Suitland Road Bikeway Retrofit Feasibility Report

August 21, 2015
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mr. Jason A. Ridgway

Director, Office of Highway Development
FROM:
Ms. Lisa Choplin

Chief, Innovative Contracting Division
BY:
Mr. Luis Gonzales

Project Manager
SUBJECT:
FMIS No.
Project:
RE:
Feasibility Report
AW058A11
MD 218 (Suitland Road) from Silver Hill Road to DC Line
Bike Lane and Sidewalk Retrofit Feasibility Study
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this project is to perform a feasibility study to retrofit MD 218 from Silver Hill
Road to DC Line with bicycle lanes and a continuous sidewalk. The feasibility study will
examine key components of the concepts, potential impacts to nearby neighborhoods, shops,
transit, employment centers, and pedestrian traffic by foot and/or bicycle.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
MD 218 is on the state secondary system with a functional class of Urban Minor Arterial and is
not on the National Highway System. The entire 1.64 mile length of MD 218 is located in
Suitland, Maryland in Prince George's County.
MD 218 begins at Southern Avenue at the DC Line and heads southeast as a two-lane road
between apartment complexes and crosses Oxon Run. The highway passes between Cedar Hill
Cemetery to the north and the Lincoln Memorial and Washington National cemeteries to the
south. East of the cemeteries, MD 218 gains a center turn lane and passes between the Suitland
Manor neighborhood on the north and Suitland Federal Center on the south. The Federal
Center's main tenant is the U.S. Census Bureau. MD 218 provides the primary access to
Suitland Federal Center. The highway reaches its easternmost terminus in the center of Suitland
at MD 458.
Contract No. AW058A11

MD 218 Feasibility Report
Page 2
MD 218 has a minimum width of 36 feet. Roughly 60% of the typical section is curb or curb
and gutter, with the remaining 40% open section. The existing pavement section was
constructed in 1928 using joint plain concrete pavement with varying thickness from 20 to
30.5 thick. Subsequence pavement improvements have increased the overall pavement
thickness by 11.5. The last resurfacing was completed in 2007 when 2 of 12.5mm, 64-22,
Level 3, Surface Course was applied.
SHA Data Services Engineering Division (DSED), a traffic analysis study was performed from
09/09/2014 to 09/10/2014 at the .10 mile marker east of the DC line. Results show a decrease in
ADT with the majority of vehicles on MD 218 classified as passenger cars.
Year
ADT
2011
2012
2013
17,850
17,770
17,750
Table 1: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Count
2014
14,372
Classification
Percentage
Motorcycles
0.65 %
Passenger Cars
89.47 %
Light Trucks
7.71 %
Buses
0.76 %
2 Axle, 6 Tire
1.05 %
3 Axle
0.31 %
<=4 Axle
0.05 %
Table 2: 2014 Vehicle Classification Count
Accident data was provided by SHA Office of Traffic and Safety (OOTS) for 2010 2013 and
indicated a general reduction in accidents and fatalities along MD 218.
Year Fatalities Injuries Crashes
2010
2
7
17
2011
0
12
17
2012
0
23
15
2013
0
2
6
Table 3: 2013 Accident Rates
Pedestrian and bicycle activities are low to moderate based on a 13-hour period traffic count
between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Wednesday, September 3, 2014. The two most active
intersections along MD 218 are MD 458 and Shadyside Ave with 537 pedestrians and 437
pedestrians respectively. Utilization at the intersections of MD 218 and Arnold Road, Census
Bureau, Huron Ave, and Stonegate Drive were less than 300 pedestrians during entire count
period. Bicycle utilization during the study period peaked at 34 users traveling eastbound and
westbound on MD 218 at the U.S. Census Bureau crosswalk.

Page 3
Intersection
Total Pedestrians
MD 218 at Arnold Rd
55
MD 218 at Bureau Crosswalk
146
MD 218 at Census Bureau
187
MD 218 at Huron Ave
300
MD 218 at MD 458
537
MD 218 at Shadyside Ave
431
MD 218 at Stone Gate Rd
74
Table 4: 2014 Pedestrian Count
Intersection
Total Bicyclist
MD 218 at Arnold Rd
16
MD 218 at Bureau Crosswalk
34
MD 218 at Homer Ave
34
MD 218 at Stone Gate Rd
15
Table 5: 2014 Bicycle Count
PROPOSED CONCEPTS
Two main concepts and two optional concepts were developed for the feasibility study. All
concepts provide bicycle compatible facilities based on the January 2015 Bicycle Policy &
Design Guidelines along MD 218. The concepts have also been developed to minimize impacts
to right-of-way, utilities, environmental and other permanent features.
In summary, Concept 1 proposes to maintain the existing open section while Concept 2
proposes to construct a curb and gutter section along MD 218. Concepts 1A and 2A add
sidewalk to Concept 1 and Concept 2. As a cost effectiveness measure, all concepts have been
estimated using milling and resurfacing and microsurfacing of the existing roadway. Two limits
of resurfacing are also proposed to minimize construction time, potential right-of-way impacts,
utility relocations and construction cost. The first limit, full resurfacing, is from the DC Line to
MD 458. The second limit, limited resurfacing, is from the Whitehall Square Apartments
crosswalk to MD 458.
Concept 1:
This Concept proposes restriping the existing roadway to provide a bike lane in both directions
while maintaining the existing centerline. To allow this, the existing lane width would be
striped to a minimal two 11 travel lanes, one variable 1112 turn lane, a minimum 4 bike
lane with a 3 striped buffer zone or a 5 bike lane without a buffer zone. The buffer zone would
be provided where possible to provide separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists.
Although there are significant utilities along MD 218, this alternative would allow for all work
to be completed within the existing MD 218 footprint thus minimizing utility impacts. For this
Concept, it is expected that the entire length of MD 218 will need to be resurfaced or
microsurfaced to accommodate the new lane markings.

Page 4
In coordination with the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA), raised median islands
along MD 218 were reviewed from a feasibility standpoint. Raised median islands are features
that physically separate the bicyclists from vehicle traffic. The benefits of a raised median island
are that cyclists feel more secure on the roads due to the improved perceived comfort and safety.
In addition, to encouraging bicyclists to ride in the bikeway rather than on the sidewalk, raised
median islands can visually reduce the width of the street and keeps motorists from easily
entering the bikeway.
Although commonly used in bicycle friendly cities, raised median islands present several
maintenance and operational challenges that should be considered. First, snow removal and
street sweeping would require special equipment when the bikeway width inside of the raised
island is too narrow for existing street maintenance equipment. Snow removal procedures will
also need to minimize the creation of snow banks in the buffer zone. In addition, because melted
snow flowing across the bikeway can freeze at night, raised median areas require frequent salting
in order to avoid hazardous conditions. Street sweeping may have to be done more frequently
than on typical streets, especially during the fall season, due to the lack of the sweeping effect of
vehicle traffic and the canyon profile of a bikeway, tends to hold leaves and other debris.
Another factor that should be taken into consideration is that separating the bicycle facilities
with a curb or a similar device would effectively convert the facility into a bicycle path. The
annotated code of Maryland requires that all bicycle paths be maintained by the responsible
political subdivision. Therefore if raised median islands are to be considered SHA would have to
enter into an agreement with Prince Georges County for the maintenance of the bicycle path.
Concept 1A:
This Concept proposes all work associated with Concept 1 with the inclusion of a pedestrian
sidewalk along MD 218. To provide connectivity for pedestrian travel, new sidewalk and
sidewalk improvements are proposed along MD 218. From the field investigation and site
coordination, new sidewalk is proposed along eastbound travel lane from MD 218/Southern Ave
SE intersection to the existing sidewalk along Suitland Federal Center. Proposed sidewalk
improvements along westbound lane will include correcting the minimal width of the existing
sidewalk to be 5 with a cross slope of 2%. Westbound sidewalk is expected to be extended to tieinto the Whitehall Square Apartments entrance. A crosswalk is proposed at this location, so
pedestrians can cross to the south side of MD 218 and continue traveling west to the DC Line.
Continuing the sidewalk passed Whitehall Square Apartments on the north side of MD 218 is
prohibited due to the right of way and fence impacts along the Cedar Hill Cemetery frontage.
Concept 2:
This Concept proposes developing a closed section alternative for MD 218 with bicycle
compatibility on both sides of the roadway. This concept has been developed to minimize
impacts to right-of-way, utilities, environmental and any other permanent features. Similarly to
Concept 1, the existing lane width would be striped to allow for two 11 travel lanes, one variable
11 12 turn lane, and a minimum 4 bike lane with the use of a 3 buffer zone or a minimum 5
bike lane where a buffer zone cannot be provided. Curb and gutter is proposed primarily along
eastbound travel lane to provide a continuous closed section roadway for the length of MD 218.

Page 5
Concept 2A:
This Concept proposes all work associated with Concept 2 with the inclusion of a pedestrian
sidewalk along MD 218.
Even though there are significant utilities along MD 218, this Concept has minimized utility
impacts by locating the sidewalk around the poles. Therefore providing a 5 clear path without
utility relocation could be assessed in design. However, as a result of the proposed sidewalk,
approximately 21 driveway entrances would need to be reconstructed to provide the required 2%
cross slope. Sidewalk is expected to be pinched at 6 locations where 5 utility poles and 1 fire
hydrant are within the 5 sidewalk. These pinch point locations will need to be further examined
during design when topographic survey is available to determine if the sidewalk can be shifted to
provide a 5clear path. If a 5 clear sidewalk cannot be provided, the obstacle would need to be
relocated or an ADA Waiver would need to be pursued. In compliance with SHA requirements,
all ADA ramps will be reconstructed to meet current standards.
Milling and Resurfacing versus Microsurfacing:
The proposed concepts have examined the cost of milling and resurfacing the existing MD 218
pavement in comparison to microsurfacing. Milling and resurfacing and microsurfacing will
conform to SHA standards. However, for reference information, microsurfacing is a preventative
maintenance sealing treatment used to extend the life of asphalt roadways. The advantage of
microsurfacing is that the cost is approximately one third of an overlay. Other advantages also
included an easy application process, extending the pavement life by up to 7 years and suitability
for low volume roads. Microsurfacing is however not intended as a crack treatment and does not
prevent cracks in the underlying pavement from reflecting through to the surface. The
microsurfacing also does not add structural capacity to an existing pavement section rather it is
applied as a maintenance treatment to improve the functional characteristics of the pavement
surface.
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS
For Concept 1, the centerline will remain the same, however eastbound and westbound lane of
the roadway will be striped at 11 with the median remaining at current width of 11 12.
Along both side of the road, pavement marking will be reconfigured to provide a 5 bike lane or
where shoulder is greater than 7, a 4 bike lane with a 3 striped buffer zone.

Page 6
Figure 1: Proposed 5 Bike Lane Typical Section for Concept 1
Figure 2: Proposed Buffer Zone Typical Section for Concept 1

For Concept 2, the centerline will remain the same with median remaining at current width of
11 12. Pavement marking along both sides of the road will be striped at 11, to provide a 5
bike lane or where shoulder is greater than 7, a 4 bike lane with a 3 striped buffer zone.
Sidewalk is proposed on both of sides of the road to be constructed and or reconstructed with
curb and gutter.
Figure 3: Proposed 5 Bike Lane Typical Section for Concept 2

Page 7
Figure 4: Proposed Buffer Zone Typical Section for Concept 2

COST ESTIMATES
The construction cost, including 40% contingency and 14.4% overhead, for each concept are
below.
Milling and Resurfacing Construction
Concept
Construction Cost
Description
1
$1,261,569
Open Section Roadway
1A
$2,273,567
w/ Sidewalk
Full Resurfacing
2
$2,158,205
Closed Section Roadway
2A
$3,886,129
w/ Sidewalk
1
$886,714
1A
$1,823,742
w/ Sidewalk
Limited
2
$1,708,380
Resurfacing
2A
$3,385,693
w/ Sidewalk
Table 6: Approximate Costs for Milling and Resurfacing Construction
Microsurfacing Construction
Concept
Construction Cost
Description
1
$325,317
1A
$1,150,065
w/ Sidewalk
Full Resurfacing
2
$1,034,705
2A
$2,650,278
w/ Sidewalk
1
$266,995
1A
$1,080,079
w/ Sidewalk
Limited
2
$964,717
Resurfacing
2A
$2,573,292
w/ Sidewalk
Table 7: Approximate Costs for Microsurfacing Construction

Page 8
The estimates above and attached are considered conceptual estimates based on the information
available at the time of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH AASHTO/SHA GUIDELINES & POLICIES
All design criteria used for the development of these concepts are based on the Maryland
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MD MUTCD) 2011 Edition, and the AASHTO A
Policy for Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001 version. Pedestrian facilities
conceptual design is supported by the Accessibility Policy & Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities
along State Highways (June 2010) and the Bicycle Policy & Design Guidelines (January 2015).
The existing site conditions were described based on support materials such as the State
Highway Location Reference, aerial photos, tax maps, traffic studies and field observations.
PEDESTRIAN/ADA/BICYCLE ISSUES
There are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities on this portion of MD 218 in Prince Georges
County. This road is part of the Prince Georges County Master plan for bicycle improvements.
For this reason, Concepts 1 and 2 propose bicycle facilities via bike lanes and Concepts 1A and
2A propose bike lanes and sidewalk improvements.
Sidewalk is expected to be pinched at 6 locations where 5 utility poles and 1 fire hydrant are
within the 5 sidewalk. These pinch point locations will need to be further examined during
design when topographic survey is available to determine if the sidewalk can be shifted to
provide a 5clear path. If a 5 clear sidewalk cannot be provided, the obstacle would need to be
relocated or an ADA Waiver would need to be pursued. In compliance with SHA requirements,
all ADA ramps will be reconstructed to meet current standards.
TRAFFIC BARRIER
Currently, there is no traffic barrier within the limits of this project. It is not anticipated that
any roadside objects would warrant traffic barrier. Traffic barrier needs will be evaluated once
design is initiated.
NEPA/ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL STATUS
There is a FEMA 100-year floodplain located within the project limits, based on FEMA Firm
panels 2452080055C and 2452080040C. The floodplain is at the bridge located 800 east of
Southern Avenue. There are 3 cemeteries near the west end of the project limits, Cedar Hill
Cemetery to the north and the Lincoln Memorial and Washington National cemeteries to the
south. The proposed improvements of Concepts 1A and 2A will have impacts to the south
related to the proposed sidewalk. The Suitland federal Center is also located at the eastern limit
of the project. The current right-of-way lines show the proposed sidewalk improvements of
Concepts 1A and 2A would happen on the Federal Center property. Additional investigations
should be performed in regards to the park land use and protection. In the area of this project, no

Page 9
properties were listed in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP), as well as the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
PERMIT/APPROVALS
Required
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Permit/Approval
Reforestation Law
Approval
Roadside Tree Permit
Forest Conservation Act
Permit
SWM/E&S Control
Permit
NPDES General Permit
for Construction Activity
Joint Permit Application
(JPA)
Individual Permit
Application
(IPA)
General Waterway
Construction Permit
(GWCP)
Regional Letter of
Authorization (RLOA)
U.S. Coast Guard Permit
(Bridge Hydraulic Div.
would apply)
Submitted
Received
Comments/Status
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS

There were no wetland areas identified within the project limits. A Joint Permit Application is not
currently anticipated, however further investigations are warranted once design is initiated.
SWM/EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

Stormwater Management (SWM) requirements will vary for the Concepts presented in this
Study. The Concepts are presented below with the requirements for each.
Concept 1 does not propose to increase impervious area within the limits of the project. This
Concept only propose to place a new surface on the existing pavement so the needed pavement
markings can be incorporated for the bike lanes.
Concept 1A and 2A would require SWM for the treatment of the proposed sidewalk
improvements. SWM for these Concepts would involve the usage of bio/wet-swales to

Page 10
treatment the new impervious area. As an option to providing swales, the use of pervious
concrete sidewalk could be evaluated. Soil borings would be required to verify infiltration rates
along the proposed sidewalks. If the use of pervious sidewalk is not feasible, it is anticipated
that additional ROW will be needed in order to provide SWM treatment. The location and
design of the SWM facilities will be developed once design is initiated.
Concept 2 will require SWM for the additional impervious area of the curb and gutter itself.
SWM for this Concept would involve the usage of bio/wet-swales to accommodate the treatment
of the new impervious area. Alternatively, due to the small area of impervious, this Concept
should be evaluated for the potential of requesting a Debit to the Water Quality Bank. When
converting to closed section, additional evaluations may be required to determine potential loss
of water quality.
Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) should follow the MDE 2011 Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines. The design should include implementation of perimeter controls and filtering
practices to capture any sediment-laden runoff from construction. The majority of new the
construction along MD 218 is for new sidewalk. Due to the nature of the work, same day
stabilization is the most practicable practice. Same day stabilization is the practice of limiting the
contractor to disturbing only that area which can be graded and stabilized by the end of that
working day. Same day stabilization is generally used where the installation of sediment control
measures is impractical due to one or more of the following factors: small/limited work area,
short duration construction activity, minor construction requiring very little or no associated
grading such as sidewalk construction. Erosion and sediment control plans will be required for
this project. The location and design of the E&S facilities will be developed once design is
initiated. Additional evaluations may be required to determine potential loss of water quality.
DRAINAGE DESIGN
Concrete curb and gutter is present along the majority of MD 218 with the remaining open
section. Since Concept 2 proposes to place curb and gutter along the remaining roadway
sections, additional drainage structures would be required. Existing inlets will remain in place
with additional constructed as needed to meet the spread requirements. Additional drainage
design and analysis will be developed once a Concept is selected and design is initiated.
PAVEMENT/GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES
It is anticipated that the existing pavement will be milled and resurfaced or microsurfacing if
needed. During the design initiation phase, a review of the existing pavement should occur and
a pavement recommendation should be requested from SHA Office of Materials Technology
(OMT).

Page 11
EARTHWORK
It is estimated for Concept 1 that this project will not require Excavation or Common Borrow
due to all earthwork being incidental to other items of construction. For Concept 2, it is
estimated that approximately 932 cubic yards of Class II Excavation and 3,568 cubic yards
of Common Borrow.
CLASS II EXCAVATION
CY
932
COMMON BORROW
CY
3,568
Table 6: Approximate Earthwork Requirement
STRUCTURES
There are no existing structures within the project limits.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
There are several existing roadside trees within the project limits. A Roadside Tree Permit is
anticipated, however, specific tree impacts will be identified once the design is initiated.
SIGNING & MARKING/LIGHTING/SIGNALIZATION
There are 3 signalized intersections in the study corridor along MD 218. Since new crosswalks
are proposed at MD 218 and Shadyside Ave, additional signs and pavement markings are
anticipated. Further analysis of signing associated with the crosswalks, pavement markings, and
signal improvements will be developed once the design is initiated.
A location of concern is the new unsignalized crosswalk at the Whitehall Square apartments.
Unsignalized crosswalks, even when marked and signs adequately, pose several problems. At a
minimum, LED intersection lighting should be study at this marked and signed unsignalized
crosswalk. However, sight distance to the crossing is adequate for a design speed of 35 mph,
with a westbound MD 218 direction of 280 feet and eastbound MD 218 direction of 1000 plus
feet.
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
It is anticipated that at least two construction phases would be required for each Concept to
accommodate base widening and overall resurfacing of the roadway. Access to several
commercial properties on along MD 218 will need to be maintained. Details for temporary traffic
control will be developed once design is initiated.
BUS/TRANSIT USE
Within the project limits are the Metrobus Oxon Hill-Suitland Line (D12, D13, and D14) and the
Metrobus District Heights-Suitland Line (V12) bus routes. School buses utilize portions of MD

Page 12
218 on their routes for Suitland Elementary School. In addition to these facilities located within
the project limits, Suitland Metro Station is within 0.6 mile of the project area and WMATA
Branch Avenue Rail Yard within a 1.5 miles radius. Further coordination prior to design and
implementation of the proposed improvements should occur when the design is initiated.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
For Concept 1, it is estimated that all work will be within the existing roadway. Concepts 1A, 2,
and 2A will encroach onto private and commercial right-of-way, temporary construction
easements will be utilized for sidewalk construction and perpetual easements will be required
for areas of SWM facilities. Right-of-way lines have been estimated based on existing plat
information, and online databases. During design initiation, the information presented on the
Concept plans should be verified.
UTILITIES
There are numerous existing utility poles located along both sides of MD 218. Currently the
sidewalk is expected to be pinched at 6 locations where 5 utility poles and 1 fire hydrant are
within the 5 sidewalk. The utilities at these pinch point locations will need to be further
examined during design when topographic survey is available to determine if the sidewalk can be
shifted to provide a 5clear path. If a 5 clear sidewalk cannot be provided, the utility would need
to be relocated or an ADA Waiver would need to be pursued.
Underground facilities (gas lines, water lines and sanitary sewer lines) are also present, and
should be designated once the drainage design has been developed.
MAINTENANCE
There is an existing outlet located at Arnold Road that is blocked with sediment. Additionally,
the upstream end of the outlet could not be located to determine the condition. Clearing the
built up sediment within this structure is recommended, however, a final determination of the
pipe condition will be determined after design is initiated. All proposed sidewalk facilities will
have to be maintained by Prince Georges County. Separated facilities utilizing raised median
islands will be maintained by the county.
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING/AGREEMENTS
At the current stage of concept development, a Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement
could be required for placement of the sidewalk along the south side of MD 218 near the
Lincoln Memorial and Washington National cemeteries.
RAILROAD COORDINATION
There are no railroad facilities within, adjacent to, or impacted by this project.

Page 13
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Permitting and coordination is not anticipated for access management at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
After development and consideration for each Concept; Concept 2A full resurfacing which
includes bike lanes, continuous curb and gutter, sidewalk and microsurfacing represents the best
option for access, safety, and cost. This concept has a significant cost savings compared to the
milling and resurfacing concept while providing bike lanes and continuous sidewalk facilities.
Attachments: Concept Layouts

Cost Estimates
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE
PT
STA. 103+48.48
104+00
103+00
+00
02
1
C
P
+00
01
1
0
0
.
0
0
+
9
9
.
A
T
S
105+00
MD 218 (SUITLAND ROAD)
00+00
1
0
99+0
5'
OAD)
R
AND
L
T
I
U
S
(
8
1
MD 2
MATCH EXISTING
SIDEWALK
LIMIT OF WORK
STA. 100+25.90
SO UTH
ERN
AVE S
E
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
05+ 50 - SEE SHEET PS-02
SO UTH
ERN
AVE S
E
STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
MD 218 SUITLAND ROAD FROM

SILVER HILL ROAD TO DC LINE
DATUM: NAD 83/91 Horizontal

NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
1. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND
BY: t
di
nh -
SHALL BE VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
PROPOSED RESURFACING/
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
SURFACE (STD. MD 655.40)
DRAWING NO.
PLOTTED: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 AT 02:49 PM

FILE: H:\59143_SHA 2011-09G\Task 9 - MD 218\Planset\pHD-P101_MD218.dgn
PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
106+00
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
1
5'BI
KE LANE
107+00
108+00
109+00
110+00
111+00
112+00
113+00
114+00
5'
9'
SHARED USE
BI
KE/
PEDESTRAI
N
LANE
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
SHEE
T PS04

PC
114+00
115+00
116+00
117+00
118+00
119+00
120+00
1
2
1
+00
1
2
2
+00
5'
M ATC
H LI
NE S
TA.12
2+ 50
- SEE
STA. 120+03.01
5'
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
1
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
T PS-05
- SEE SHEE
STA.131+ 00
E
N
I
L
CH
M AT
1
24+0
MD
0
2
1
8(
S
UI
T
L
AND
R
OAD
)
1
25+0
0
A
P
C
S
T
A
.
1
2
5
+
1
8
.
5
5
T
P
0
7
.
6
8
+
8
2
1
.
A
T
S
1
2
6+00
1
2
7
+00
128+00
5'
P
T
S
T
A
.
1
2
2
+
6
3
.
2
6
1
23+0
0
+00
1
3
1
0+00
3
1
+00
9
2
1
A
5'
M ATC
H LI
NE S
TA.12
2+ 50
- SEE
SHEE
T PS04
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
ET PS-04
00 - SEE SHE
NE STA.131+
M ATCH LI
C
P
5'
1
4
.
1
9
+
8
3
1
.
A
T
S
+00
9
3
1
+00
8
3
1
+00
7
3
1
6+00
3
1
+00
5
3
1
+00
4
3
1
+00
3
3
1
+00
2
3
1
OAD)
AND R
L
T
UI
S
8(
1
MD 2
+00
1
3
1
NG
I
C
A
F
R
U
S
E
LR
L
U
F
NG
I
C
A
F
R
U
S
E
D R
E
T
MI
I
L
5'
NE STA.139+ 50 - SEE SHEET PS-06

MATCH LI
LIMIT OF SURFACING
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.
PLOTTED: Thursday, April 23, 2015 AT 03:08 PM

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
H
TC
MA
NE
LI
6+
.14
STA

MATCH LI
C
P
1
4
.
1
9
+
8
3
1
.
A
T
S
1
4
1
+00
P
T
S
T
A
.
1
4
1
+
5
4
.
9
8
1
42+0
0
A
PT
5'
P
C
S
T
A
.
1
4
4
+
6
8
.
8
7
1
4
5
+00
1
44+0
0
00
47+
1
3
1
.
8
4
0
+
7
4
+0
1
.
48
A
1
ST
7
S-0
TP
EE
SH
1
43+0
MD 2
0
1
8(
S
UI
T
L
AND
R
OAD)
EE
-S
00
5'
1
4
0+00
6+00
4
1
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
PC
STA. 147+48.13
PT
STA. 155+31.33
STA. 152+06.10
148+00
149+00
150+00
151+00
152+00

MATCH LI
5'
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
PT
154+00
153+00
156+00
155+00
5'
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
A
V
E
PC
STA. 163+32.96
159+00
158+00
157+00
160+00
161+00
162+00
163+00
1
64
+00
1
65
+00
5'
M ATCH
5'
LI
NE STA.
165+ 00
- SEE S
HEET PS
-09
I
N
G
5'

MATCH LI
EW
SH
AD
YS
I
DE
AV
E
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
M ATCH
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
E
0 - SE
.165+ 0
NE STA
LI
5'
PT
STA. 166+83.14
167+00
66+00
1
+00
65
1
168+00
169+00
170+00
171+00
172+00
173+00
5'
PS-08
SHEET

TIE EXISTING BUS
PAD INTO ADJACENT
ROADWAY
TIE-IN PROPOSED SIDEWALK
WITH EXISTING
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
5'
5'
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
174+00
175+00
176+00
177+00
178+00
179+00
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
180+00
181+00
182+00
RECONSTRUCT DETECTABLE
WARNING SURFACE
WARNING SURFACE
RECONSTRUCT CROSS-SLOPE
RECONSTRUCT EXISTING
PER ADA STANDARD
BUS STOP PER
RECONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY
ADA STANDARD
PER ADA STANDARD

RECONSTRUCT ADA RAMP
PER STANDARD
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
1
SI
LVER HI
LL RO AD
POE
STA. 186+57.28
182+00
183+00
184+00
185+00
186+00
186+57
5'
LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF SIDEWALK
STA. 185+31.29
SI
LVER HI
LL RO AD
RECONSTRUCTION
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 1A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
PT
STA. 103+48.48
104+00
103+00
+00
02
1
C
P
+00
01
1
0
0
.
0
0
+
9
9
.
A
T
S
105+00
00+00
1
0
99+0
5'
OAD)
R
AND
L
T
I
U
S
(
8
1
MD 2
MATCH EXISTING
SIDEWALK
LIMIT OF WORK
STA. 100+25.90
SO UTH
ERN
AVE S
E
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
SO UTH
ERN
AVE S
E
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
106+00
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
1
5'BI
KE LANE
107+00
108+00
109+00
110+00
111+00
112+00
113+00
114+00
5'
9'
SHARED USE
BI
KE/
PEDESTRAI
N
LANE
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
SHEE
T PS04

PC
114+00
115+00
116+00
117+00
118+00
119+00
120+00
1
2
1
+00
1
2
2
+00
5'
M ATC
H LI
NE S
TA.12
2+ 50
- SEE
STA. 120+03.01
5'
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
1
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
T PS-05
- SEE SHEE
STA.131+ 00
E
N
I
L
CH
M AT
P
T
S
T
A
.
1
2
2
+
6
3
.
2
6
1
23+0
0
1
24+0
MD
0
2
1
8(
S
UI
T
L
AND
R
OAD
)
1
25+0
0
A
P
C
S
T
A
.
1
2
5
+
1
8
.
5
5
T
P
0
7
.
6
8
+
8
2
1
.
A
T
S
1
2
6+00
1
2
7
+00
128+00
5'
M ATC
H LI
NE S
TA.12
2+ 50
- SEE
SHEE
T PS04
+00
1
3
1
0+00
3
1
+00
9
2
1
A
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
ET PS-04
00 - SEE SHE
NE STA.131+
M ATCH LI
C
P
5'
1
4
.
1
9
+
8
3
1
.
A
T
S
+00
9
3
1
+00
8
3
1
+00
7
3
1
6+00
3
1
+00
5
3
1
+00
4
3
1
+00
3
3
1
+00
2
3
1
OAD)
AND R
L
T
UI
S
8(
1
MD 2
+00
1
3
1
NG
I
C
A
F
R
U
S
E
LR
L
U
F
NG
I
C
A
F
R
U
S
E
D R
E
T
MI
I
L
5'

MATCH LI
LIMIT OF SURFACING
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.
PLOTTED: Thursday, April 23, 2015 AT 03:19 PM

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
H
TC
MA
NE
LI
6+
.14
STA

MATCH LI
C
P
1
4
.
1
9
+
8
3
1
.
A
T
S
1
4
1
+00
P
T
S
T
A
.
1
4
1
+
5
4
.
9
8
1
42+0
0
A
PT
5'
P
C
S
T
A
.
1
4
4
+
6
8
.
8
7
1
4
5
+00
1
44+0
0
00
47+
1
3
1
.
8
4
0
+
7
4
+0
1
.
48
A
1
ST
7
S-0
TP
EE
SH
1
43+0
MD 2
0
1
8(
S
UI
T
L
AND
R
OAD)
EE
-S
00
5'
1
4
0+00
6+00
4
1
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
PC
STA. 147+48.13
PT
STA. 155+31.33
STA. 152+06.10
148+00
149+00
150+00
151+00
152+00

MATCH LI
5'
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
PT
154+00
153+00
156+00
155+00
5'
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
A
V
E
LI
NE STA.
165+ 00
- SEE S
HEET PS
-09
I
N
G
5'
PC
STA. 163+32.96
159+00
158+00
157+00
160+00
161+00
162+00
163+00
1
64
+00
1
65
+00
M ATCH
5'

MATCH LI
EW
SH
AD
YS
I
DE
AV
E
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
M ATCH
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
E
0 - SE
.165+ 0
NE STA
LI
5'
PT
STA. 166+83.14
167+00
66+00
1
+00
65
1
168+00
169+00
170+00
171+00
172+00
173+00
5'
PS-08
SHEET

TIE EXISTING BUS
PAD INTO ADJACENT
ROADWAY
TIE-IN PROPOSED SIDEWALK
WITH EXISTING
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
HURO
5'
174+00
175+00
176+00
177+00
178+00
179+00
180+00
181+00
182+00
5'
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
AVE
WARNING SURFACE
WARNING SURFACE
RECONSTRUCT CROSS-SLOPE
RECONSTRUCT EXISTING
PER ADA STANDARD
BUS STOP PER
RECONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY
ADA STANDARD
PER ADA STANDARD

RECONSTRUCT ADA RAMP
PER STANDARD
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
MATCH LI
NE STA.1
1
SI
LVER HI
LL RO AD
POE
STA. 186+57.28
182+00
183+00
184+00
185+00
186+00
186+57
5'
LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF SIDEWALK
STA. 185+31.29
SI
LVER HI
LL RO AD
RECONSTRUCTION
STATE OF MARYLAND


NAVD 88 Vertical
NOTE:
CONCEPT 2A
ROADWAY LEGEND
SCALE
BY: t
di
nh -
1" = 60'
ADVERTISED DATE
CONTRACT NO.
PROPOSED FULL DEPTH
MICRO-SURFACING
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
DESIGNED BY
TQD
COUNTY
DRAWN BY
TQD
LOGMILE
CHECKED BY
BDP
HORIZONTAL SCALE
F.A.P. NO.
DETECTABLE WARNING
DRAWING NO.

PRINCE GEORGE'S
VERTICAL SCALE
OF
SHEET NO.
OF
MILLING AND RESURFACING

CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FEASIBILITY STUDY COST ESTIMATE
MD 218 SUITLAND ROAD FROM SILVER HILL ROAD TO DC LINE
FULL RESURFACING - CONCEPT 1
CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
ASPHALT SUPERPAVE FOR SURFACE
GRINDING HOT MIX ASPHALT PAVEMENT 0 INCH TO 2 INCH
HOT MIX ASPHALT SUPERPAVE FOR BASE
6 INCH GRADED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
5 INCH WHITE LEAD FREE REFLECTIVE THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS
5 INCH YELLOW LEAD FREE REFLECTIVE THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS
12 INCH WHITE PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING LINES
WHITE PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4970
42245
31
148
34042
20440
140
205
840
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$447,300
$105,613
$2,790
$1,554
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$630,154
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$94,523
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$31,508
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$31,508
TOTAL BEFORE CONTINGENCY

CONTINGENCY
$787,693
40%
TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY

OVERHEAD
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (WITHOUT RIGHT OF WAY)
K:\59143_SHA 2011-09G\Task 09 MD 218 Bike Study\Work\CostEst\Revised\Mill&Grade\Full

1 of 1 Resurfacing - 1
$315,077
$1,102,770
14.4%
$158,799
$1,261,569
8/17/2015

FULL RESURFACING - CONCEPT 1A
CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
5 INCH CONCRETE SIDEWALK
DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE FOR CURB RAMPS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4970
42245
31
148
34042
20440
140
205
840
49725
1010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$447,300
$105,613
$2,790
$1,554
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$285,919
$30,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$946,373
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$189,275
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
25%
$236,593
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$47,319

CONTINGENCY
$1,419,560
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1 Resurfacing - 1A
$567,824
$1,987,384
14.4%
$286,183
$2,273,567
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
STANDARD TYPE A COMBINATION CURB AND GUTTER 12 INCH GUTTER PAN 8 INCH DEPTH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4970
42245
31
148
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$447,300
$105,613
$2,790
$1,554
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$898,354
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$134,753
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
30%
$269,506
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$44,918

CONTINGENCY
$1,347,531
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1 Resurfacing - 2
$539,012
$1,886,543
14.4%
$271,662
$2,158,205
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
201030
202065
500000
500000
500000
520113
561116
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
CLASS 1 EXCAVATION
COMMON BORROW
8 INCH PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY MIX 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
CY
CY
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
932
3568
4970
42245
31
148
1347
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
49725
1010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$22.50
$30.00
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$95.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,970
$107,040
$447,300
$105,613
$2,790
$1,554
$127,965
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$285,919
$30,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$1,470,548
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$294,110
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
40%
$588,219
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$73,527

CONTINGENCY
$2,426,404
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1 Resurfacing - 2A
$970,562
$3,396,966
14.4%
$489,163
$3,886,129
8/17/2015

LIMITED RESURFACING - CONCEPT 1
CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3287
27937
31
148
34042
20440
140
205
840
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$295,830
$69,843
$2,790
$1,554
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$442,914
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$66,437
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$22,146
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$22,146

CONTINGENCY
$553,643
40%

OVERHEAD
K:\59143_SHA 2011-09G\Task 09 MD 218 Bike Study\Work\CostEst\Revised\Mill&Grade\Limited

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 1
$221,457
$775,100
14.4%
$111,614
$886,714
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3287
27937
31
148
34042
20440
140
205
840
49725
1010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$295,830
$69,843
$2,790
$1,554
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$285,919
$30,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$759,133
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$151,827
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
25%
$189,783
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$37,957

CONTINGENCY
$1,138,700
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 1A
$455,480
$1,594,180
14.4%
$229,562
$1,823,742
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3287
27937
31
148
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$295,830
$69,843
$2,790
$1,554
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$711,114
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$106,667
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
30%
$213,334
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$35,556

CONTINGENCY
$1,066,671
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 2
$426,668
$1,493,339
14.4%
$215,041
$1,708,380
8/17/2015

LIMITED RESURFACING - CONCEPT 2A
CAT. CODE
201030
202065
500000
500000
500000
520113
561116
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
CLASS 1 EXCAVATION
COMMON BORROW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
CY
CY
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
932
3568
3287
27937
31
148
1347
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
49725
939
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$22.50
$30.00
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$95.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,970
$107,040
$295,830
$69,843
$2,790
$1,554
$127,965
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$285,919
$28,170
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$1,281,178
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$256,236
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
40%
$512,471
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$64,059

CONTINGENCY
$2,113,944
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 2A
$845,578
$2,959,522
14.4%
$426,171
$3,385,693
8/17/2015
MICROSURFACING
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
MICRO-SURFACING USING TYPE II (ONE COAT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
74
31
148
42355
34042
20440
140
205
840
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$84,710
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$162,496
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$24,374
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$8,125
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$8,125

CONTINGENCY
$203,120
40%

OVERHEAD
K:\59143_SHA 2011-09G\Task 09 MD 218 Bike Study\Work\CostEst\Revised\MicroResurfacing\Full

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 1
$81,248
$284,368
14.4%
$40,949
$325,317
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
74
31
148
42355
34042
20440
140
205
840
49725
1010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$84,710
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$285,919
$30,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$478,715
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$95,743
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
25%
$119,679
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$23,936

CONTINGENCY
$718,073
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 1A
$287,229
$1,005,302
14.4%
$144,763
$1,150,065
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
74
31
148
42355
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$84,710
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$430,696
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$64,604
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
30%
$129,209
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$21,535

CONTINGENCY
$646,044
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 2
$258,418
$904,462
14.4%
$130,243
$1,034,705
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
201030
202065
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
561116
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
CLASS 1 EXCAVATION
COMMON BORROW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
CY
CY
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
932
3568
4
74
31
148
42355
1347
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
49725
1010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$22.50
$30.00
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$95.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,970
$107,040
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$84,710
$127,965
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$285,919
$30,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$1,002,890
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$200,578
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
40%
$401,156
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$50,145

CONTINGENCY
$1,654,769
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 2A
$661,908
$2,316,677
14.4%
$333,601
$2,650,278
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
74
31
148
27789
34042
20440
140
205
840
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$55,578
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$133,364
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$20,005
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$6,668
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$6,668

CONTINGENCY
$166,705
40%

OVERHEAD
K:\59143_SHA 2011-09G\Task 09 MD 218 Bike Study\Work\CostEst\Revised\MicroResurfacing\Limited

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 1
$66,682
$233,387
14.4%
$33,608
$266,995
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
74
31
148
27789
34042
20440
140
205
840
49725
1010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$55,578
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$285,919
$30,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$449,583
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$89,917
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
25%
$112,396
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$22,479

CONTINGENCY
$674,375
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 1A
$269,750
$944,125
14.4%
$135,954
$1,080,079
8/17/2015

CAT. CODE
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
74
31
148
27789
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$55,578
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$401,564
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
15%
$60,235
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
30%
$120,469
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$20,078

CONTINGENCY
$602,346
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 2
$240,938
$843,284
14.4%
$121,433
$964,717
8/17/2015

LIMITED RESURFACING - CONCEPT 2A
CAT. CODE
201030
202065
500000
500000
500000
520113
556324
561116
585405
585407
585621
585625
585627
634300
655105
655120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DESCRIPTION
CLASS 1 EXCAVATION
COMMON BORROW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UNIT
Total Units
Unit Cost
Total Cost
CY
CY
TON
SY
TON
SY
SY
SY
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
LF
SF
SF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
932
3568
4
74
31
148
27789
1347
34042
20440
140
205
840
8940
49725
1010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$22.50
$30.00
$90.00
$2.50
$90.00
$10.50
$2.00
$95.00
$1.00
$1.00
$7.50
$13.00
$17.50
$30.00
$5.75
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20,970
$107,040
$360
$185
$2,790
$1,554
$55,578
$127,965
$34,042
$20,440
$1,050
$2,665
$14,700
$268,200
$285,919
$30,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$973,758
CAT. 1 (% SUBTOTAL)
20%
$194,752
CAT. 3 (% SUBTOTAL)
40%
$389,503
CAT. 7 (% SUBTOTAL)
5%
$48,688

CONTINGENCY
$1,606,701
40%

OVERHEAD

1 of 1
Resurfacing - 2A
$642,680
$2,249,381
14.4%
$323,911
$2,573,292
8/17/2015

Suitland Road Bikeway Retrofit Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suitland Road Bikeway Retrofit Feasibility Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

August 21, 2015

Mr. Jason A. Ridgway

Ms. Lisa Choplin

Mr. Luis Gonzales

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

Figure 1: Proposed 5 Bike Lane Typical Section for Concept 1

Figure 2: Proposed Buffer Zone Typical Section for Concept 1

Figure 3: Proposed 5 Bike Lane Typical Section for Concept 2

Contract No. AW058A11

Figure 4: Proposed Buffer Zone Typical Section for Concept 2

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS

SWM/EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

Contract No. AW058A11

Attachments: Concept Layouts

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

MD 218 (SUITLAND ROAD)

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

MD 218 SUITLAND ROAD FROM

DATUM: NAD 83/91 Horizontal

1. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND

SHALL BE VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

PROPOSED FULL DEPTH

PLOTTED: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 AT 02:49 PM

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

MD 218 (SUITLAND ROAD)

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

MD 218 SUITLAND ROAD FROM

DATUM: NAD 83/91 Horizontal

1. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND

SHALL BE VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

PROPOSED FULL DEPTH

PLOTTED: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 AT 02:56 PM

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

MD 218 (SUITLAND ROAD)

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

MD 218 SUITLAND ROAD FROM

DATUM: NAD 83/91 Horizontal

1. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND

SHALL BE VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

PROPOSED FULL DEPTH

PLOTTED: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 AT 03:04 PM

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

MD 218 SUITLAND ROAD FROM

DATUM: NAD 83/91 Horizontal

1. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND

SHALL BE VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

PROPOSED FULL DEPTH

PLOTTED: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 AT 03:11 PM

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE