GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - CRW Engineering€¦ · GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE RABBIT CREEK ROAD TO ROMANIA DRIVE...

GOLDEN VIEW DRIVERABBIT CREEK ROAD TO ROMANIA DRIVE

Design Study Report PRE-FINAL

May 2013MOA Project No. 10-026

Prepared for: Municipality of Anchorage, Public Works Department, Project Management & Engineering Division, 4700 Elmore Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507

Prepared by: CRW Engineering Group, LLC3940 Arctic Blvd. Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 www.crweng.com

GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE

INTERSECTION & SAFETY UPGRADES

MOA Project #10-026 Golden View Drive Intersection & Safety Upgrades

Executive Summary (May 2013) - 1 -

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Municipality of Anchorage Project Management and Engineering (MOA PM&E) has

contracted with CRW Engineering Group, LLC to provide professional services to evaluate

alternatives to upgrade Golden View Drive from Rabbit Creek Road to Romania Drive to

current Municipal collector road standards. This project is the number one priority for the

Rabbit Creek Community Council and a high priority for the South Goldenview Area Rural

Road Service Area, the Anchorage School District, the Traffic Engineering Division, and the

surrounding neighborhoods. Currently, the project has been funded with a $3 million State

grant for design and pre-construction tasks. Additional bond funding and State grants will be

necessary for ROW acquisition and construction.

Based on public and agency stakeholder input during the Concept Report Phase, the

primary goals of this project are as follows, in no particular order of importance:

• Improve the roadway to meet current MOA standards.

• Improve area drainage while maintaining creeks and flows to wetlands.

• Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.

• Improve Golden View Drive/Bluebell Drive intersection.

• Evaluate solutions to address traffic congestion during peak hours on Golden View

Drive resulting from Goldenview Middle School traffic.

• Address speeding on Golden View Drive.

The Design Study Report evaluates existing and future conditions and a range of conceptual

design alternatives.

Recommended Improvements

The recommended typical cross section consists of two 11-foot lanes with 3.5-foot shoulders

and barrier curb and gutter. A single pedestrian facility is recommended: an 8-foot wide

paved pathway located on the west side, separated from the back of curb where feasible. A

drainage swale would be located on the east side.



Other recommended improvements include:

• Posted Speed Limit: Based on recommendations from the Traffic Division and

approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the posted speed limit is to be

increased from 35 MPH to 40 MPH.

• Landscaping: Proposed landscaping will be in character with the adjacent residential

properties which is native in aesthetics. The focus will be on preserving existing

vegetation to the greatest extent practical, supplementing the landscaping with new

plantings when appropriate.

• Retaining Walls: Retaining walls are recommended, as appropriate, to minimize

impacts to adjacent utilities, properties, or the environment.

• Lighting: A continuous roadway LED lighting system, current with MOA standards, is

proposed.

• Storm Drain: The proposed drainage system is made up of five separate systems,

each with their own outfall. Site topography and existing stream and drainages

necessitate using separate systems. A large diameter storm drain main will extend

along a majority of the project length, serving as both a roadway runoff collection

system, and high runoff bypass system. Existing stream and drainage crossing

structures will be replaced and upgraded as required by modifications to the roadway

cross section.

Following is a summary of conceptual estimated costs for the proposed improvements for

Golden View Drive Upgrades.

Golden View Drive Typical Section



Schedule Total

Roadway & Sidewalk Improvements1 $9,114,000

Storm Drainage Improvements $4,877,000

Illumination and Electrical Improvements $1,432,000

Landscaping $480,000

Subtotal Construction = $15,903,000

Contingency (20%) $3,181,000

Total Construction = $19,084,000

Utility Relocation $2,582,000

ROW Acquisition $100,000

Total = $21,766,000 Notes: 1. Estimated costs do not include improvements to Bluebell Drive. 2. Estimated construction and ROW acquisition costs do not include Rabbit Creek Road / Golden View Drive Intersection as this work will be dependent on the outcome of a future study being done by ADOT.


Pre-Final Design Study Report May 2013 i

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Concept Report Summary/Project Goals ........................................................................ 1 A.II. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5

Area Context ................................................................................................................... 5 A. Facility Description .......................................................................................................... 5 B. Land Use and Ownership ................................................................................................ 9 C. Geotechnical Summary ................................................................................................... 9 D. Environmental ............................................................................................................... 11 E. Drainage ........................................................................................................................ 13 F. Vegetation/Landscaping ................................................................................................ 17 G. Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 18 H.1. Water .......................................................................................................................... 18 2. Sewer ......................................................................................................................... 19 3. Natural Gas................................................................................................................. 20 4. Electric ........................................................................................................................ 21 5. Telephone ................................................................................................................... 22 6. Cable Television ......................................................................................................... 22

III. Traffic and Safety Analysis ..........................................................................................24 Existing Traffic Volume & Speed Data ........................................................................... 24 A. Traffic Projections .......................................................................................................... 27 B. Traffic Characteristics .................................................................................................... 30 C. Crash Data .................................................................................................................... 31 D. Operational Analysis ...................................................................................................... 32 E.1. Segment Analysis – Golden View Drive ...................................................................... 32 2. Intersection Analysis ................................................................................................... 33 Side Street Intersections/Access Control ....................................................................... 34 F.

IV. Stakeholder/Public Involvement ..................................................................................34 V. Design Criteria .................................................................................................................36

Design Standards .......................................................................................................... 36 A.1. Municipality of Anchorage ........................................................................................... 37 2. State of Alaska ............................................................................................................ 37 3. Federal ....................................................................................................................... 37 Design and Posted Speed ............................................................................................. 38 B.School Speed Zone: .......................................................................................................... 39 Accessibility Guidelines ................................................................................................. 39 C. Typical Section .............................................................................................................. 39 D. Clear Zone .................................................................................................................... 40 E. Lighting .......................................................................................................................... 40 F. Landscaping .................................................................................................................. 41 G. Design Criteria Summary............................................................................................... 43 H.

VI. Design Alternatives ......................................................................................................44 Design Challenges ........................................................................................................ 44 A. Golden View Drive Alignment and Profile ...................................................................... 45 B.1. Golden View Drive Profile ........................................................................................... 45


Pre-Final Design Study Report May 2013 ii

2. Golden View Drive Profile at Bluebell Drive:................................................................ 47 Local Side Street Alignments and Profiles ..................................................................... 54 C.1. Golden View Drive, south of Romania Drive ............................................................... 54 2. Bluebell Drive .............................................................................................................. 58 3. Ransom Ridge Road ................................................................................................... 58 4. Horizontal Curves ....................................................................................................... 59 Roadway Cross Section ................................................................................................ 60 D. Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................... 62 E.1. Alternative 1: Pathway west side only ......................................................................... 62 2. Alternative 2: Pathway on west side, sidewalk on east side ........................................ 63 3. Alternative 3: Pathway west side, sidewalk on east side partial length ........................ 63 4. Alternative 4: Pathway west side, sidewalk on east side partial length ........................ 63 5. Alternative 5: Pathway east side only .......................................................................... 63 Side Street Intersections/Access Control ....................................................................... 65 F. Rabbit Creek Road/Golden View Drive Intersection....................................................... 65 G. Structural Section .......................................................................................................... 66 H.

Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................. 67 I.1. Retaining Wall Types .................................................................................................. 67 2. Considerations ............................................................................................................ 68 3. Estimated Project Cost ............................................................................................... 72 Traffic Calming .............................................................................................................. 73 J. Lighting .......................................................................................................................... 74 K. Landscaping .................................................................................................................. 76 L. Trails ............................................................................................................................. 77 M. Cluster Mailboxes .......................................................................................................... 78 N. Parking .......................................................................................................................... 78 O.

VII. Drainage Analysis ........................................................................................................79 Existing Planning Documents ........................................................................................ 79 A. Storm Water Model........................................................................................................ 79 B. Proposed Drainage System ........................................................................................... 81 C.

VIII. Right-of-Way Impacts ...................................................................................................84 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 84 A. Right-of-Way Easements/Permits .................................................................................. 85 B.

IX. Design Recommendations ...........................................................................................86 Roadway ....................................................................................................................... 86 A. Structural Section .......................................................................................................... 86 B. Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................. 86 C. Drainage ........................................................................................................................ 87 D. Traffic Calming .............................................................................................................. 87 E. Lighting .......................................................................................................................... 87 F. Landscaping .................................................................................................................. 87 G. Design Cost Estimate .................................................................................................... 88 H.


Pre-Final Design Study Report May 2013 iii

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Location Map ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 – Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 – Area Zoning, Roadway Classifications, and Bus Stops ............................................. 8 Figure 4 – Wetlands Map ..........................................................................................................12 Figure 5 – Existing Drainage Map .............................................................................................16 Figure 6 – AWWU and HDP water and sewer service area boundary .......................................20 Figure 7 – Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts ........................................................25 Figure 8 – Projected AADT (design year 2033) .........................................................................28 Figure 9 – Projected Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts ......................................................29 Figure 10 – Roadway profile split at Bluebell Drive ...................................................................52 Figure 11 – Proposed Grades along Golden View thru intersection with Romania ....................55 Figure 12 – Sweep from Golden View Drive to Romania Drive .................................................57 Figure 13 – Proposed Typical Cross Section ............................................................................61


Pre-Final Design Study Report May 2013 iv

List of Tables

Table 1 – Existing AADT Traffic Data ........................................................................................24 Table 2 – Speed Study Results .................................................................................................26 Table 3 – 1999-2008 Crash Summary for Intersections on Golden View Drive .........................31 Table 4 – Golden View at E. 156th & Prominence Pointe Operational Analysis ........................33 Table 5 – Design Criteria Summary ..........................................................................................43 Table 6 – Summary of Retaining Walls (preferred alternative) ..................................................73 Table 7 – Summary of storm water runoff .................................................................................80 Table 8 – Estimated Right-of-Way Easements/Permits .............................................................85 Table 9 – Summary of Estimated Construction Costs ...............................................................88

Appendices

Appendix A: Concept Report Appendix B: Roadway Plan and Profile Sheets Appendix C: Existing Utilities Appendix D: Traffic Analysis Report and Data Appendix E: Geotechnical Analysis Appendix F: Drainage Analysis Appendix G: Rabbit Creek Road/Golden View Drive Intersection Alternative Report Appendix H: Bluebell Drive Design Study Memorandum Appendix I: Right-of-Way Analysis Appendix J: Cost Estimates Appendix K: Agency Review Comment Summary


Pre-Final Design Study Report May 2013 v

Abbreviations

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic volume (vehicles per day) AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials AASHTOGB AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ACS Alaska Communication Systems ADA Americans with Disability Act ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ADT Average Daily Traffic volume (vehicles per day) ADOT&PF/DOT Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities AFD Anchorage Fire Department AMATS Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions AMC Anchorage Municipal Code ASD Anchorage School District ATP Areawide Trails Plan AWWU Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility BOC Back of curb CEA Chugach Electric Association cfs Cubic foot per second CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe DCM Municipality of Anchorage Design Criteria Manual DHV Design Hour Volume DIP Ductile Iron Pipe DSR Design Study Report EB Eastbound EOP End of Project GCI General Communications, Inc. EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan HDPE High density polyethylene pipe IESNA Illumination Engineering Society of North America ITE Institute of Traffic Engineers LOS Level of Service MOA Municipality of Anchorage MPH Miles per hour MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices NB Northbound OS&HP Official Streets and Highways Plan PCM ADOT&PF Pre-Construction Manual PCMP Pre-coated Corrugated Metal Pipe PM&E Project Management and Engineering PUE Public Use Easement ROW Right-of-way SB Southbound sf Square feet SWMM Storm Water Management Model SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TCP Temporary Construction Permit UDC Urban Design Commission USACE US Army Corps of Engineers vpd Vehicles per day WB Westbound WSM Watershed Management


Pre-Final Design Study Report May 2013 1

I. Introduction The Municipality of Anchorage Project Management and Engineering (MOA PM&E) has

contracted with CRW Engineering Group, LLC to provide professional services to evaluate

alternatives to upgrade Golden View Drive from Rabbit Creek Road to Romania Drive to current

Municipal collector road standards. See FIGURES 1 AND 2 for Location and Project Vicinity maps.

The scope of work includes a determination of appropriate design criteria to be used for the

proposed improvements. This project is the number one priority for the Rabbit Creek

Community Council and a high priority for the South Goldenview Area Rural Road Service Area

(RRSA), the Anchorage School District, the Traffic Engineering Division, and the surrounding

neighborhoods. Currently, the project has been funded with a $3 million State grant for design

and pre-construction tasks. Additional bond funding and State grants will be necessary for right-

of-way (ROW) acquisition and construction.

Concept Report Summary/Project Goals A.

Using the MOA Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)

Policy as a guideline, the Golden View Drive Intersection

and Safety Upgrades Concept Report was prepared.

The goal of the CSS process is to collaborate with

stakeholders to improve the safety and mobility of the

corridor, balance diverse interests, and to find areas of

compromise that address budget and environmental

concerns. The CSS policy provides guidelines to involve

project stakeholders in defining the problems to be

solved and a conceptual range of potential solutions to

address the problems. The full Concept Report and

range of stakeholder activities can be found in APPENDIX

A. The CSS process will continue throughout the design

phase of the project with additional opportunities for

stakeholders to obtain information and provide feedback

through the web page, e-newsletter updates, open

houses, community council presentations, and direct

feedback through phone calls and e-mail.



Based on public and agency stakeholder input during the Concept Report Phase, the

primary goals of this project are as follows, in no particular order of importance:

• Improve the roadway to meet current MOA standards.

• Improve area drainage while maintaining creeks and flows to wetlands.

• Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.

• Improve Golden View Drive/Bluebell Drive intersection.

• Evaluate solutions to address traffic congestion during peak hours on Golden View

Drive resulting from Goldenview Middle School traffic.

• Address speeding on Golden View Drive.

The community also placed a high importance on improving the Rabbit Creek Road/Golden

View Drive intersection. The Rabbit Creek Road/Golden View Drive Intersection Alternative

Report was prepared as part of the initial Design Study Phase; however, further work on the

intersection is pending a study by the Alaska Department of Transportation (ADOT) of all of

the hillside intersections.

To achieve the above goals, the Design Study Report (DSR) evaluates the need for the

improvements to the roadway and pedestrian facilities, surface and subsurface drainage,

pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, landscaping, signalization, and lighting. The No Build

alternative is not considered in this report as it is not supported by project stakeholders and

does not address the problems that need to be resolved.

GO

LDEN

VIE

W D

RIV

E

RABBIT CREEK

ROAD

OLD SEW

ARD

SEWARD HWY

MO

UN TAIN AIRELM

OR

E

³Golden View Drive Intersection & Safety Upgrades

MOA Project #10-026

PROJECT LOCATION

Pre‐FinalDesignStudyReportMay2013 3

Figure 1 - Project Location Map

Knik Arm

Turnagain Arm

Anchorage, AK



II. Existing Conditions

Area Context A.

Land uses are a mix of large lots with lower density residential served by private wells and

septic, and newer subdivisions served by water and sewer that are more dense

(Prominence Pointe and Golden View Park). There are also significant tracts of

undeveloped, residentially-zoned land near the south end of Golden View Drive and at the

southeast corner of Golden View Drive and Rabbit Creek Road. Moen Park, a 10-acre

neighborhood park near the south end of the corridor, has play equipment for toddlers and a

small parking lot. Golden View Middle School is located at the northern end of the corridor.

Students attending Goldenview Middle School, Bear Valley Elementary School and South

Anchorage High School are all bussed from stops along Golden View Drive. Golden View

Drive is also the only winter access to Paradise Valley, a neighborhood at the south end.

Little Survival Creek and Little Rabbit Creek along with associated wetlands, tributaries, and

multiple drainage channels meander throughout the project area. Topography is generally

steep providing views towards the Anchorage Bowl and Cook Inlet. Vegetation along the

corridor is typically a mix of birch, spruce and alder and often provides a buffer between

homes and the roadway. Moose and bear frequent the area.

Facility Description B.

Golden View Drive is a collector roadway on the Anchorage hillside that serves several

adjacent residential neighborhoods and Goldenview Middle School. Golden View Drive was

annexed into the Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service Area (ARDSA) in 2008; however,

Area zoning is a mix of newer subdivision and lower density, larger lots.



the adjacent parcels and the roads to the west and east are still in the South Goldenview

Area RRSA.

The existing roadway has two 11-foot wide, strip-paved lanes with a 2-foot wide gravel

shoulder on the east side. On the west side, there is:

• A 100-foot long separated asphalt

pathway that extends south from

Rabbit Creek Road along the west

side of Golden View Drive (see

photo, right);

• A 6-foot wide paved, designated

bicycle lane from Rabbit Creek

Road to Bridgeview Drive;

• And south of Bridgeview Drive,

there is an 8-foot wide gravel

shoulder.

There are no other pedestrian/non-motorized facilities along Golden View Drive. ASD has

designated Golden View Drive as a “hazardous walking route” due to the lack of

pedestrian/bicycle facilities. As a result, all students attending Goldenview Middle School

are bussed.

There is a northbound right turn lane at the Rabbit Creek Road intersection and the posted

speed along the corridor is 35 MPH.

The public ROW varies between approximately 60 to 80 feet for the majority of the project

corridor; however, the ROW width is 100 feet north of the Rabbit Creek culvert and also just

north and south of Bluebell Drive.

Separated pathway at Rabbit Creek Road/ Golden View Drive intersection



Rabbit Creek Road is a state-owned minor arterial west (downhill) of Golden View Drive and

a collector to the east (uphill) . It has two 12-foot travel lanes with 6-foot shoulders. There

are channelized eastbound left and right turn lanes onto Golden View Drive. There is also a

channelized westbound left turn onto Golden View Drive. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH.

There are no pedestrian or non-motorized facilities along Rabbit Creek Road near the

project corridor.

People Mover Transit does not currently serve Golden View Drive. The nearest bus stop is

Route 60 along the Old Seward Highway and Huffman Road.

Anchorage School District has bus stops for Bear Valley Elementary School (Route #13),

Golden View Middle School (Route #27), and South Anchorage High School (Route #14) to

serve students living on Golden View Drive and adjacent neighborhoods. The busses stop

at E. 172nd Avenue, Ransom Ridge Road, Prominence Pointe Drive, E. 164th Avenue, E.

162nd Avenue, and E. 156th Avenue. Busses use the mailbox pullout south of Bluebell Drive

to turn-around. Parents frequently park along Golden View Drive to wait for their children to

be picked up or dropped off from the busses.

Rabbit Creek Road at Golden View Drive, looking west

Woo

ds P

o int

e

Spai

n

E. 172nd

Virg

o

E. 164th

Bet

tijea

n

E. 162nd

Bridgeview

Luna

Eliz

abet

h

Ash

land

Davi

s

Sandpiper

Win

d S

ong

Longbow

Ricky

Steambo

at

Cape Sev

ille

Feod

osia

Bet

ty

Belarde

Blue

bell

Prominence Pointe

Romania

Sai

nt J

ames

Cobb

lest

one

Hill

Nobl

e Po

int

Azalea

Far V

iew

Will

s

E. 156th

w

Kallander

Mou

ntain

side

Villa

ge

Sai

nt J

ohn'

s

Norw

ay

Bria

rclif

f Rid

ge

Ston

e R

idge

Mes

a

Lost

Horizo

nS

now

Fla

ke

Austria

Switzerland

Rosemont

Mar

ijane

Gol

den

View

Bria

rclif

f Poi

nte

Arie

s

Eve

rgre

en R

idge

Ess

ex P

ark

Manytell Andover

Buf

falo

Robin Hood

Stanw

ood

Shangri-La

Pol

lock

Cloudcroft

Hillandale

Bla

ir Vi

ew

Seville

E. 160th

Ran

som

Rid

ge

Jensen

Woo

dridg

e

Gol

den

View

Driv

e

Rabbit Creek Road

R-6

R-6

PLI R-9

R-7

R-3 SL

R-9

R-6

R-7

R-3 SL

R-6

PLI

R-7 SL

R-10 SL

R-10 SL

R-6

R-7

R-10 SL

R-9

R-7

R-6 SL

PLI-p

R-7 SL

PLIR-3 SL


MOA Project #10-026

Pre‐FinalDesignStudyReportMay2013 8

Figure 3 - Area Zoning, Roadway Classifications, & Bus Stops

ParksPLI = Public Lands & InstitutesPLI SL = Public Lands, Special LimitationsR-3 SL = Multi Family Residential, Special LimitationsR-6 = Suburban Residential

R-6 SL = Suburban, Special LimitationsR-7 = Intermediate Rural ResidentialR-7 SL = Intermediate Rural, Special Limitations

R-9 = Rural ResidentialR-10 SL = Residential Alpine, Special LimitationsLocal RoadCollector RoadMinor Arterial

LEGENDProject AreaASD School Bus Stop

cP

cP

cP

cP

cP

cP

cP

PLI

R3-SL

Collector (Class I)

Minor Arterial(Class II)

NeighborhoodCollector (Class IC)

Collector (Class I) NeighborhoodCollector (Class IB)



Land Use and Ownership C.

Land uses within the corridor are predominately

residential with the exception of Goldenview Middle

School and Moen Park. A substantial amount of

residentially-zoned land is undeveloped.

Zoning is predominately R-6 (Suburban Residential – large lot), R-7 (Intermediate Rural), R-

9 (Rural Residential), and R-3SL (Multiple Family Residential with special limitations on

development). The school and park are zoned PLI (Public Lands and Institutions). Zoning

is shown in FIGURE 3.

The capacity for growth includes a combination of infill of small lots scattered along the

corridor and the development of large

tracts of land. There is a reserved

elementary school site located just west of

the middle school. Some other potential

projects include platted and recorded

development for Prominence Pointe Phase

1 expansion (142 lots) and Shangri-La (22

lots). Other significant areas of planned

development include Forest Heights/

Legacy Point and Views of Prominence

which will both have denser residential

development.

Geotechnical Summary D.

Subsurface conditions are general composed of the structural road section overlying sand

and gravel with varying amounts of silt. Soils generally consist of the following (also see

APPENDIX E):

• Station 508+00 to 520+00: low to high frost susceptible (F1/F2 to F3) poorly graded

sands and gravels and silty sand with gravel. There are also areas of shallow

weathered rock, between 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 12 feet bgs. Cobbles

were encountered in all four borings in the existing roadway structural section.

Groundwater was observed in two borings at 6.8 feet and 13 feet bgs.

Aerial view of Golden View area (looking west)



Little Rabbit Creek

• Station 520+00 to 537+00: low to moderate frost susceptible (F1 to F2) poorly

graded sands and gravels, silty sand with gravel, and areas of high frost susceptible

soils (F2/F3). Cobbles were encountered in four of the five borings in the existing

roadway structural section. Groundwater was encountered in three of the borings at 4

feet, 11 feet, and 16 feet bgs.

• Station 537+00 to 585+00: non-frost to high frost susceptible (NFS to F3) poorly

graded sands and gravels, silty gravel with sands, and silty sand with gravel. Peat

was encounter in two borings at 16 feet bgs and 2.5 feet bgs. Cobbles were

encountered in the majority of the borings in the existing roadway structural section.

Groundwater was observed in ten of the borings at between 7 and 14.5 feet bgs.

• Station 585+00 to 601+00: low to high frost susceptible (F1 to F2/F3) poorly graded

sands and gravels, silty gravel with sand, and silty sand with gravel. Cobbles were

encountered in seven of the eight all of the boreholes. Groundwater was observed in

four of the eight of the boreholes, at depths of between 6.3 feet and 15 feet bgs.

Piezometers were installed in selected boreholes and follow up groundwater measurements

taken between August and October 2011 indicated that the groundwater rose considerably

in all but one of the 33 borings.



Typical stream tributary

Environmental E.

Based on a review of the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan and the MOA Wetlands

Atlas, 2008 Edition, there are numerous mapped wetland and streams within the project

corridor (FIGURE 4). Little Survival Creek and Little Rabbit Creek along with associated

wetlands, tributaries, and multiple drainage channels meander throughout the project area.

Both Little Rabbit Creek and Little Survival Creek are listed as “Impaired Water Bodies” by

the ADEC for fecal coliform bacteria resulting from urban runoff. As such, these creeks

require measures to maintain and restore the creek’s water functions.

The project team held a meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on

December 6, 2011 to introduce the project and discuss options to avoid, minimize, and

mitigation potential impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Based on initial information

and observations, it should be

anticipated that the majority of the

drainage channels will be jurisdictional

waters and the USACE will be

concerned about maintaining flows to

downstream wetlands. During the

Design Phase, all wetlands, streams and

drainage channels within the project

corridor will be delineated and a

jurisdictional determination will be

submitted to the USACE for concurrence

and subsequent permitting.

Kallander Avenue

Rabbit Creek Road

Gol

den

View

Driv

e

Bridgeview Drive

Romania Drive

Eliz

abet

h St

reet

East 172nd Avenue

Bulgaria Drive

Prominence Pointe Drive

East 164th Avenue

East 162nd Avenue

Bluebell Drive

Ricky Road East 156th Avenue

Ransom Ridge Road

P

P

BB

B

D

B

B

C

B

D

B

P

C

P

B

C

B

D

B

U

P

D

B

B

D

D

P

H

D

C

D

C

D

C

D

D

D

DU

D

DD

D

D

D

D

A

Little Rabbit Creek

Potter Creek


MOA Project #10-026

Pre‐FinalDesignStudyReportMay2013

12

Figure 4 - Wetlands Map

Legend

Project Area

Stream

Wetlands & Designation



Drainage F.

Existing drainage facilities along Golden

View Drive consist primarily of roadside

ditches, channels, and culverts. A number

of the ditches and open channels have

been mapped by MOA Watershed

Management Section (WMS) as drainage

ways and are expected to be included

under USACE jurisdiction. Based on visual

inspection, the condition of these systems

vary greatly. Many of the conveyance

facilities have electrical heat trace

installations including: heat trace in conduit

mounted in culverts and structures, bare

heat trace in culverts and ditches, and

heat trace in conduit staked in ditches.

A segment of buried storm drain pipe runs along Golden View Drive from station 555+05 to

station 564+21. A subdrain which runs from station 555+00 to station 558+30 is connected

to this system, from there it is conveyed to just north of E. 164th Avenue and discharged into

an open channel.

There are nine stream crossings along the project

corridor, with existing culvert sizes varying from 18 to 72

inches in diameter. Seven of the streams are first order.

One is second order; North Branch South Fork Little

Rabbit Creek, and Little Rabbit Creek is third order.

Third order streams are subject to higher scrutiny in

regards to passing flows from larger flood events.

Perched culvert at stream crossing

Typical roadside ditch



Typical Stream and culvert

Golden View Stream Crossings

Stream Name Crossing Station

Catchment Area (Acres) Order

Potter Branch 508+50 30 1 South Fork Little Survival Creek 522+15 36 1 South Branch Little Survival Creek 529+35 43 1 Little Survival Creek 535+70 357 1 North Branch Little Survival Creek 554+55 109 1 South Branch South Fork Little Rabbit Creek 570+05 192 1 North Branch South Fork Little Rabbit Creek 585+65 101 2 Little Rabbit Creek 595+60 4800 3 Elmore Creek 605+00 102 1

Drainage within the project area is influenced by steep grades, shallow bedrock, and

shallow groundwater. Bedrock is as shallow as 2.5 feet in places, reducing space for

groundwater to flow and effectively forcing it to the surface. There is a high incidence of

groundwater seeps, particularly at cut banks for roads, ditches, and residences. These

groundwater seeps are highly susceptible to freezing and icing problems in certain locations.

The conditions described also result in substantial base flow in roadside ditches and

drainages. Water that would have otherwise been subsurface is daylighted at road cuts,

driveways, and ditches where it accumulates and flows over the ground. This intermittent

groundwater contributes to a significant and typically steady base flow in many ditches,

drainage ways, and small streams.

Icing, also referred to as glaciation or aufeis,

affects numerous locations along the project

corridor. Typical locations are at driveway

culvert crossings, roadway cut banks, and

shallow-sloped, flat-bottom ditches. Severity

of icing is variable and depends on a number

of conditions, including: air temperature

throughout the winter season, snow cover,

wind, and depth of frost penetration.



Mid-winter thaw events typically exacerbate icing as daytime temperatures rise above

freezing, creating runoff which later freezes at culverts and other constrictions created by

roadway snow removal and storage. Many of the ditches and associated culverts are within

the snow plow side-cast and snow storage area. The plowed snow is piled over culvert

inlets, and even driven over by vehicles, creating a plugged-inlet condition when thaw

events occur.

There are numerous private driveways that adjoin Golden View Drive. Crossing culverts

are installed to maintain roadside-ditch connectivity. Many of these driveways culverts

suffer from ineffective maintenance and have accumulations of sediment, vegetation and

trash. Culverts with shallow cover and restricted inlets as described are very susceptible

to icing. The existing storm drain system is shown in FIGURE 5.

Glaciation along Golden View Drive

Kallander Avenue

POTTER BRANCH

SOUTH FORKLITLE SURVIVAL CREEK

SOUTH BRANCH

LITTLE SURVIVAL

CREEK

NORTH BRANCH

LITTLE SURVIVAL CREEK

SOUTH BRANCH SOUTH FORKLITTLE RABBIT CREEK

NORTH BRANCHSOUTH FORK

LITTLE RABBIT CREEK

Rabbit Creek Road

Gol

den

View

Driv

e

Bridgeview Drive

Romania Drive

Eliz

abet

h St

reet

East 172nd Avenue

Bulg

Prominence Pointe Drive

East 164th Avenue

East 162nd Avenue

Bluebell Drive

Ricky Road East 156th Avenue

Ransom Ridge Road

LITTLE RABBIT CREEK

ELMORE CREEK

LITTLE SURVIVAL CREEK


MOA Project #10-026

Pre‐FinalDesignStudyReportMay2013

16

Figure 5 - Existing Drainage Map

Legend

Stream

Storm Pipe & Flow Direction

Culvert & Flow Direction

Open Channel & Flow Direction

Project Area



Vegetation/Landscaping G.

The majority of the existing vegetation along the project corridor is native birch and spruce

forest. Cottonwoods and other riparian plants are found in the drainages. Overall, the

vegetation has a natural, rural

character indicative of the hillside area.

The project corridor is dotted with

driveway entries and mailboxes for

private homes. There are some

locations that have cluster-type

mailboxes with the largest

concentration located on the west side

of Golden View Drive directly across

from Moen Park.

There are two locations that have distinctly ‘developed’ landscapes. The entry drive to

Goldenview Middle School includes a large masonry entry sign surrounded by a maintained

lawn. The edge of the lawn is

lined with landscape boulders.

Although this landscaped area

is developed and maintained, it

fits well into the overall rural

appearance of the area.

Further to the south lies the

Prominence Pointe subdivision

entry landscape. It has a formal

character and includes

decorative fencing, an entry

sign, a water feature, non-native ornamental landscape plantings, and a maintained lawn.

This ‘built’ landscape is distinctive within the overall rural appearance of the project corridor.

Goldenview Middle School entry

Typical vegetation along Golden View Drive



Views from the roadway are limited due to the heavy mature vegetation. Some areas on the

west side of the roadway, where the development of private homes has taken place, offer

views of Turnagain Arm.

Utilities H.

Existing utilities within the project area include water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric,

telephone, cable television, and fiber optic (See APPENDIX C for the location of the existing

utilities). Many properties are served by private wells and septic systems.

Utility locations are based on both utility company facility maps and field locates. Their

locations are considered conceptual at this phase. A utility conflict report will be prepared

during the design phase. Scoping letters have been sent to the utility companies requesting

additional information on existing facilities and any plans for future upgrades.

1. Water

The majority of the residences that front Golden View Drive are served by private wells.

Private well locations have not been surveyed at this time but any impacts to private

property caused by improvements to Golden View Drive will include researching the

locations of existing wells for possible conflicts.

Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU) also owns and operates water

facilities within the Goldenview Park and the Prominence Pointe Subdivisions. A 12-inch

ductile iron water main crosses Golden View Drive at E. 164th Avenue (station 563+88).

Prominence Pointe subdivision landscape



AWWU intends to build a new water reservoir off of Golden View Drive just north of

Romania Drive, on the west side of the roadway (on Parcel 172). This reservoir would be

connected to the Prominence Pointe water system by a new 12-inch water main that

parallels Golden View Drive. Expected construction date for the new water reservoir is

unknown at this time.

The current AWWU Water and Wastewater Master Plan maximum service area and the

Hillside District Plan’s proposed maximum service area are shown in FIGURE 6. The

designated services areas limit the expansion of both public water and sewer systems

on the hillside.

AWWU was contacted for possible projects in the area. The 2012 AWWU Draft Water

Master Plan has cited Golden View Drive as a possible corridor for future water main

extension and AWWU has acquired a parcel for a future water storage tank at the

southern end of Golden View Drive. Extending water services is in the long term forecast

– 10 to 20 years out. AWWU will also be evaluating the hydraulics of the possible

proposed route along Golden View Drive and may choose a different alignment, not

along Golden View Drive, that better meets the needs of the distribution system to serve

south Anchorage.

2. Sewer

The majority of the residences that front Golden View Drive are served by private septic

systems. Private septic systems have not been surveyed at this time but any impacts to

private property caused by improvements to Golden View Drive will include researching

the locations of existing septic systems for possible conflicts.

Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU) owns and operates the sanitary

sewer facilities within the Goldenview Park and the Prominence Pointe Subdivisions. A

12-inch ductile iron sewer main crosses Golden View Drive at E. 164th Avenue (station

563+60). A 12-inch ductile iron sewer main extends into Golden View Drive at

Bridgeview Drive (station 576+85).



Figure 6 – AWWU and HDP water and sewer service area boundary

3. Natural Gas

ENSTAR Natural Gas Company owns and operates natural gas facilities within the

project area. A 4-inch plastic gas main runs along the east side of Golden View Drive

from Romania Drive (beginning of the project) north to E. 172nd Avenue (station 536+80),



Enstar's pressure reducing vault

where it crosses to the west side of the road. This line continues north on the west side

of the road to E. 164th Avenue (station 563+60) where it crosses back to the east side of

the road and continues to Rabbit Creek Road (end of the project).

The 4-inch plastic line serves many of the residences and neighborhoods that front

Golden View Drive. Approximately thirty steel and plastic service lines, ranging in size

from 5/8 inch to 1 inch, are fed directly from the 4-inch plastic gas main. Additionally, 2-

inch plastic gas mains connect

to the 4-inch main at Bluebell

Drive, Kallander Avenue,

Ransom Ridge Road, E. 164th

Avenue, E. 162nd Avenue, and

E. 156th Avenue. If roadway

grade changes occur, it is

likely that much of the 4-inch

plastic gas main as well as the

2-inch gas crossings will

require adjustments.

In addition to the 4-inch plastic gas main, Enstar also owns a 12-inch pressurized

transmission main that runs along the east side of the Golden View Drive ROW from E.

172nd Avenue (station 536+90) to Rabbit Creek Road (end of the project). A pressure

reducing vault for this main is located on the southeast corner of the E. 172nd Avenue

and Golden View Drive intersection (station 536+75). Significant changes in grade over

the transmission main will require adjustment of the pressurized main. Due to the

importance of this main to the overall Enstar Natural gas system, interruption of this

main should be avoided.

4. Electric

Chugach Electric Association (CEA) owns and operates electrical facilities within the

project area. CEA has existing 3 phase power lines that run the extent of the project on

the east side of Golden View Drive. The power lines are overhead along Golden View

Drive except in front of Prominence Pointe where they are underground. These lines

provide power to the residences and neighborhoods that front Golden View Drive.

Overhead electric lines cross Golden View Drive in twelve separate locations.

Additionally, underground three phase lines and single phase lines cross Golden View



five times between E. 172nd Avenue and E. 164th Avenue. Underground lines also cross

Golden View Drive at Rabbit Creek Road.

Improvements to Golden View Drive that directly impact the overhead lines and poles,

reduce minimum clearance requirements for overhead lines, or reduce minimum

coverage requirements for underground power lines will require adjustments.

5. Telephone

Alaska Communication Systems (ACS) and General Communications Inc. (GCI) own

and operate telephone facilities, including lines and pedestals, in the project area. ACS

owns three overhead telephone lines that run along the east side of Golden View Drive

on CEA’s utility poles. Similar to CEA, these telephone lines run underground in front of

the Prominence Pointe Subdivision.

A 600-pair underground telephone line runs along the west side of Golden View Drive

from Romania Drive to station 524+13 (approximately 700 feet south of Bluebell Drive),

where it crosses Golden View Drive and connects to the aerial system on the east side

of the roadway. Underground telephone lines cross Golden View Drive at Romania

Drive, Ransom Ridge Road, Prominence Pointe Drive, Ricky Road, and Rabbit Creek

Road. Aerial telephone lines cross Golden View Drive approximately 500 feet south of

Kallander Avenue, at E. 164th Avenue, and at E. 162nd Avenue.

Adjustments to the telephone system will be required if improvements to Golden View

Drive cause minimum clearances for underground and overhead telephone utilities to

not be met.

6. Cable Television

General Communications Inc. (GCI) also owns and operates cable TV facilities within

the project area, consisting of underground coaxial cable lines, fiber optic lines, and

pedestals.

On the east side of Golden View Drive, a fiber optic lines runs from Romania Drive north

to Prominence Pointe. Just north of Prominence Pointe Drive, the fiber optic line crosses

Golden View Drive where it is joined by a second underground fiber optic line. The two

underground fiber optic lines continue north along the west side of Golden View Drive to

Rabbit Creek Road.



In addition to the fiber optic lines, GCI also has an underground 0.875 coaxial cable that

runs along the east side of Golden View Drive from Romania Drive to Prominence

Pointe Drive (station 560+38). From here, the coaxial cable crosses Golden View Drive

and continues north to Rabbit Creek Road. The 0.875 coaxial cable has spur lines that

cross Golden View Drive at Bridgeview Drive and approximately 600 feet south of Rabbit

Creek Road.

An underground 0.500 coaxial cable runs along the west side of Golden View Drive from

Ransom Ridge Road to Goldenview Middle School and on the east side of Golden View

Drive from Prominence Pointe to Rabbit Creek Road. An underground 0.625 coaxial

cable runs along the east side of Golden View Drive between E. 162nd Avenue and E.

156th Avenue.

A 0.625 coaxial cable also crosses Golden View Drive at Romania Drive.

Adjustments to the cable system will be required if improvements to Golden View Drive

cause conflicts with underground facilities.



III. Traffic and Safety Analysis A Traffic and Safety Analysis, dated February 17, 2012 was completed by Kinney Engineering

for this project. A summary of the analysis is presented below and the complete report is

included in APPENDIX D.

Existing Traffic Volume & Speed Data A.

Existing published traffic data, supplemented with new field data, was gathered to analyze

existing traffic in the study area. This data included:

• Speed Studies

• Traffic Volume Data

• Intersection Turning Movement Counts

Existing Traffic Volumes

The ADOT reports the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) by segment for major streets.

The following table summarizes the AADT for the major streets in the project area:

Table 1 – Existing AADT Traffic Data

Golden View Drive Segment 2010 AADT Bulgaria Drive to Rabbit Creek Road 2,210 North of Rabbit Creek Road (to E. 142nd Street) 275

Rabbit Creek Road Segment 2010 AADT Elmore Road to Golden View Drive 7,130 Golden View Drive to Clark’s Road 2,410

In addition to the ADOT data, the MOA and Kinney Engineering conducted both intersection

and mid-block volume counts. Existing peak hour turning movement counts are shown on

FIGURE 7.



Figure 7 – Existing Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts



Many residents of Golden View Gate Subdivision have expressed that they experience cut-

through traffic on Bridgeview Drive between Golden View Drive and Rabbit Creek Road. As

a result, volume and speed data was also collected for Bridgeview Drive; however, the traffic

volume study does not support the presence of cut-through traffic. Traffic using Bridgeview

Drive appears to be mostly parents of Goldenview Middle School students who drive their

students to school.

Bridgeview Drive Link Count Location Date EB or NB WB or SB Bridgeview Drive near Goldenview MS 9/23/11-9/27/11 184 (EB) 221 (WB)

Bridgeview Drive near covered bridge

9/23/11-9/27/11 1,338 (NB) 1,242 (SB)

Speed Studies

The posted speed on Golden View Drive is 35 MPH. The results of speed studies taken on

Golden View Drive and Bridgeview Drive between 2005 and 2011 are shown below.

Table 2 – Speed Study Results

Golden View Drive

Location Date NB 85% Speed (MPH)

SB 85% Speed (MPH)

0.2 miles south of Bluebell Dr. 5/18/10 44 43 50’ north of Prominence Pointe Dr. 4/21/10 45 47 At Goldenview MS driveway 9/22/11 46 46 South of Rabbit Creek Road 5/3/05 45 46

Bridgeview Drive

Location Date NB 85% Speed (MPH)

SB 85% Speed (MPH)

Between Cape Seville & Golden View Dr. 8/10/05 34 35

Between Cape Seville & Noble Point 8/10/05 31 29 East end near Middle School 9/29/11 21 26 South of covered bridge 9/29/11 31 30

NB - Northbound SB – Southbound



Traffic Projections B.

The design year for this project is 2033. Future traffic volumes for 2033 were determined

using the 2027 Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) model,

modified to reflect the recommendations in the Hillside District Plan, and applying traffic

growth based on expected population. Kinney Engineering also updated the traffic model by

including recommendations from NCHRP Report 25 Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized

Area Project Planning and Design, adding Goldenview Middle School as a special

generator, and refining the road centerlines and minor street accesses to Golden View

Drive.

The 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan for the MOA includes a long range project that

would extend Golden View Drive to Potter Valley Road. There is uncertainty regarding

whether this project would be constructed prior to the 2033 design year; therefore, the

model was developed and run in two scenarios with and without the Potter Valley Road

connection.

FIGURE 8 shows the projected 2033 AADTs both with the Potter Valley Road extension and

without the Potter Valley Road extension. Projected peak hour turning movements for major

intersections on Golden View Drive are shown on FIGURE 9.



Figure 8 – Projected AADT (design year 2033)



Figure 9 – Projected Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts



Traffic Characteristics C.

Traffic characteristics vary along Golden View Drive due to the school and more densely

developed northern section versus the more rural section of the southern end. Therefore,

traffic characteristics for Golden View Drive were analyzed in two separate segments:

Segment 1 – Bulgaria Drive to Bluebell Drive and Segment 2 – Bluebell Drive to Rabbit

Creek Road. Traffic characteristics are summarized in the table below.

2033 Design Year Traffic Characteristic Summary

Traffic Characteristic Bulgaria Drive

to Bluebell Drive

Bluebell Drive to Rabbit Creek

Road

Design Hour Volume 10% 10%

Peak Hour Factor (AM and PM) 0.95 0.95

Peak Hour Factor (AM Peak-NB left turn movement at Rabbit Creek Intersection) -- 0.70

Directional Distribution (North/South) 30/70 35/65

Heavy Vehicle Percentage (AM Peak) 2.0% 5.0%

Heavy Vehicle Percentage (PM Peak) 2.0% 2.0%

Equivalent Single Axle Loads 19,000 390,000

Design hour volume is used for capacity and equivalent single axle load computations for

roadway sections. The design hour volume was estimated using the 30th Highest Hour of

the closest permanent traffic recorder, located on O’Malley Road. A design hour volume of

10.0 percent should be used for all segments on Golden View Drive.

Peak Hour Factors (PHF) are a measure of the uniformity of the traffic and used to convert

volumes to 15 minute design flow rates for capacity analyses. As the peak hour factor

approaches 1.00, the traffic becomes more uniform. A peak hour factor of 0.95 was

assumed for all movement during both the AM and PM peak periods with the exception of

the AM northbound left turn movement at the intersection of Rabbit Creek Road and Golden

View Drive. This movement experiences a high AM peak corresponding to the Goldenview

Middle School peak. A peak hour factor of 0.70 was used for this movement.

Directional distribution was estimated using the link counts for the peak hour of traffic. Traffic

counts showed the daily peak hour was from 5:00 to 6:00 PM. The directional distributions

during the peak hour are 35/65 for the segment between Rabbit Creek Road and Bluebell

Drive and 30/70 for the segment from Bluebell Drive to Bulgaria Drive.



The heavy vehicle percentage is the percent of the AADT that is made up of heavy vehicles.

The turning movement field data was used to calculate the peak hour heavy vehicle

percentage. A heavy vehicle percentage of 2.0 percent was used for both segments except

in during the AM peak hour between Rabbit Creek Road and Bluebell Drive. This segment

is influenced by the large number of school buses and a heavy vehicle percentage of 5.0

percent was used.

Crash Data D.

Crash records have been obtained for the most recent 10 years (1999 – 2008). A total of 71

crashes occurred in the project area during that time period (see APPENDIX D). Nearly all the

crashes (66 out of 71) recorded on Golden View Drive were located at intersections.

Intersection crash rates were determined for each major intersection. The upper control limit

(UCL), or critical rate, is determined statistically as a function of the statewide average crash

rate. Locations with rates that exceed the UCL are inferred to be well above the average

and are not likely due to chance. TABLE 3 below summarizes the intersection crashes and

UCLs along Golden View Drive from 1999 – 2008.

Crash diagrams are summarized in APPENDIX D.

Table 3 – 1999-2008 Crash Summary for Intersections on Golden View Drive

Intersection: Golden View Drive at ... To

tal

Cra

shes

(1

999-

2008

)

Cra

shes

/ M

EV

Con

trol

Stat

e A

vera

ge

(199

9-20

08)

UC

L @

95

.00%

C

onfid

ence

at Romania Dr. 3 0.374 Stop (3 leg) 0.535 1.022

at Bluebell Dr. 12 1.364 Stop (3 leg) 0.535 0.997

at E. 172nd Ave. 4 0.528 Stop (3 leg) 0.535 1.038

at Ransom Ridge Rd. 4 0.546 Stop (3 leg) 0.535 1.048

at Prominence Pointe Dr. 2 0.202 Stop (3 leg) 0.535 0.968

at E. 162nd Ave. 3 0.312 Stop (4 leg) 0.669 1.155

at Bridgeview Dr. 6 0.764 Stop (3 leg) 0.535 1.028

at E. 156th Ave. 5 0.680 Stop (4 leg) 0.669 1.233

at Rabbit Creek Rd. 27 1.278 Stop (4 leg) 0.669 0.985 Legend: = Above Critical Rate



Golden View Drive at morning peak

Two intersections, Bluebell Drive and Rabbit Creek Road, have crash rates that are higher

than the statewide average and higher than the critical rate for similar intersections. Crash

diagrams for these intersections can be found in APPENDIX D.

Right angle crashes account for 48 percent of the crashes at the Golden View Drive and

Rabbit Creek Road intersection. Severity of the crashes at this intersection are not

statistically above the statewide average rate. Nearly 60 percent of the crashes occurred

during the winter with almost 48 percent of them occurring during the Goldenview Middle

School peak periods. Northbound movements caused 56 percent of crashes at the Rabbit

Creek Road intersection. The high rate of crashes for the northbound movement can be

partially attributed to the poor level of service during the AM peak hour. Improvements to

this intersection should include mitigation measures to address the large number of right

angle crashes.

Of the twelve reported crashes at Bluebell Drive, seven (58 percent) were right angle

crashes. All but one of these crashes occurred under either snow or ice roadway surface

conditions. These crashes may be partially attributed to the steep grade on Bluebell Drive.

Operational Analysis E.

1. Segment Analysis – Golden View Drive

Golden View Drive between Rabbit

Creek Road and Romania Drive is

currently a two-lane facility. Except for

the two-way stop at Rabbit Creek Road,

Golden View Drive traffic is under an

uninterrupted traffic flow regime

between Rabbit Creek Road and

Romania Drive. The two-lane highway

methodology from the 2010 Highway

Capacity Manual was used for capacity

analysis. During the 2033 design year, Golden View Drive between Romania Drive and

Bluebell Drive will operate under a level-of-service (LOS) B, with or without the Potter

Valley Road connection. Golden View Drive between Bluebell Drive and Rabbit Creek

Road will operate under a LOS C, with or without the Potter Valley Road connection. A

two-lane section will be adequate for achieving acceptable levels of service through the

design year.



Golden View Drive at morning peak

2. Intersection Analysis

A capacity analysis for the intersections of Golden View Drive with roads designated as

major or secondary (Prominence Pointe Drive, E. 156th Avenue, and Rabbit Creek Road)

was performed using the 2010

Highway Capacity Manual.

Intersection performance is

measured by the average vehicle

delay, which relates to the LOS,

during the most critical operational

time periods (in this case, AM and

PM peak hours). The following tables

summarize the results of this

analysis.

Table 4 – Golden View at E. 156th & Prominence Pointe Operational Analysis

Approach

WB L/T/R EB L/T/R

Golden View Drive @ E. 156th Avenue – Existing Configuration 2011 AM Peak Level-of-Service B C

2011 PM Peak Level-of-Service A A

2033 AM Peak Level-of-Service B C

2033 PM Peak Level-of-Service B D

Golden View Drive @ Prominence Pointe Drive – Existing Configuration 2011 AM Peak Level-of-Service A -

2011 PM Peak Level-of-Service A -

2033 AM Peak Level-of-Service A -

2033 PM Peak Level-of-Service A - NB - Northbound SB - Southbound WB - Westbound EB - Eastbound

L - Left T - Through R – Right



Side Street Intersections/Access Control F.

Most of the developed side streets intersect Golden View Drive at a tee. Two side streets

intersect with Golden View Drive at a four-way intersection: Ricky Road/E. 156th Avenue and

E. 162nd Avenue. The following side streets connect with Golden View Drive on the east

side:

• Romania Drive • Bluebell Drive

• Prominence Pointe Drive • E. 162nd Avenue

• E. 156th Avenue (Ricky Road on the west side of Golden View)

Side streets connecting to the west side include:

• Kallander Avenue • E. 172nd Avenue

• Ransom Ridge Road • E. 164th Avenue

• E. 162nd Avenue • Bridgeview Drive

• Ricky Road (E. 156th Avenue on the east side of Golden View)

These side streets are all stop-controlled intersections with the primary movement on

Golden View Drive (north-south traffic) and the stop-controlled secondary movement on the

side street (east-west traffic). Traffic volumes along the side streets are well below the

requirement for the addition of turn lanes on the side street or Golden View Drive.

There are 29 private driveways that have direct access onto Golden View Drive. These

driveways vary in width and typically have either asphalt or gravel surfacing. Many

driveways have steep grades exceeding 10 percent.

IV. Stakeholder/Public Involvement An Open House was held on May 16th, 2011 to introduce the project and receive input from

stakeholders. Approximately 40 stakeholders attended the meeting. An Advisory Committee

was then established in December 2011 and met on January 11, 2012 to provide input on the

preliminary draft alternatives for Golden View Drive and the Rabbit Creek Road Intersection

prior to the second public Open House. The second public Open House was held on January

26, 2012 to present the draft alternatives and a summary of the Draft DSR. The meeting was

advertised through direct mailing, electronic newsletters, and on the web page. Over 52

stakeholders attended the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission also held a public

hearing on the Draft DSR on July 2, 2012. A member of the project team regularly attends the



Rabbit Creek Community Council meetings and

a special meeting was held with the board

members and the MOA to discuss lighting and

the posted speed limit on February 27, 2013.

In general, stakeholders are well-educated

about the project constraints including steep

slopes and drainage. Stakeholders generally

support only one pedestrian facility along

Golden View Drive in order to minimize impacts

to adjacent property owners and wetlands. Stakeholders have not reached consensus on street

lighting and the posted speed limit. Conceptual alternatives for improving Rabbit Creek Road

intersection were evaluated and presented to the public; however, it was explained that

intersection improvements are currently on-hold pending completion of a future ADOT study of

multiple the hillside intersections, including the intersection of Rabbit Creek Road and Golden

View Drive. Improvements to the intersection of Rabbit Creek Road/Golden View Drive will be

dependent on the results of the hillside intersection study and prioritization of all hillside

intersections by ADOT.

Comments received to date can be found in

APPENDIX A.

The CSS process will continue throughout the

design phase of the project with additional

opportunities for stakeholders to obtain information

and provide feedback through the web page, e-

newsletter updates, open houses, community

council presentations, and direct feedback through

phone calls and e-mail. The Advisory Committee will

also continue to meet as necessary to provide input

to the project team.

Open house #2 (Jan 2012)

Open House #1 (May 2011)



V. Design Criteria

Design Standards A.

Project design criteria are a

function of the roadway

characteristics and the design

standards used. The owner of the

facility and the funding source often

dictate the design standards that

are used. The current funding

source for the improvements is

through the State of Alaska. Future

funding is likely to be a combination

of local road bonds and state

grants. Rabbit Creek Road is

owned and maintained by ADOT

and Golden View Drive is owned

and maintained by the MOA;

therefore, the design criteria for the

intersection is based on both MOA

and ADOT design standards. The

documents listed on the right

provide the design guidance,

standards and requirements for this

project.

TABLE 5 provides a listing of the

design criteria recommended for

the proposed roadway and pathway

improvements. Design variances

are required for recommended

solutions that do not meet the

requirements of the MOA Design

Criteria Manual (DCM).



1. Municipality of Anchorage

The Official Streets and Highways Plan (OS&HP) is currently the planning document

providing policies and standards for the transportation needs within the MOA. The

OS&HP lists the functional classification for primary roadways located within Anchorage,

Eagle River and Girdwood based on the Long-Range Transportation Plan. The OS&HP

provides general roadway design standards based on functional classification including

the number of lanes, width of ROW, and distance between intersections.

Golden View Drive south of Rabbit Creek Road is designated as a “Collector” and north

of Rabbit Creek Road, it is a “Neighborhood Collector.” Rabbit Creek Road west of

Golden View Drive is classified as a “Class II Minor Arterial” and a “Collector” to the east.

FIGURE 3 shows the roadway classifications in the project vicinity.

The MOA PM&E Design Criteria Manual (DCM) is an implementation document and

provides detailed design criteria for roadways developed within the MOA using local or

state funds. The design standards are based on the functional classifications included in

the OS&HP. Design variances are required for recommended solutions that do not meet

the DCM design criteria.

2. State of Alaska

The ADOT Highway Preconstruction Manual (PCM) provides detailed design criteria for

federally-funded roadway projects within the State of Alaska. The PCM is intended to

interpret and amend the goals and objectives of the AASHTO “Policy on Geometric

Design of Highways and Streets”, the “Green Book”, (AASHTOGB). The PCM

references other documents, including AASHTOGB, for many design parameters

including alignment, intersection design, sight distance, design speed, grades, lane

width and shoulder width.

3. Federal

AASHTOGB is a comprehensive reference manual for planning and design of highways

and streets in the United States. The most current publication year for the AASHTOGB

is 2011. The manual provides roadway design recommendations and standards based

on functional classification.



Design and Posted Speed B.

The design speed affects the length of sight distance available along the roadway’s

horizontal alignment and vertical profile, particularly at intersecting roadways and pedestrian

facilities. As design speeds increase, longer sight distances are required to provide more

reaction time and braking distance to respond to roadway obstacles. Additionally, higher

design speeds require a more gradual change in horizontal and vertical alignment which

typically increases the extent of cut and/or fill near hills. It is important that the design speed

is slightly higher than the posted speed (typically 5 to 10 MPH higher) to provide a margin of

safety for drivers driving at the speed limit in unfavorable conditions such as poor weather.

Golden View Drive has a posted speed of 35 MPH. The DCM requires a

design speed of 45 MPH for residential collectors.

Rabbit Creek Road has a posted speed of 45 MPH. The PCM references

the AASHTOGB for posted and design speed which recommends a

design speed of 40 to 50 MPH for rural arterials in mountainous terrain.

Since the posted speed is already within the recommended design

speeds, a design speed of 55 MPH was chosen for Rabbit Creek Road

west of Golden View Drive. East of Golden View Drive, where Rabbit

Creek Road is a collector, the AASHTOGB recommends a design speed

of 40 MPH in mountainous terrain. This recommended design speed is

below the existing posted speed and thus a design speed of 50 MPH

was chosen for Rabbit Creek Road east of Golden View Drive.

The 85th percentile speed along Golden View Drive is approximately 46 MPH. Raising the

posted speed to more closely match the existing 85th percentile speed has proven to be an

effective method to reduce the variation between average speed and 85th percentile speed.

Reducing speed variation results in safer driving conditions. Studies have also shown that

an increase in posted speed does not have an equal increase in average travel speed.

In December 2011, a memorandum was submitted to the MOA Traffic Engineering Division

to obtain their input on the posted speed along Golden View Drive. Recommendations from

the Traffic Division were requested in regards to raising the posted speed to 40 MPH or

maintaining the existing posted speed of 35 MPH. The Traffic Division recommends raising

the speed limit to 40 MPH.

85% SPEED

46



School Speed Zone: With the proposed pedestrian improvements and improved street

lighting (see SECTION VI. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES, E. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES), a safe walking

route to school may be established along all or portions of Golden View Drive. Further

analysis and coordination with the Anchorage School District will be conducted during the

design phase for possible safe walking routes to school. If a walking route is established

along portions of Golden View Drive, a 20 MPH speed school zone for Goldenview Middle

School area may also be warranted.

Accessibility Guidelines C.

The currently adopted requirements for accessibility in the MOA are based on the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The project uses ADA guidelines as minimum criteria,

but also incorporates the Access Board’s Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrians

in the Public Right-of-Way (July 2011). To be compliant with ADA, pedestrian facilities shall

have a maximum cross slope of 2 percent, a maximum vertical step of one-quarter inch, a

minimum vertical clearance of 80 inches, a maximum sustained running slope of 5 percent,

or equal to the road grade if paralleling the roadway, and a maximum curb ramp slope of

8.33 percent.

Typical Section D.

The typical lane width for a residential collector street is between 11 and 12 feet depending

on existing and forecasted neighborhood densities, zoning, and traffic volumes. Shoulder

widths vary between 3.5 and 5 feet on residential collectors.

Per the DCM, pedestrian improvements are to be provided on both sides of a collector

street. Pathways and sidewalks are typically separated from the roadway to provide

pedestrian comfort and safety, increase intersection sight distances, and provide room for

snow storage. Snow storage area is required by Anchorage Municipal Code 21.80.330:

All street rights-of-way shall include an open area, which may contain

sidewalks, for snow storage. The open area (buffer) shall extend 7-feet

outward from the back of the curb.

Having the grass buffer behind the curb becomes even more important when using a narrow

3.5 foot (or less) shoulder cross section. This narrower shoulder provides little room for

snow storage on the street, and snow will need to be temporarily placed behind the curb.

Lack of an adequate grass buffer could mean pedestrian passage is blocked partially or

completely during major snow events.



Clear Zone E.

The DCM requires a minimum horizontal clearance to obstructions of 1.5 feet beyond the

face of curb in urban conditions. In rural conditions where there is no curb, the DCM does

not directly address clear zone requirements but requires adherence to AASHTOGB. The

AASHTOGB references AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide (RDG) which defines the clear

zone as “the area outside of the traveled way, including the shoulder, which will be available

for recovery by errant vehicles.” The recommended clear zone width is a function of the

design speed, traffic volume, functional classification of the roadway, and the side slope of

the area. The clear zone required for a freeway-type rural roadway with a design speed of

45 MPH and an ADT of 1,500 to 6,000 is 16 to 18 feet, with a fore slope of 1V:6H or flatter.

However, the AASHTOGB, similar to the DCM, recognizes the impracticability of

constructing a full clear zone, in accordance with the RDG, in urban areas.

Where establishing a full-width clear zone in an urban area is not practical

due to right-of-way constraints, consideration should be given to establishing

a reduced clear zone or incorporating as many clear zone concepts a

practical, such as removing roadside objects or making them crashworthy.

Lighting F.

The Hillside District Plan (HDP) classifies Golden View Drive as an Urban Roadway within

ARDSA and directs designers to the MOA Design Criteria Manual (DCM) for applicable

design standards. The DCM (Section 5.3.A) states “lighting requirements are based

primarily on the type of facility and volume of use.” Golden View Drive is classified by the

MOA Official Streets and Highways Plan as a collector roadway. When installed, lighting

systems shall be designed to the DCM’s Chapter 5 criteria, enhancing traffic and pedestrian

safety. A properly designed lighting system will:

• Provide the minimum maintained average luminance and illuminance levels specified

for roadways, sidewalks, and intersections.

• Provide a uniformity of lighting that does not exceed the maximum ratios specified for

roadways, sidewalks, and intersections.

• Minimize construction and maintenance costs.

• Avoid adverse impacts to adjacent properties.

• Reveal hazards to pedestrians and vehicular traffic.



The MOA has begun retrofitting existing luminaire poles with luminaires that use light

emitting diodes (LEDs) as the light source. They have requested new lighting systems also

use LED luminaires that produce light with a 4300K correlated color temperature (CCT), the

equivalent of sunlight. The new proposed LED lighting system is to be designed to provide

the light levels specified in the DCM.

The luminaires should also provide a full cutoff light distribution to reduce the negative

effects of casting light on nearby properties (especially residences) and illuminating the night

sky. To minimize the trespass of light on adjacent properties and reduce glare, luminaires

are to be installed approximately 30 feet above the pavement on collector roadways.

Landscaping G.

In accordance with Chapter 3 of the DCM, landscaping efforts for collector streets should

provide plantings that integrate new improvements with those of adjacent residential

properties to provide an attractive transition between the street and the buildings. A 7-foot

separation is desired between back of curb and the pathway or sidewalk to provide for

temporary snow storage and to keep the facilities clear of snow. The grass buffer will also

help treat runoff during periods that it is not used for snow storage. Landscaping should be

placed to the outside edge of the ROW adjacent to the property lines to take advantage of

landscape improvements in the front yard setbacks.

Within Chapter 2 of the Hillside District Plan, the following goals relate to the appearance of

the landscape for this project:

Goal 5. Environmental Quality: Protect environmental quality on the Hillside,

including: providing corridors for drainage, protecting natural systems such as

aquifer recharge areas and stream corridors, protecting wildlife travel corridors and

habitat, and providing open space for views and recreation.

Goal 6. Parks and Open Spaces: Maintain, supplement and enhance a system of

parks, trails, open spaces and other active and passive recreation areas.



Goal 7. Visual Quality: Protect views, both looking out from the Hillside and views

of the Hillside as seen from the rest of Anchorage (for example, by maintaining

vegetation, limiting cut-and-fill, and guiding the location and character of new

residential development).



Design Criteria Summary H.

Table 5 – Design Criteria Summary

CRITERIA Design Standard Value Reference

Functional Classification Collector OS&HP AADT – 2010 2,210 vpd Field Data

Traffic AADT – 2030 11,199 vpd Modeling Data Design Vehicle WB-50 DCM 6.4 B

Design Speed 45 MPH DCM Table 1-4

Posted Speed 40 MPH MOA Traffic Division

Horizontal Horizontal Curve Radius, Minimum, No Super-elevation 1,039 ft AASHTOGB,

Table 3-13b Alignment Stopping Sight Distance, Min 360 ft DCM 1.9.D

Clear Sight Triangle Length 500 ft DCM Figure 1-19 Vertical Grade, Maximum 10.0% (hillside) DCM 1.9.D

Vertical Vertical Curve K-Values, Min Alignment Crest Curve 61 DCM Figure 1-16

Sag Curve 79 DCM Figure 1-17 Number of Lanes 2 OS&HP Lane Width 11 ft DCM Figure 1-11

Cross Shoulder Width 3.5 – 5.0 ft DCM Table 1-4 Section Curb & Gutter Type 1 DCM Figure 1-11

Side slopes 2:1 maximum DCM 1.9.D.5 Clear Zone 1.5 ft DCM 1.9.E.5

Pathway requirements Both sides of roadway DCM Figure 1-11

Sidewalk Width 5.0 ft DCM Table 1-4 Miscellan- Pathway Width 8.0 ft DCM Table 1-4

eous Separation from Back of Curb 0.0 – 7.0 ft DCM Table 1-4

Maximum driveway width, up to 7-plex

14.0 – 20.0 ft 28.0 ft allowed with

restrictions

DCM Appendix 1D

Maximum driveway grade ± 10% DCM Appendix 1D

Pedestrian Conflict Areas Low DCM 5.4.B

Lighting Maximum Veiling Luminance Ratio 0.4 DCM Table 5-1

Minimum Illumination Level 0.6 fc DCM Table 5-1 Maximum Uniformity Ratio 4:1 DCM Table 5-1

DCM = Municipality of Anchorage’s Design Criteria Manual OS&HP = Official Streets and Highways Plan AASHTOGB = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Geometric

Design of Highways and Streets (“Green Book”)



VI. Design Alternatives

Design Challenges A.

Some of the significant design challenges

associated with Golden View Drive, the

intersecting side streets, driveways, and the

intersection with Rabbit Creek Road include:

Golden View Drive

• Golden View Drive is within ARSDA. East

and west of Golden View Drive, roads and

associated drainage ditches are located in

and maintained by private subdivisions or

the South Goldenview Area RRSA. No

single entity is responsible for managing the

watershed and limited resources result in an

uncoordinated approach.

• Golden View Drive is a narrow roadway with

steep surrounding terrain (generally uphill to

the east and downhill to the west).

• Side streets have steep grades with little or

no landings. Many side street grades exceed

10 percent.

• Numerous driveways are located on Golden

View Drive, a collector road. Driveways have

steep existing grades with little or no

landings.

• The streams and drainage ways along the

east side of Golden View Drive must be

maintained in accordance with permitting

requirements.

• Balancing the need for mobility with the rural feel of the neighborhood.

Challenges along Golden View Drive: steep adjacent terrain, driveways, and

side streets



Golden View Drive Alignment and Profile B.

A proposed roadway alignment that follows or parallels the existing roadway provides the

least impact. It minimizes ROW requirements and impacts to existing development or

vegetation.

Below are relevant excerpts of the roadway design criteria from the DCM:

Street Grades (Section 1.9.D.2)

• For streets or roads in Hillside areas with 2,000 or greater projected Average Daily

Traffic (ADT), the maximum road grade is 8.0 percent.

• For streets or roads in Hillside areas with less than 2,000 projected ADT, the maximum

road grade is 10.0 percent.

o An occasional road grade between 10.0 percent and 12.0 percent may be allowed on

short, straight sections not exceeding 250 feet.

o A minimum 500-foot straight section of roadway shall not exceed 10.0 percent above

and below the road grades exceeding 10.0 percent.

o Grades exceeding 10.0 percent are not permitted within 150 feet of intersection

centerlines.

• The maximum grade of a primary street through an intersection is 5.0percent.

Horizontal Design Standards (Section 1.9E)

• Minimum horizontal curve radius for a secondary street is 150 feet.

Note: A Design Variances Memo has been submitted to MOA PM&E under separate cover

for those items requiring variances from the DCM standards.

1. Golden View Drive Profile

The proposed Golden View Drive profile is based on a design speed of 45 MPH, in

accordance with the DCM for a residential collector. This roadway profile generally

follows the existing roadway profile but varies higher or lower than the existing ground to

minimize impacts to adjacent properties, side streets, and driveways. See APPENDIX B

for preliminary roadway plan and profile sheets.

A preliminary analysis of the Golden View profile resulted in the following

recommendations:



• Raise the roadway profile near Romania Drive to reduce impacts to the steep

grade of Romania Drive.

• Lower the roadway profile near Ransom Ridge Road to reduce impacts to the

steep grade of Ransom Ridge Road but keep the roadway profile generally at

existing grade near Prominence Pointe Drive to reduce impacts to Prominence

Pointe Drive.

• Raise the roadway profile near Bluebell Drive but keep the profile as low as

possible near Parcel 168 to reduce impacts to the adjacent steep side street and

driveways.

• Reduce the roadway grade between Ransom Ridge Road and E. 172nd Avenue to

10.0 percent (see paragraph below).

The existing grade on Golden View Drive between Ransom Ridge Road and E. 172nd

Avenue is 11.6 percent with steep surrounding terrain. The proposed roadway grade for

this location is 10.0 percent. Even with the roadway grade reduced from 11.6 percent to

10.0 percent, retaining walls would still be required along this area.

A variance would be required for

this grade because it is greater

than 8.0 percent with a projected

ADT greater than 2,000. The

proposed grade of 10.0 percent is

the best balance between reducing

the existing steep roadway grade

and minimizing impacts to adjacent

properties and therefore, a

roadway grade of 10.0 percent at

this location is recommended.

Steep existing grade of Golden View Drive (11.6%), south of Ransom Ridge Road



2. Golden View Drive Profile at Bluebell Drive:

Golden View Drive near Bluebell Drive is bordered by steep uphill grades to the east and

steep downhill grades to the west. Bluebell Drive intersects Golden View Drive at station

531+00 on the east while the driveway to access Parcel 167 is centered at station

531+18 on the west. The existing grade on Bluebell Drive is 14.6 percent (uphill away

from Golden View Drive) while the existing grade on the driveway to Parcel 167 is -15.2

percent (downhill away from Golden View Drive). The driveway to access Parcel 168 is

also in close proximity to the intersection with Bluebell Drive at station 528+58 and has

an existing grade of -19.9 percent.

A separate project was initiated with funding from a state grant to address the steep

grades on Bluebell Drive (MOA Project #08-016). Kinney Engineering, LLC was

contracted to provide professional engineering services for the Bluebell Drive project.

Kinney Engineering submitted a Draft Design Study Memorandum in September 2009

investigating various alternatives for Bluebell Drive. An updated Bluebell Drive Revised

Design Study Memorandum was submitted in November 2012 (see APPENDIX H). The

Golden View Drive project team has been coordinating with Kinney Engineering to

efficiently and effectively design Golden View Drive at Bluebell Drive. The alternatives

discussed below focus on options for Golden View Drive and the associated impacts to

Golden View Drive at Bluebell Drive. Steep uphill grades to the east (right side of photo); steep downhill grades to the west (left side).



Bluebell Drive; the detailed discussion of Bluebell Drive alternatives can be found in

APPENDIX H.

Preliminary engineering found the following alternatives for Golden View Drive at

Bluebell Drive:

• Alt 1: Raise the roadway profile of Golden View Drive at Bluebell Drive by

approximately 1.5 feet

• Alt 2: Follow the existing roadway profile of Golden View Drive near Bluebell Drive

and then re-grade Bluebell Drive as necessary

• Alt 3: Split the roadway profile of Golden View Drive

a. Alt 1: Raise Golden View Drive:

The existing roadway profile of Golden View Drive near Bluebell Drive already

contains a short, vertical curve, raising the roadway higher than the existing profile

north and south of Bluebell Drive. Raising the profile of Golden View Drive at the

intersection with Bluebell by approximately 1.5 additional feet above the existing

elevation would allow the grades on Bluebell Drive to include a landing while not

making the roadway grades steeper. Bluebell Drive could be graded at 14.3% with a

30.5-foot landing at 4% maximum grade. Improvements along Bluebell Drive would

terminate (i.e. match existing grades) approximately 475 feet east from the centerline

of Golden View Drive.

Parcel 106 is located on

Bluebell Drive, immediately

east of the intersection with

Golden View Drive, and

has a loop-style driveway.

Raising the profile of

Golden View Drive near

Bluebell Drive allows one of

the two driveway entrances

to have a grade less than

10%. The west and east

driveway entrances would

be graded at 18.7% and 8.2% respectively.

Bluebell Drive



Driveway to Parcel 168

However, there are significant grading impacts on the steep downhill (west) side of

Golden View Drive with this alternative. Approximately 180 linear feet of retaining

wall would be required along Parcel

168. In addition, the driveway to

Parcel 168 would need to be

relocated to Kallander Avenue,

requiring an address change. The

driveway to Parcel 105B would not

be impacted with this alternative.

The intersection of Golden View

Drive with Kallander Avenue is

approximately 250 feet north of the

intersection with Bluebell Drive. Raising the roadway profile to accommodate

Bluebell Drive’s grade also raises the profile at Kallander Avenue by approximately

2.5 feet (due to the lengthened vertical curves to accommodate sight distance).

Kallander Avenue is currently steep (-10.4%) with no landing. With Alt 1, Kallander

can be graded at -9.4% with a 40.5-foot landing at -3% maximum grade. However,

there are significant grading impacts onto adjacent properties and the driveways to

Parcels 166 and 166B would be impacted. Improvements extend along Kallander

Avenue for approximately 370 feet west from the centerline of Golden View Drive.

The property owners of Parcels 167 and 168 have been contacted to discuss options

to mitigate the impacts to their driveways and properties. An on-site meeting was

held with the owners of Parcel 167 to discuss alternatives and an on-site meeting is

planned for later in the summer with the owners of Parcel 168.

A comparison table of the impacts associated with Alts 1 and 2 for Golden View

Drive near Bluebell Drive can be found on page 53.



b. Alt 2: Maintain Existing Roadway Profile of Golden View Drive

Alt 2 investigated the option of not raising the roadway elevation of Golden View

Drive near Bluebell Drive. With Alt 2, the vertical profile of Golden View Drive mostly

follows the existing roadway profile. The vertical curves are lengthened in order to

allow for proper sight distance.

With Alt 2, Bluebell Drive could be graded at 15.0% with a 33-foot landing at 4%

maximum grade. Improvements along Bluebell Drive would terminate (i.e. match

existing grades) approximately 472 feet east from the centerline of Golden View

Drive. Bluebell could also be graded at 14.3% (with a 30.5-foot landing at 4%

grade), which extends the improvements approximately 515 feet east from the

centerline of Golden View Drive.

Assuming a grade of 14.3% along Bluebell Drive, the west and east driveway

entrances to Parcel 106 would be graded at 23.0% and 11.9% respectively with Alt

2. Reconfiguring this driveway to achieve lesser grades may be required.

Additionally, the driveway to Parcel 105B would be impacted with this alternative.

The driveway to Parcel 105B has a current grade of 12.5% and would be graded at

11.6% with Alt 2.

Approximately 160 linear feet of retaining wall would be required along Parcel 168

with Alt 2. The existing grade on the driveway to Parcel 168 is -19.9%; the proposed

grade with Alt 2 is -25.7%, which would still require relocation to Kallander Avenue.

Following the existing roadway profile of Golden View Drive near Bluebell Drive

allows the elevation at Kallander Avenue to only be increased by 1-foot (again, due

to the increased vertical curve lengths). Kallander can be graded at -8.5% with a

35.5-foot landing at -3% maximum grade. There are still grading impacts onto

adjacent properties; however, they are less than with Alt 1. The driveways to Parcels

166 and 166B are still impacted, though not quite as severely as with Alt 1. To

achieve the lesser grade along Kallander Avenue, improvements still extend for

approximately 370 feet west from the centerline of Golden View Drive.



Impacts with Alt 1 and Alt 2 – Golden View profile near Bluebell Drive

Impact Existing Conditions

Alt 1 (raise Golden View

near Bluebell)

Alt 2 (maintain existing profile

along Golden View) Retaining wall along Parcel 168

none 180 linear feet 160 linear feet

Parcel 168 driveway -19.9% -29.2%

(relocate to Kallander Ave.)

-25.7% (relocate to

Kallander Ave.)

Parcel 167 driveway -15.2% -16.4% -14.5%

Bluebell Drive grade 14.6% 14.3% (for 475 ft)

14.3% (for 515 ft)

Parcel 106 driveways (west, east)

2.5% -5.2%

18.7% 8.2%

23.0% 11.9%

Kallander Avenue grade

-10.4% -9.4% -8.5%

Parcel 166 driveway -0.3% -10.4% -8.5%

Parcel 166B driveway -5.6% -11.0% -10.4%

c. Profile Split at Bluebell

To better accommodate the steep uphill grades directly across from the steep

downhill grades, splitting the roadway profile of Golden View Drive near Bluebell

Drive was also investigated (Alt 3). The northbound (east) lane would follow a

separate profile than the southbound (west) lane. The east lane would be higher than

the west lane and separated by a curbed median with appropriate barrier fences and

crash protection. The maximum elevation difference between the east and west

lanes would be approximately 4.8 feet. The roadway profile split would begin at

station 527+37 and end at station 533+52 (see FIGURE 10.)



Figure 10 – Roadway profile split at Bluebell Drive

Due to the extremely steep roadway grades on Bluebell Drive, the proposed curb-

line was maintained on the east side. This shifted the overall roadway section west.

The additional width required for a median to accommodate the profile split results in

downhill fill limits (on the west) that are actually greater than if the roadway profile

were not split and results in a steeper driveway grade for Parcel 168. Below is a

summary of the impacts with and without splitting the roadway profile of Golden View

Drive near Bluebell Drive.



Impacts with and without Golden View Roadway Profile Split


(Alt 1) Without profile split

Alt 3 (split profile grade)

Retaining wall along Parcel 168 none 180 linear feet 260 linear feet

Parcel 168 driveway -19.9% -29.2%

(relocate to Kallander Ave.)

-32.6% (relocate to Kallander

Ave.)

Parcel 167 driveway -16.4% -16.4% -12.9%

Bluebell Drive grade 14.6% 14.3% 14.1%

In addition to the impacts on adjacent properties, a median would prevent left turns

to and from Bluebell Drive and the adjacent properties. Vehicles travelling

southbound wanting to access Bluebell Drive or vehicles exiting Parcels 167 and 168

and wanting to head north, would need to make a u-turn on Golden View Drive. A u-

turn location would need to be provided south of the median.

Splitting the roadway grade of Golden View Drive at Bluebell Drive was intended to

reduce the impacts to the steep downhill driveways on the west side of Golden View

Drive without making the steep uphill grade of Bluebell Drive worse. As this was not

universally accomplished due to the extra width required for a median, it is not

recommended.

Based on preliminary analysis, Alternative 2 does not provide significant advantages

over Alternative 1: a retaining wall along Parcel 168 is still required, Parcel 168’s

driveway still should be relocated to Kallander Avenue, and driveways for Parcels

166 and 166B are made steeper. Alternative 1 does provide significant advantages

over Alternative 2: one of the entrances to the driveway loop for Parcel 106 has a

grade less than 10 percent. With Alternative 2, both entrances to 106 are steeper

than 10 percent; therefore, Alt. 1 is recommended (raise the roadway profile of

Golden View Drive near Bluebell Drive by approximately 1.5 feet. Additional

coordination with adjacent property owners (Parcels 106, 166, 166B, 167, and 168)

is planned and based on their input, the recommended alternative may be adjusted

during the design phase.



Golden View Drive at Romania Drive, looking south

Local Side Street Alignments and Profiles C.

1. Golden View Drive, south of Romania Drive

Golden View Drive south of Romania Drive is an existing local road that was not

constructed on the ROW centerline. This section of Golden View Drive dead-ends at

Bulgaria Drive (approximately 550 feet south of Romania Drive) and then Bulgaria Drive

itself dead-ends. Golden View Drive south of Romania Drive serves approximately five

developed properties, located along

Golden View and Bulgaria Drives.

The existing grade at this location is

13.2 percent with little to no vertical

curve through the intersection with

Romania Drive and very steep

adjacent terrain. The proposed

roadway grade for Golden View

Drive south of Romania Drive is 10.0

percent with a vertical curve located

through the intersection with

Romania Drive. The proposed improvements are also centered in the ROW to better

accommodate the steep uphill grades to the east, including Romania Drive and two

private driveways. This proposed profile is the best balance between reducing the steep

roadway grade, providing an adequate vertical curve, and accommodating associated

impacts to Romania Drive’s grade but the grade through the intersection with Romania

Drive is greater than 5 percent and thus a variance would be required per DCM

requirements. The exact grade of Golden View Drive where the centerline of Golden

View Drive intersects the centerline of Romania Drive is 6.74 percent (see FIGURE 11).



Figure 11 – Proposed Grades along Golden View thru intersection with Romania



Sweeping the intersection of Romania Drive with Golden View Drive to accommodate

the heaviest traffic movement was also investigated (see FIGURE 12). Golden View Drive

would turn east onto Romania Drive as the primary movement and the section of Golden

View Drive south of Romania Drive would become the stopped controlled movement.

Although this configuration could potentially function efficiently now, it does not

accommodate the future planned connection to Potter Valley Road. This future

connection would intersect Golden View Drive at the current intersection with Romania

Drive and a sweep movement from Golden View Drive onto Romania Drive east would

not function efficiently with a 4-way intersection.

In addition, Golden View Drive south of Romania Drive would intersect the sharp

horizontal sweep at a 75° angle. This is the minimum allowed intersecting angle per the

DCM. Golden View Drive south of Romania Drive would also contain a sharp crest

vertical curve immediately after the intersection, which is located on a horizontal curve

with a sag vertical curve profile. This is not an ideal intersection geometry. The Green

Book does not recommend a sharp horizontal curve (the sweep) following a crest

vertical curve (Golden View Drive south of Romania Drive). The numerous horizontal

and vertical curves at this intersection could reduce stopping sight distances and clear

triangle sight distance.



Figure 12 – Sweep from Golden View Drive to Romania Drive

Because of the future connection with Potter Valley Road, the steep roadway grades,

and the numerous horizontal and vertical curves at the sweep intersection, it is not

recommended to sweep Golden View Drive to Romania Drive east.



2. Bluebell Drive

Kinney Engineering, LLC was contracted through a separate project to address the

steep grades on Bluebell Drive. Through collaboration between Kinney Engineering and

CRW Engineering, Bluebell Drive is being analyzed under a separate Design Study

Memorandum, submitted by Kinney Engineering (see APPENDIX H).

3. Ransom Ridge Road

The existing grade on Ransom Ridge Road is 13.1 percent with no landing and steep

adjacent terrain. Approximately 400 feet west, down Ransom Ridge Road, the roadway

dips in a very short, sag vertical curve before climbing in grade again.

The proposed roadway grade for Ransom Ridge Road is 15.3 percent with a 25.5-foot

landing at 4 percent maximum grade (see APPENDIX B). Variances would be required for

the roadway grade as well as

the steep grade in close

proximity to the intersection.

(The grade steepens to

greater than 10 percent

approximately 110 feet from

the intersection centerline.)

A profile was designed that

would require no design

variances. The large sag

vertical curve required to

properly design the roadway extends the improvements along Ransom Ridge Road an

additional 385 feet west, which is beyond the intersection with Stone Ridge Road. The

roadway elevation at the intersection with Stone Ridge Road is 3.7 feet higher than the

existing ground. The existing grade on Stone Ridge Road is approximately 11 percent

(downhill away from Ransom Ridge Road). The designed improvements along Stone

Ridge Road were extended for 400 feet but a proposed grade of 10 percent did not

catch the existing ground.

Ransom Ridge Road, looking east towards Golden View Drive



Following is a summary table of impacts associated with the proposed design versus a

design not requiring variances.

Ransom Ridge Road impacts summary


Proposed Design

No Variances Requested

(for Roadway)

Driveways impacted - 1 4

Parcel 156A driveway 9.7% N/A 9.7%

Parcel 156B driveway -8.8% N/A -15.0%

Parcel 154B driveway 4.3% N/A -6.3%

Parcel 154A driveway -2.1% -5.4% -11.9%

Additional roadways impacted - 0 1 (Stone Ridge Road)

A proposed roadway grade of 15.3 percent is recommended. This proposed profile is the

best balance between a steep roadway grade, avoiding impacts to the short sag vertical

curve, providing a landing at the intersection with Golden View Drive, avoiding impacts

to Stone Ridge Road, and minimizing impacts to adjacent properties and driveways.

4. Horizontal Curves

Three of the local side streets have existing horizontal curves within the proposed

improvements that do not meet the DCM standards of 150-foot minimum radius:

Kallander Avenue, Ransom Ridge Road, and Prominence Pointe Drive (see the table

below). It is recommended these roadway horizontal radii be allowed to remain per their

existing conditions to minimize impacts to adjacent properties.

Horizontal roadway radius

Roadway Name Existing Horizontal Radius

Kallander Avenue 120 ft

Ransom Ridge Road at Golden View Drive 110.5 ft

Ransom Ridge Road at Stone Ridge Road 145 ft

Prominence Pointe Drive 100 ft

The recommendation to leave the existing horizontal curves on Kallander Avenue,

Ransom Ridge Road, and Prominence Pointe Drive is supported by AASHTO’s



Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume Local Roads (<400 ADT) which

states:

For curves on very low-volume local roads with low speeds (45 mph or less), reconstruction without changing the existing curve geometry and cross section is acceptable if the design speed of the curve is within 20 mph of the operating speed, and if there is no clear evidence of a site-specific problem associated with the curve. (Chapter 4, pg. 30)

The 2033 fully developed projected ADT is 1,407 vehicles for Prominence Pointe. There

is no projected ADT for Kallander Avenue or Ransom Ridge Road. There is no history of

a curve-related crash problem at any of these locations.

Roadway Cross Section D.

The recommended typical cross section for Golden View Drive includes two 11-foot lanes

with 3.5-foot shoulders, barrier curb and gutter, an 8-foot pathway on the west side, and a

drainage ditch on the east side. The shoulders should be striped with “Bike Lane” symbols.

(See the section below for an analysis of the recommended pedestrian facilities and

SECTION VII. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS for recommended drainage facilities.) The total width from

back of curb to back of curb is 33 feet (see FIGURE 13).

Type 1, barrier curb and gutter provides a greater safety measure for pedestrians on the

pathway, discourages parking on the shoulder or pathway, and also discourages full

frontage width vehicular access of adjacent properties by defining specific driveway curb

cuts.

AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide (RDG), which addresses clear zone requirements, is

most applicable on rural, high-speed freeways. Golden View Drive is being designed to

urban standards, with barrier curb & gutter, pedestrian facilities, bicycle lanes, and

illumination. A full-width clear zone in accordance with the RDG is not appropriate on this

urban-designed roadway. Additionally, ADOT would consider Golden View Drive upgrades

as a 3R project. Since there are no “run-off-the-road” crash problems along Golden View

Drive, ADOT’s Pre-Construction Manual would not require the roadway cross section to be

changed from existing conditions. The total available clear width on the downhill (west) side

is 15 to 19 feet from the edge of the travelled way. On the uphill (east) side, the total

available clear width is 7 feet from the edge of the travelled way.



Figure 13 – Proposed Typical Cross Section



Pedestrian Facilities E.

There are currently no pedestrian

facilities along Golden View Drive.

Pedestrians utilize the roadway

and shoulders for recreational and

commuting activities. Because the

ASD has designated Golden View

Drive as a “hazardous walking

route” due to the lack of

pedestrian/bicycle facilities, school

children are not allowed to walk to

Goldenview Middle School along

Golden View Drive. Preliminary coordination with the Anchorage School District indicated

that in the future, portions of Golden View Drive may be considered for inclusion in the safe

walking routes to Goldenview Middle School with appropriate pedestrian facilities and

lighting. Further coordination with the Anchorage School District will be conducted during the

design phase to determine safe walking routes along Golden View Drive.

Due to the steep grades bordering the roadway

corridor, various alternatives for pedestrian facilities

were investigated to minimize impacts to adjacent

properties and drainage ways. All of the alternatives

below include pedestrian facilities that are separated

from the roadway by barrier curb and gutter to

further delineate the pedestrian route from the

vehicular route.

1. Alternative 1: Pathway west side only

Alternative 1 consists of one, 8-foot wide paved pathway on the west side of the

roadway only. The pathway would run the entire project corridor (begin at Romania Drive

and terminate at Rabbit Creek Road). The pathway would be separated from the back of

curb where feasible but would be attached to the back of curb as needed to minimize

impacts to adjacent properties and wetlands.

Pedestrians along Golden View Drive



2. Alternative 2: Pathway on west side, sidewalk on east side

Alternative 2 consists of an 8-foot wide paved pathway on the west side of the roadway

and a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the east side. Both the pathway and the sidewalk would

run the entire project corridor. The pathway would be separated from the back of curb

where feasible but would be attached to the back of curb as needed to minimize impacts

to adjacent properties and wetlands. The sidewalk would be attached to the back of

curb.

3. Alternative 3: Pathway west side, sidewalk on east side partial length

Alternative 3 consists of an 8-foot wide paved pathway on the west side of the roadway

and a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the east side. The pathway would run the entire project

corridor but the sidewalk would begin at Prominence Pointe Drive and terminate at

Rabbit Creek Road. Similar to Alternative 2, the pathway would be separated from the

back of curb where feasible but would be attached to the back of curb as needed to

minimize impacts to adjacent properties and wetlands. The sidewalk would be attached

to the back of curb.

4. Alternative 4: Pathway west side, sidewalk on east side partial length

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 except the sidewalk would begin at Prominence

Pointe Drive and terminate at Bridgeview Drive. A crosswalk would be installed at

Bridgeview Drive.

5. Alternative 5: Pathway east side only

Alternative 5 consists of one, 8-foot wide paved pathway on the east side of the roadway

only. The pathway would run the entire project corridor (begin at Romania Drive and

terminate at Rabbit Creek Road). The pathway would be separated from the back of

curb by a 4-foot buffer.



The existing topography immediately uphill of the project corridor (east side) is often steep

with high ground water. Permitting regulations require construction of a ditch to maintain

open channel flow of the multiple drainage ways and creek tributaries. Installing curb and

gutter, a pedestrian facility, and a ditch on the east side would result in significant impacts to

adjacent properties, drainage ways, creek tributaries, and utilities.

The neighborhood has expressed a desire to retain the “rural feel” of the area with minimal

clearing on adjacent properties. The extensive grading impacts from installing a sidewalk

and a drainage way on the east side would require approximately 5,000 additional square

feet of retaining walls. In addition, utility relocation costs would be approximately:

• $2.58 million (Alternative 1)





This equates to an additional utility relocation cost ranging from approximately $23 thousand

(Alternative 4) to $1.7 million (Alternative 5) compared to Alternative 1.

A preliminary estimate indicates that adding a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side of the

roadway would cost an additional $7 million. This includes sidewalk materials and

construction, retaining walls, additional impacts to connecting side streets, additional

Golden View Drive looking south



impacts to adjacent driveways, additional impacts to drainage ways, and additional utility

relocation costs (including a fiber optic line and a pressurized 12-inch gas main on the east

side of the ROW).

With no pedestrian facility on the east side, the side street grades can be a maximum of 4

percent within 30 feet from the edge of Golden View Drive. If a pedestrian facility were

installed on the east side, the roadway grade across the pedestrian access route can only

be a maximum of 2 percent.

Therefore, it is recommended that a pedestrian facility only be installed on the west side

(Alternative 1) to minimize impacts to adjacent properties, wetlands, creeks, drainage ways,

and utilities.

Side Street Intersections/Access Control F.

Kinney Engineering, LLC performed an analysis of side street intersection and access

control to determine if auxiliary turn lanes were warranted at various cross streets. Capacity

analyses at the major cross-street intersections indicate that auxiliary turn lanes are not

required to achieve adequate LOS. Using AASHTO’s guidelines for determining turn lanes

at intersections, left turn lanes are recommended at E. 156th Avenue, Goldenview Middle

School driveway, and Prominence Pointe Drive.

Due to impacts to adjacent streams, wetlands, terrain, and private property associated with

adding additional width to the roadway, construction of auxiliary turn lanes is not practical.

Adequate LOS can be achieved without left turn lanes; therefore, left turn lanes are not

recommended at E. 156th Avenue, Goldenview Middle School driveway, or Prominence

Pointe Drive. Additionally, the current configuration of Goldenview Middle School’s driveway

allows for “cooperative” or courteous gaps to allow for vehicles to exit or enter the school

during peak hours. If a turn lane were added, the cooperative gaps would most likely not

occur because two lanes of traffic would be required to cooperate simultaneously to allow

for a gap.

Rabbit Creek Road/Golden View Drive Intersection G.

Various alternatives were analyzed for improving the intersection of Rabbit Creek Road and

Golden View Drive. In November 2011, an Intersection Analysis Report was submitted to

ADOT for review (see APPENDIX G for the full Intersection Analysis Report). A meeting was

held with ADOT in December 2011 to discuss the alternatives and proposed improvements

at this intersection.



ADOT expects to study and analyze the hillside intersections, including the intersection of

Rabbit Creek Road and Golden View Drive. Although this intersection has an above-

average crash rate, it does not currently have an above-average crash severity rate.

Because of this statistic, combined with the planned Hillside Intersection Study,

improvements to the intersection of Rabbit Creek Road/Golden View Drive are currently on-

hold and are not anticipated to be included with the Golden View Drive project.

Structural Section H.

The MOA’s Design Criteria Manual states that road sections should be designed to minimize

the following: frost penetration into frost susceptible subgrade soil, movement of fine grained

soil into the structural section, and differential frost heaving. These objectives are typically

accomplished by providing either a sufficient thickness of non-frost susceptible (NFS) fill or a

lesser amount of fill combined with insulation. Based on the existing F2-F3 soil along most

of the alignment, it is estimated that 8.5 to 10.4 feet of NFS would be required to limit

subgrade frost penetration to meet the DCM guidelines. If insulation is used to provide frost

protection, the overall thickness of NFS fill may be reduced to approximately 4 feet. The

insulation should extend beyond the back of curb a minimum of 2 feet to limit lateral frost

penetration. Additionally, detailed consideration needs to be given to the transition between

insulated sections and non-insulated sections, such as at the beginning and end of the

insulated section, as well as at the side streets and driveways. The insulation needs to be

transitioned to minimize differential heaving that can occur at the division between insulated

and non-insulated sections. Appropriate transitions can include extending the insulation

beyond the roadway improvements, reducing the insulation thickness, or angling the

insulation downward.

Use of a frost tolerant section, an alternative to the insulated section, may be warranted

where subgrade soil has low to moderate frost susceptibility or where groundwater is

relatively deep and subgrade soil is not saturated most of the year. A frost tolerant section

could be considered at the beginning of the project, from approximate station 508+00 to

about station 520+00. Soil borings in this area encountered shallow weathered rock,

between 2.5 feet to 12 feet below ground surface. A frost tolerant section may also be

considered at the north end of the project, between approximate stations 590+00 to 599+50.

General appearance of the pavement surface suggests that roadway performance in this

segment is better than the remainder of the alignment. A frost tolerant section in these two

segments would consist of approximately 2.25 feet of NFS fill material.



Example rock-gabion retaining wall Example modular block retaining wall

For both an insulated and frost tolerant section, a non-woven geotextile is included along the

base of the structural section to separate the native silty subgrade materials from the

imported subbase fill.

When peat is exposed in the base of the excavation, it is recommended that the peat be

excavated out and replaced with imported fill.

Retaining Walls I.

Due to the steep adjacent terrain along the project corridor, retaining walls will be required to

reduce the impacts from roadway grading and slopes. Retaining walls should be installed as

needed to minimize impacts to utilities, the environment, and adjacent properties.

1. Retaining Wall Types

Below is a description of the four basic types of retaining walls along with their

characteristics.

Gravity: Gravity retaining walls rely on the mass of the wall structure for stability. The

wall mass must be sufficient to counteract sliding and overturning forces from the

retained soil. These systems can use stone, concrete or other heavy material as well as

mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) for stability. These are the most common type of

reretaining walls and include gabions, bin walls, and modular block concrete

construction. In most cases the slope behind the wall needs to be temporarily removed

during construction. For mechanically stabilized earth walls, the reinforcing often extends

horizontally into the embankment about as far as the exposed wall face is tall.



Piling: Piling retaining walls have structures that extend significantly below grade to

provide support to counteract horizontal forces from the retained soils. Typically two

thirds of the structure height is embedded below grade. The structures are usually steel

sheet piles or H beams. Piles are driven into the soil while H beams can either be driven

in or set into drilled holes. Quite often, the structural face of a piling wall is covered with

a facade of concrete blocks or panels. These are some of the most expensive types of

retaining walls but they do allow construction with very little removal of soil behind the

wall.

Cantilever: Cantilever retaining walls have a large effective mass due to the soil placed

over a horizontal section of the wall. These walls are typically constructed of cast-in-

place, reinforced concrete. The horizontal (cantilevered) leg of the structure can either

extend back into the retained soil or out away from the slope. The slope behind the wall

typically needs to be temporarily removed during construction. Cantilever walls are

relatively expensive due to the work required to build concrete forms, install reinforcing,

pour concrete, and provide joints between pours. The concrete needs ample time to cure

before the soil can be replaced behind the wall.

Anchored: Anchored (or tieback) retaining walls use cables driven horizontally into the

soil to counteract opposing horizontal forces from the retained soils. The anchors, which

typically pull horizontal plates or sheets against the soil, can be soil nails, tieback cables,

or screw anchors. The soil behind the wall does not need to be removed during

construction. The anchors may need to extend into the embankment quite a ways,

which can impact buried utilities or future development.

Combination: Many retaining walls use a combination of the above types. For example,

many piling walls use anchors to reduce embedment depth and structure strength.

2. Considerations

The decision to construct a retaining wall can be subjective and must balance the cost of

installing a retaining wall with the overall impacts to utilities, wetlands, the environment,

or adjacent properties. Impacts to wetlands often demand construction of retaining walls

due to permitting requirements to avoid or minimize wetlands impacts if possible. Exact

locations of retaining walls will require further refinement during the design phase. Below

are important considerations that affect the decision to provide a retaining wall and

which type of wall should be constructed.



Embankment Impacts: Gravity and cantilever retaining walls typically require some of the

soil behind the wall to be temporarily removed during construction. In some cases the

slope can be cut to stand near vertical for short periods of time to reduce impacts but

OSHA embankment guidelines and worker safety must be accounted for. Piling walls

can minimize impacts to adjacent properties and structures.

Foundation Soils: Gravity and cantilever retaining walls require a solid foundation to

resist the forces of the wall and soil. Where foundation soils are weak, a piling or anchor

wall should be considered or the weak soil replaced. The bedrock encountered near the

south end of the Golden View Drive project provides an excellent foundation but makes

driving sheet piles very difficult (see APPENDIX E for the geotechnical report).

Groundwater/Drainage: Groundwater needs to be removed from behind the retaining

wall to reduce hydrostatic forces. Many types of wall are inherently porous while other

Basic types of retaining walls



types, like reinforced concrete, require weep holes to be integrated into the design to

relieve pressure from water behind the wall. In areas where substantial groundwater and

glaciation is expected, a subdrain should be considered to direct the runoff to drainage

ditches or a piped storm drain collection system.

Utilities: Some types of retaining walls impact a considerable amount of soil behind the

face of the wall. For example, modular block walls and MSE walls rely on reinforcing

geotextile fabric embedded into the soil as part of the structure. The fabric behind the

wall can impact existing utilities or limit future placement of utilities. Anchor wall cables

also extend into surrounding soils and affect utilities.

Aesthetics: Retailing walls are often very noticeable along a roadway corridor and they

should be selected to compliment the landscaping design and blend in with the

surrounding neighborhood. Sometimes retaining walls are chosen to match existing

walls on adjacent properties. Many of the existing retaining walls along Golden View

Drive are large irregular boulders. Although many PM&E roadway project use concrete

modular block retaining walls, gabion walls may be more appropriate for this project area

where residents have expressed a desire to retain the “rural feel”. Gabion walls have

also been used in other Anchorage hillside areas including along Birch Road and for

South Anchorage High School.

Safety Fence or Handrail: When the

vertical face of the retaining wall is more

than 2.5 feet tall, a fence, handrail, or

guardrail should be provided for safety.

Moose should be discouraged from

walking over the wall. Where space is

limited, a fence or handrail can be

placed near the face of a reinforced

concrete wall. Most other types of wall

require the fence to be set back in the

soil behind the wall.

Construction Schedule: In some cases, the amount of time required to construct a

retaining wall is very important since it can affect impacts to adjacent property owners or

the environment. Reinforced concrete headwalls take a considerable amount of time to



Construction of gabion-type retaining wall

construct. They are typically not a good

option for stream culvert headwalls that

need to be completed quickly to reduce

environmental impacts.

Maintenance: Retaining walls and

associated fences or handrails should

be designed to require little if any

maintenance. Concrete surfaces can

be provided with coatings to facilitate

removal of spray paint vandalism.

Cost: The estimated installed cost for

retaining walls varies considerably from

$45 to more than $200 per square foot

of the exposed vertical face. Some of

the biggest factors include soil

conditions, wall height, tiebacks,

construction access, type of fence and

the amount of soil to be removed

behind the wall for construction. On the

following page is a summary of order-

of-magnitude cost for various types of

retaining walls for comparison

purposes. These costs include a chain

link fence above the wall.

Example modular block retaining wall with railing

Construction of modular block retaining wall



Summary of Unit Costs

Retaining Wall Type Cost per

Square foot of wall face, installed

Excavation

Modular block (Keystone), without tiebacks $45 full excavation behind blocks,

limited to 4' height

Modular block (Keystone), geogrid tiebacks $60 full excavation behind geogrid

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) $75 with concrete face, full excavation

behind wall and tieback

Gabion Basket $75 full excavation behind wall

Reinforced concrete, cast-in-place $120 full excavation behind base of

structure

Soldier pile, without tiebacks $130 with block facade, minimal

excavation behind wall

Soldier pile, with tiebacks $190 with block facade, minimal excavation behind wall

Sheet pile, without tiebacks $180 with block facade, no excavation behind wall

Sheet pile, with tiebacks $210 with block facade, no excavation behind wall

3. Estimated Project Cost

The conceptual drawings located in APPENDIX B indicate where retaining walls should be

considered to limit impacts to utilities, the environment or adjacent property. The

potential areas for retaining walls for the preferred alternative (Alternative 1) are

summarized below in TABLE 6. Note: this summary does not include stream culvert

headwalls.



Table 6 – Summary of Retaining Walls (preferred alternative)

Purpose

Street Approx.

Start Station

Off-set

Ave Height

(ft) Length

(ft) Area (sf) Utility Environ-

ment Property

Golden View 528+75 Left 4.9 181 887 X

Golden View 531+27 Right 3.5 108 378 X X

Golden View 535+34 Right 5.2 28 146 X

Golden View 541+27 Right 6.4 285 1,824 X X




Golden View 549+72 Right 4.0 667 2,668 X X

Golden View 568+81 Right 3.4 116 394 X Golden View 570+69 Left 3.5 572 2,002 X X Golden View 577+45 Left 2.5 542 1,355 X Golden View 584+65 Left 4.5 530 2,385 X

Romania 200+78 Left 4.1 38 156 X

A modular block or gabion basket type retaining wall can be used in nearly all of the

areas identified above. Assuming a unit cost from $60 to $75 for modular block and

gabion basket wall types respectively, this represents an approximate cost of $880

thousand to $1.01 million for the recommended Alternative 1.

Traffic Calming J.

Based on speed studies and comments from local residents, speeding is a concern.

Various methods for traffic calming were investigated, including:

• Vertical traffic calming measures (ex. speed hump)

• Horizontal traffic calming measures (ex. neckdowns)

• Full or partial closures

• Center islands narrowing

• Colored crosswalks

• Roadway striping

Due to the vertical curves and steep grades along Golden View Drive, locations for vertical

or horizontal traffic calming measures are limited. Speed humps and neckdowns are most



appropriate on flat, straight roadways with less than 30 MPH posted speeds. Speed humps

are also discouraged on collector roadways and are not recommended on primary

emergency routes or bus routes. Golden View Drive is the primary route into and out of

many of the adjacent neighborhoods and speed humps significantly reduce the response

time of emergency vehicles. Traffic calming features that significantly reduce traffic volumes,

like diverters and partial or full-closures are not appropriate on collector roadways. These

measures tend to divert traffic onto adjacent residential streets and reduce the efficiency of

the transportation system.

Roadway striping will be installed along the entire project corridor, including shoulder

stripes, which will effectively reduce the visual appearance of the travel lane widths. The

visual appearance of narrower lanes, as compared to feeling comfortable utilizing the entire

roadway surface, reduces traffic speed. Shoulder stripes can also serve a dual purpose by

designating the shoulder as a bike lane and reducing the visual dimensions of the travel

lane. Existing short vertical curves also serve as traffic calming measures.

Lighting K.

The DCM’s lighting requirements are based on the IESNA RP-8-00 American National

Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting.

• Golden View Drive is designated as a collector for lighting standards in the IESNA

(Section 2.1).

• The IESNA does not make recommendations or provide guidelines for partial lighting

of intersections only (Section 1.1). It only provides recommendations “for designing

continuous lighting systems for roadways.”

• Transition lighting is recommended in the IESNA to provide a driver with gradual

reduction in lighting levels when leaving a lighting system. As an example, if only the

intersections along Golden View Drive were illuminated, transition lighting should be

installed along the roadway to gradually adjust the driver’s eye to the intersection

lighting levels. The transition lighting would most likely extend to the adjacent

intersections, resulting in continuous roadway lighting.

• Several studies have also shown that the primary benefit of lighting intersections along

major streets is a reduction in night pedestrian, bicycle, and fixed object crashes

(Section 3.6.2) and proper intersection lighting is a critical design component.

Intersections should be illuminated to increase safety.



Example of the white light from LEDs

To reduce the length of the vertical curves along the roadway profile, lighting is required for

visibility and sight distance. If lighting were not installed, the vertical curves would be

significantly longer and result in a wider roadway footprint, thus the impacts to adjacent

properties, wetlands, drainage ways, and utilities would also be significantly larger.

The new lighting system will need to achieve the

light levels and uniformity ratios required for a

collector roadway, including the pathways and

intersections. The system will include rounded

steel poles that provide a 30 to 40-foot luminaire

mounting height and include tapered mast arms

that locate the luminaires in the positions

determined by the lighting analysis. Per Chapter

5 of the DCM, along roadways with posted

speeds of 40 MPH or greater, poles shall have

breakaway bases. In urban areas were speeds

are between 30 and 40 MPH, luminaire pole bases may be breakaway or non-breakaway. In

selecting breakaway versus non-breakaway bases, consideration should be given to

balancing the hazards to pedestrians and vehicles from falling (breakaway) poles versus the

impact on a vehicle and its occupants with a non-breakaway base.

The system also will include light emitting diode (LED) luminaires that provide a full cutoff

light distribution. The poles are to be located on property corners, where feasible, to reduce

the light trespass into adjacent homes. Light levels and uniformity ratios on collector road,

pathways, and at the intersections are summarized below:

• Road: The DCM recommends a minimum maintained average of 0.6 foot-candles

with an average-to-minimum uniformity ratio no greater than 4:1 and a veiling

luminance ratio no greater than 0.4.

• Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian activity along Golden View Drive meets the “low”

criteria provided in Chapter 5 of the DCM. For adjacent pedestrian facilities within the

low pedestrian volume criteria, Chapter 5 of the DCM includes three light level

requirements based on land use: rural/semi-rural, low-density residential, and medium-

density residential. In areas with single family homes (low-density residential), a

minimum maintained average of 0.3 foot-candles with an average-to-minimum

uniformity ratio no greater than 6:1 is required.



• Intersections: For the purpose of lighting intersections, the DCM uses the following

roadway classifications (note these do not apply to standard street classifications):

o Major: over 3,500 ADT

o Collector: 1,500 to 3,500 ADT

o Local: 100 to 1,500 ADT

For the design year, Golden View Drive north of Bluebell Drive is functionally classified as a

Major road for analyzing intersection lighting. South of Bluebell Drive, Golden View Drive is

a Collector road. For the design year, all side streets are classified as Local roads, except E.

156th Avenue which is classified as a Collector road for intersection lighting. Below is a

summary of intersection lighting requirements from the DCM:

Illuminance for Intersections*

Functional Classification

Average Maintained Illuminance (low pedestrian area)

Maximum Uniformity Ratio

Major/Major 1.8 3.0

Major/Collector 1.5 3.0

Major/Local 1.3 3.0

Collector/Local 1.0 4.0

*From DCM Table 5-5

Landscaping L.

The overall goal of the landscape design is to limit impacts to existing vegetation where

feasible and provide new landscaping where space allows. The width of existing ROW is

primarily 60 feet and can accommodate road, pedestrian, and drainage improvements but

provides little to no additional room for new landscape improvements. The project design will

strive to protect existing mature trees on private property that are adjacent to the proposed

improvements.

Vertical landscaping elements that are installed adjacent to the roadway can act as traffic

calming measures as they provide visual cues to drivers to reduce speeds. These cues can

consist of planters, lighting, or even sculptural elements. It is important that vertical elements

do not impede visibility of pedestrians or vehicles and any such elements are to be installed

in such a way that they are compatible with maintenance needs, such as snow removal and

storage.



Native vegetation near Goldenview MS

The use of neighborhood gateways has

become a common way to add interest to

streetscapes, provide neighborhoods with

a unique identity, and provide visual clues

to drivers that they are entering a

neighborhood. They have been very

successful in some neighborhoods and

less so in others. Typically, the gateway

features are most successful in

neighborhoods that already possess a

strong individual identity within their

community. Prominence Pointe subdivision currently has a gateway feature at the

intersection of Prominence Pointe Drive and Golden View Drive.

Native topsoil may be stripped and stockpiled from areas where construction is to take place

within the project alignment. Stockpiled native topsoil can be reused and takes advantage of

the valuable native seed stock within it. Reuse of native topsoil is an effective way to re-

vegetate with native plants without importing large amounts of non-native topsoil. Importing

non-native topsoil can be costly and it can introduce invasive plant species to an area

unnecessarily.

Trails M.

Trail easements have been identified at two locations along the project alignment. One

easement is located at Little Rabbit Creek between parcels 133 and 133A. The other is

located on parcel 172. Even though trails do not currently exist at these locations, it is

intended that access to them be maintained as a part of the project so that future trail heads

will not be impeded. This adheres to the Hillside District Plan’s Chapter 2, Goal 6 of

maintaining, supplementing and enhancing a system of parks, trails, open spaces and other

active and passive recreation areas.



Cluster Mailboxes N.

Cluster mailboxes are desirable to

the MOA and the United States

Postal Service as they facilitate

maintenance, reduce delivery times,

and provide a secure receptacle for

the residents. The existing cluster

mailboxes located at the south end

of the project (across from Moen

Park) and at the north end of the

project (near E. 156th Avenue) are to remain. At this time, there are no plans to replace the

existing single-serve mailboxes with cluster boxes.

Parking O.

Golden View Drive is designated as a residential collector, which emphasizes a higher

degree of mobility than access to adjacent properties. Given the large lot size of adjacent

properties, with generally longer driveways and parking pads, combined with the emphasis

on mobility along Golden View Drive, on-street parking is not recommended.

Cluster mailboxes on Golden View Dr., south of E. 156th



VII. Drainage Analysis

Existing Planning Documents A.

The planning document Pilot Watershed Drainage Plan for Little Rabbit Creek and Little

Survival Creek Watersheds – December 2008 (WDP) includes watershed characterization,

runoff modeling, and recommendations for drainage infrastructure improvements and runoff

controls. Policy recommendations are also presented to promote watershed-wide drainage

management. It is a goal of this project to implement recommendations made in the

Watershed Drainage Plan within the Golden View Drive ROW.

Storm Water Model B.

A storm water model was assembled and computed to determine size and location of

drainage facilities along Golden View Drive. As part of the drainage analysis effort, the peak

discharge was calculated at key locations to properly size storm drain piping, catch basins

and other storm drainage appurtenances for both the existing and proposed conditions.

Additionally, analysis results were compared to those of the WDP to verify agreement with

conveyance structure sizes. The drainage analysis approach is consistent with industry

standards and the MOA PM&E DCM and accompanying Drainage Design Guidelines.

Supporting data and modeling for the drainage analysis is found in APPENDIX F.

The existing and proposed storm drainage systems have been modeled with Bentley

CivilStorm V8 computer modeling software. The peak stormwater discharge was determined

for both conditions. The SCS Curve Number method was used to develop rain-runoff

response. As published in the MOA PM&E DCM, the SCS Type I, 10-year, 24-hour duration

storm distribution was modeled for peak discharge conveyance design. Additionally, peak

storm water discharge for the SCS Type I, 2-year, 24-hour storm event was analyzed for

storm water treatment purposes. Based on the location of the project area, orographic

factors varying from 1.30 to 2.13 has been applied to adjust the 1.77-inch and 1.26-inch

base storm volumes for conveyance and water treatment design, respectively. Storm event

data and drainage analysis input parameters are found in APPENDIX F.

The drainage basins were further refined and adjusted from GIS data obtained from MOA

Information Technology Department and WMS. The computer software ArcMap by ESRI

was used to view and analyze GIS data in conjunction with aerial imagery to determine

impervious areas, slope and land cover. Once the basin data was compiled from ArcMap,



Microsoft Excel was used to compute the necessary input parameters required for both the

existing and proposed CivilStorm drainage models.

The storm water runoff generated from each subbasin is summarized below in TABLE 7. For

modeling and analysis purposes, undeveloped areas have been considered fully developed

to ensure the proposed drainage improvements are sized to convey increased future storm

runoff.

Table 7 – Summary of storm water runoff

Subcatchment Area 1-yr 24-hr 10-yr 24-hr

UNIT (Acre) (cfs) (cfs/AC) (cfs) (cfs/AC) B101 23 0.3 0.02 4.7 0.21 B102 9 0.1 0.01 1.8 0.08 B103 3 0.3 0.12 1.3 0.06 B104 33 0.6 0.02 6.0 0.27 B105 5 0.5 0.09 2.2 0.10 B106 39 0.8 0.02 8.5 0.38 B107 3 0.4 0.11 1.3 0.06 B108 36 1.3 0.04 9.9 0.44 B109 1 0.4 0.69 0.9 0.04 B110 51 1.3 0.02 10.0 0.44 B111 55 8.2 0.15 26.3 1.16 B112 4 1.2 0.31 3.4 0.15 B114 22 12.6 0.56 27.0 1.19 B115 20 1.7 0.08 8.5 0.38 B116 8 2.1 0.25 6.2 0.28 B117 94 14.6 0.16 44.5 1.97 B118 5 1.0 0.21 3.0 0.13 B119 58 2.6 0.05 16.9 0.75 B120 123 2.5 0.02 22.9 1.01 B400 229 33.1 0.14 114.6 5.07 B401 88 3.8 0.04 31.3 1.38 B402 60 3.7 0.06 21.2 0.94 B403 29 2.3 0.08 11.4 0.51 B404 62 2.4 0.04 18.5 0.82



Proposed Drainage System C.

The proposed drainage system is made up of five separate systems, each with their own

outfall. Site topography and existing stream and drainages necessitates using separate

systems. Common to each system is use of typical CPEP piping, catch basins and catch

basin manholes for storm drain mains. Stream crossings larger than approximately 4 feet in

diameter may be concrete, aluminum, or steel structures as determined during detailed

design. Existing roadside ditches and drainage ways on the east or uphill side of Golden

View Drive will be maintained or reconstructed. Side street ditches will be installed and/or

improved where streets are being modified. At cases where ditch grades are relatively

steep, permanent ditch armoring will be constructed for erosion protection. The five systems

are described below, start at the southern end of the project.

System 1

System 1 extends generally from station 508+00 near Romania Drive to station 514+60.

The flow direction is from north to south. This system collects primarily roadway runoff

and consists of standard catch basins and catch basin manholes. The existing culvert

crossing at the intersection of Golden View Drive and Romania Drive which carries the

Potter Branch (refer to “Stream Crossings” table) drainage will be replaced and

incorporated into this system. A treatment facility will be incorporated into the system prior

to discharge. Based on limited availability of land and challenging topography, the

treatment facility will likely be a vault-type treatment unit.

Conceptual graphic of a culvert crossing



System 2

System 2 extends from station 518+00 to station 522+10. The flow direction is from south

to north. This system collects roadway runoff. The existing culvert crossing at station

522+10 which carries the South Fork Little Survival Creek drainage will be replaced. A

treatment facility will be incorporated into the system prior to discharge. Based on limited

availability of land and challenging topography, the treatment facility will likely be a vault-

type treatment unit.

System 3

System 3 extends from station 526+40 to station 531+50 just north of Bluebell Drive. The

flow direction is from the south and north to the stream crossing at station 529+30. The

existing culvert crossing at station 529+30 which carries the South Branch Little Survival

Creek drainage will be replaced. Runoff from the lower portion of Bluebell Drive will be

collected by this system. This includes both runoff from the roadway and also roadside

ditches. A treatment facility

will be incorporated into the

system prior to discharge.

Based on limited availability of

land and challenging

topography, the treatment

facility will likely be a vault-

type treatment unit. A

diversion structure or typical

manhole will be used to outfall

treated roadway runoff into the

natural drainage.

System 4


to north. This system collects roadway runoff. The existing culvert crossing at station

535+70 which carries Little Survival Creek will be replaced. A treatment facility will be

incorporated into the system prior to discharge. There may be an opportunity to install a

small natural treatment system East of Goldenview Drive between the outfall at 534+75

and the creek culvert at station 535+70.

Conceptual graphic of a roadside ditch



System 5


to north. This system collects roadway runoff and also serves as a bypass system to route

flood flows to Little Rabbit Creek via a large diameter storm drain main. A treatment facility

will be incorporated into the system prior to discharge at Little Rabbit Creek.

Three diversion structures will serve as bypass metering facilities to maintain flow to North

Branch Little Survival Creek, South Branch South Fork Little Rabbit Creek, and North

Branch South Fork Little Rabbit Creek. These structures will be designed so that regular

stream flows are allowed to cross Golden View Drive and bypass large runoff events into

the storm drain main. Adjustable stop gates, weirs, or valves are proposed to allow for

flow adjustments. Simple flumes may be incorporated to facilitate flow measurements.

Specific base flow rates for each drainage are still being negotiated with the USACE.

Little Rabbit Creek Crossing

Little Rabbit Creek is crossed by Golden View Drive at station 595+60. The existing 72-

inch x 48-inch culvert has a perched outlet due to a considerable scour hole and does not

meet fish passage criteria. This structure will be removed and replaced with a new

structure as part of the roadway reconstruction. Roadway improvements are expected to

increase in width and thus may necessitate a longer structure. New installations of this

size are typically a structural plate box culvert, also known as a multi-plate culvert. Other

options should be evaluated in design based on depth of bury, stream grade, final

roadway grade and width, and FEMA requirements for flood flow passage.

Treatment Facilities

Stormwater treatment facilities are incorporated into the storm drain design to minimize

potential water quality impacts to surrounding area watersheds. The design of the

treatment facilities are based on the requirements of PM&E and ADEC. Overland

discharge through a bio-swale is considered as the first option for stormwater treatment. If

the bio-swale is not considered an acceptable treatment method, an oil/grit separator,

such as those manufactured by Stormceptor, Contech, or AquaShield, could be required

for stormwater treatment.



VIII. Right-of-Way Impacts

Overview A.

A key element for the successful completion of this project is the acquisition of any required

ROW, easements and/or permits while providing fair and equitable treatment to all affected

property owners, tenants and lessees. Fee acquisitions and easements facilitate the

construction of roadway and pedestrian amenities and associated utility relocations.

The MOA has the authority to acquire private property for public projects. A primary goal of

ROW acquisition is to acquire property rights from willing sellers through good-faith

negotiations in accordance with all pertinent policies, statutes, laws and regulations while

treating all owners equitably. The necessity of the project and the selection of one

alternative over others must be carefully considered and demonstrate that “the property is

taken by necessity for a project located in a manner which is most compatible with the

greatest public good and the least private injury.” AS 09.55.430(7). Property owners are

entitled to receive just compensation for any property rights acquired. Displaced owners and

tenants are entitled to displacement or relocation benefits. When owners are unwilling (or

perhaps unable) to sell and property rights acquisition is demonstrated to be necessary for

public projects, the MOA has the authority to acquire property through its right of eminent

domain (ED). Condemnation is the process of exercising the right of ED and is prescribed

by MOA code and state law.

In general, public use easements (PUE) are required in areas where the footprint of the

improvements exceeds the ROW. Slope easements (SE) are required for areas where the

cut and fill slopes are outside of the ROW. Storm drain easements (DE) are required for

drainage facilities installed on private property. Temporary construction permits (TCP) are

required on private properties for matching new driveway grades to existing driveway

grades, installation of storm drain footing services or water key boxes at the property line,

and the relocation, removal or repair of improvements such as mailboxes, curbs,

landscaping, fencing, and encroaching structures. Temporary construction easements (TCE)

allow contractors temporary access onto private property to construct improvements that are

within the ROW but where there is insufficient space within the ROW to conduct the work.

In addition to the easements and permits, rights of entry are obtained from property owners

to allow access to private properties for the purposes of soils testing, surveying activities

and/or data gathering.



Property owners who have personal improvements in the ROW, such as fences, retaining

walls or landscaping boulders, have the option of applying for encroachment permits for the

improvements, removing them at their own expense, or allowing the corrective action be

incorporated into the project design. Encroachment permits for fences, rock gardens,

planters, and decorative retaining walls within 7 feet of back of curb are usually not granted.

Right-of-Way Easements/Permits B.

The existing dedicated ROW for Golden View Drive varies from 60 feet to 200 feet in width.

The majority of the ROW was dedicated to the MOA by subdivision plat as the properties

were subdivided. The exception to this is three un-subdivided parcels or tracts adjacent to

Golden View Drive that have 33-foot section line road reservation easements instead of

road dedications. These properties include Tract 1 of Viewpoint Subdivision, the un-

subdivided parcel north and adjacent to Block 7 of Paradise Valley Subdivision and the un-

subdivided parcel north and adjacent to Lot 2 of Jeffers Subdivision. In addition to these

three parcels, there are additional parcels that have dedicated ROW but are still affected by

a 33-foot or 50-foot wide section line easement or a road reservation that was included in

the original land patent from the federal government. These parcels have additional ROW

that can be used for the project. Although, since the underlying lands within the section line

easements are owned by the property owner, fences and other items that meet municipal

code may be constructed within the easements or along the property lines before or after

the project is completed.

Estimated easement requirements are summarized in TABLE 8 below and detailed in

APPENDIX H. As the planning and design of this project progresses, the required

construction permits, easements, or property acquisitions will be refined.

Table 8 – Estimated Right-of-Way Easements/Permits

Drainage Easement (DE) 6

Slope Easement (SE) 38

Temporary Construction Permit (TCP) 21

Public Use Easements (PUE) 1



IX. Design Recommendations The plan and profile drawings for the proposed roadway improvements can be found in

APPENDIX B.

Roadway A.

The horizontal alignment of Golden View Drive follows the existing roadway centerline. It is

recommended that the existing horizontal radii of adjacent local side streets remain as

currently constructed.

The proposed vertical profile generally follows the existing roadway grade but varies higher

or lower than existing ground near side street intersections to reduce impacts to the steep

adjacent local side streets. It is recommended to raise the vertical roadway profile of

Golden View Drive near Bluebell Drive by approximately 1.5 feet. The maximum grade on

Golden View Drive is 10.0 percent. The proposed grade for Ransom Ridge Road will most

likely require a design variance and thus will be refined during the design phase.

The proposed cross section consists of two 11-foot lanes with 3.5-foot shoulders and barrier

curb and gutter. A single, ADA compliant pedestrian facility is recommended: an 8-foot wide

paved pathway located on the west side, separated from the back of curb where feasible.

During design, there may be additional locations to detach the pathway with minimal

impacts. A drainage ditch would be located on the east side.

A phased construction approach is recommended along the project corridor to

accommodate the large project area.

Structural Section B.

Roadway insulation is recommended in the structural section to minimize excavation,

structural fill, and frost penetration.

Retaining Walls C.

Retaining walls are recommended, as appropriate, to minimize impacts to adjacent utilities,

properties, or the environment. Retaining walls should be gabion style or modular block to

best compliment the surrounding landscape and neighborhood.



Drainage D.

The proposed drainage system is made up of five separate systems, each with their own

outfall. Site topography and existing stream and drainages necessitates using separate

systems. Common to each system is use of typical CPEP piping, catch basins and catch

basin manholes for storm drain mains. Stream crossings larger than approximately 4 feet in

diameter may be concrete, aluminum, or steel structures as determined during detailed

design. Existing roadside ditches and drainages on the east or uphill side of Golden View

Drive will be maintained or reconstructed. Side street ditches will be installed and/or

improved where streets are being modified. At cases where ditch grades are relatively

steep, permanent ditch armoring will be constructed for erosion protection.

A large diameter storm drain main will extend along a majority of the project length, serving

as both a roadway runoff collection system, and high runoff bypass system. Diversion

structures will be installed to maintain existing stream flows and meter bypass flows to the

main and on to Little Rabbit Creek. Existing stream and drainage crossing structures will be

replaced and upgraded as required by modifications to the roadway cross section.

A permeable road base cross section is proposed for three locations at existing wetlands

adjacent to Golden View Middle School. The permeable road base will help distribute

subsurface and mixed surface flows to the wetlands, with the goal of reducing

channelization, concentration of base flows, and subsequent icing.

Electrical thaw systems will be installed at culverts, treatment and diversion structures, and

other icing-susceptible locations within the proposed storm drain system. Culvert crossings

will incorporate freeze-reduction features, such as insulation and underflow drain rock.

Traffic Calming E.

Traffic calming measures consist of double-yellow centerline striping and 4-inch shoulder

striping. The shoulders would also include “Bike Lane” symbols.

Lighting F.

A continuous roadway LED lighting system, current with MOA standards, is proposed.

Landscaping G.

Proposed landscaping will be in character with the adjacent residential properties. The focus

will be on preserving existing vegetation to the greatest extent practical, with new plantings

supplementing or possibly replacing the those disturbed by construction. No new plantings



will be placed within the buffer between the roadway and the pathway; this area is to receive

topsoil and seed.

Restoration of streams and creeks will take place where they are affected by the project.

Restoration will include the use of native plants in order to heal the stream banks and

prevent erosion. Landscape boulders may also be used to restore a stream or creek to its

most natural function and appearance.

Design Cost Estimate H.

A cost estimate for the proposed improvements is presented in summary format below in

TABLE 9. A more detailed cost breakdown is found in APPENDIX I. It should be noted that the

estimates shown include a 20 percent construction contingency. Only the recommended

improvements were estimated and include the items summarized in this section. The other

alternatives were not estimated due to the impracticality of carrying these alternatives

forward because of the significant impacts to adjacent private septic systems, ditches,

drainage ways and stream tributaries, driveways, properties, retaining walls, and utilities.

Table 9 – Summary of Estimated Construction Costs

Schedule Total

Roadway & Sidewalk Improvements1 $9,114,000

Storm Drainage Improvements $4,877,000

Illumination and Electrical Improvements $1,432,000

Landscaping $480,000

Subtotal Construction = $15,903,000

Contingency (20%) $3,181,000

Total Construction = $19,084,000

Utility Relocation $2,582,000

ROW Acquisition $100,000

Total = $21,766,000 Notes: 1. Estimated costs do not include improvements to Bluebell Drive. 2. Estimated construction and ROW acquisition costs do not include Rabbit Creek Road / Golden View Drive Intersection as this work will be dependent on the outcome of a future study being done by ADOT.

GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - CRW Engineering€¦ · GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE RABBIT CREEK ROAD TO ROMANIA DRIVE...

Documents

Transcript of GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - CRW Engineering€¦ · GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE RABBIT CREEK ROAD TO ROMANIA DRIVE...