑ Circular LF 250 30.10 7525.O0

609.34 Curb Type 5 LF 1005 18.50 18592.50

609.35 Curb Type 5 ‑ Circular LF 260 50.45 13117.00

609.38 Reset Curb Type 1 LF 190 13.10 2489.00

615.07 Loam CY 45 20.80 936.00

618.13 Seeding Method Number 1 Units 1 41.50 41.50

619.12 Mulch Units 1 15.10 15.10

621.285 Large Decicuous Tree (3" ‑ 3‑1/2" Cal)GPA EA 40 300.00 112000.00

627.407 Ref PI White or Yellow Pavt Marking SF 250 8.95 2237.50

645 Signage LS 1 1000.00 1000.00

652 Maint of Traffic LS 1 10000.00 10000.00

Engineering (8.5% of total) LS 1 24101.82 24101.82

Survey LS 11 4450.00 4450.00

Subtotal (1999) $352,676.02

Contingency (10 %) $35,267.60

Total (1999) $387,943.62

The Unit Prices in the estimate above were determined utilizing cost data from MDOT project cost summaries accumulated from 8/31/94 to 8/31/95 in the area of urban construction and from similar projects recently designed by this office. The total for the year 1999 is based on a 3% per year increase in construction costs over four years.

[the above cost opinion does not include amounts for the following items, as cost impacts due to these items are not expected.

‑Relocation of utilities,

‑Acquisition of Right‑of‑Way,

‑Adverse soil conditions.

OPINION OF COST

Engineer's Opinion of Cost for Conceptual Improvements

Steven's Avenue‑Woodfords St to Congress St ‑ 3670 LF

Portland, Maine

1O‑Apr‑96

Item No.	Description	~UU~nnjiitt	Quantity	Unit Price	AmouNT
202.11	Removing Portland Cement Conc Pavment	SY	320	6.90	2208.00
202.202	Removing Pavement Surface	SY	2275	2.50	5687.50
202.203	Butt Joint	SY	840	4.48	3763.20
203.2	Common Excavation	CY	330	7.30	2409.00
203.21	Rock Excavation	CY	10	71.50	715.00
203.25	Granular Borrow	CY	370	10.75	3977.50
301.09	Plant Mix Bit. Base Crse-Grad B	Ton	150	31.15	4672.50
304.1	Aggregate Subbase Crse-Gravel	CY	425	14.90	6332.50
403.07	Hot Bituminous Pavt - Grading B	Ton	325	35.50	11537.50
403.08	Hot Bituminous Pavt - Grading C	Ton	1265	30.60	38709.00
403.101	Hot Bituminous Pavt - Grading D (shim, drives, etc)	Ton	120	82.80	9936.00
603.169	15" Culvert Pipe, Option III	LF	225	30.00	6750.00
604.072	Catch Basin, Type Al-C	EA	3	1445.00	4335.00
604.16	Altering Catch Basin to Manhole	EA	3	570.00	1710.00
604.18	Altering Catch Basin or Manhole to Grade	EA	21	335.00	7035.00
608.8	Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk	SY	430	28.00	12040.00
608.15	Brick Sidewalk with Bitum. Base	SY	800	94.00	75200.00
609.11	Vertical Curb Type 1	LF	760	24.85	18886.00
609.12	Vertical Curb Type 1 - Circular	LF	160	30.10	4816.00
609.38	Reset Curb Type 1	LF	370	13.10	4847.00
615.07	Loam	CY	63	20.80	1310.40
618.13	Seeding Method Number 1	Units	6	41.50	249.00
619.12	Mulch	Units	6	15.20	91.20
621.285	Large deciduous Tree (3" - 3-1/2" Cal) GPA	EA	55	300.00	16500.00
	Low Stone Wall, Dry - 250' by 2' H by 18" D	CF	810	40.00	32400.00
627.407	Ref PI White or Yellow Pavt Marking	SF	880	8.95	7876.00
643	Traffic Signal Modifications - Brighton Ave	LS	1	5000.00	5000.00
643	Signage, School Zone Flasher Signals	LS	1	3000.00	T 3000.00
643	Relocate Signal Controls - Woodfords	LS	1	1000.00	1000.00
645	Signage	LS	1	1000.00	1000.00
652	Maint of Traffic	LS	1	9000.00	9000.00
	Bus Shelter	EA	3	5000.00	15000.00
	Engineering (8.5% of total)	LS	1	25754.43	25754.43
	Survey	LS	1	2700.00	2700.00

Subtotal (1999) $391,485.94

Contingency (10 %) $39,148

Total (1999) $430,634.52

The above cost opinion does not include amounts for the following items, as cost impacts due to these items are not expected. ‑Relocation of utilities,

‑Acquisition of Right‑of‑Way,

‑Adverse soil conditions.

[1] (This is an overstatement: the guard was almost hit, when a car that was rear-ended got pushed into the crosswalk by the car behind it. This incident generated Paula Craighead’s letter to DPW head George Flaherty.—ed.)