I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 1 Section 4

COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY Introduction Project Costing Guidelines were issued by the PMC to provide a uniform approach to the costing of alternatives for the Tier 2 studies yet allowing flexibility to make refinements as warranted. These guidelines were reviewed by INDOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) both at the Indiana Division Level and FHWA Headquarters during their development and this latest guidance seeks to reflect a logical approach to development of the range of costs for alternatives and a reflection of current bid costs. The Project Management Consultant (PMC) analyzed projects that were bid in 2008-2009 and developed a methodology that would closely replicate the actual bidding to be expected when Plans Specifications and Estimate (P.S. & E.) are available at the end of design. The cost methodology for I-69, for earlier Sections 1, 2 and 3, initially used projects bid in 2004 for the DEIS with later refinements used in the FEIS (see below). The unit costs associated with itemized bid tabulations (bid tabs) were updated in 2007 using current INDOT data. In the late summer of 2009, the PMC analyzed bids on various projects that were let from September 2008 through June 2009 to assess the effect of recent bid history on the unit prices to be used in the development of costs for the FEIS for these earlier sections. The updated methodology was intended to provide an estimate comparable to actual bids obtained from plans already “on the shelf”. Since the timing of the Tier 2 Final Environmental Impact Studies varies by section, and issues of funding are not fully resolved, it is not possible to schedule all the various construction contracts. Accordingly, after the costs were developed based on the methodology stated below, they were adjusted to Year 2010 dollars. It is these refined methods that are being utilized for Section 4 (this study). After the Tier 2 studies are completed, INDOT and FHWA will continue to project these costs out into the future and as funding becomes available to complete the construction of I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis are refined. Section 1. Roadway Construction Cost Methodology To determine the unit prices, the official bid tabulations of 17 Roadway Contracts described as “new construction”, and 18 bridge or road-bridge combination contracts (containing a total of 28 individual bridges), awarded by INDOT from September 2008 through June 2009 (see Tables 1 and 3), were reviewed.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 2 Section 4

Table 1 – Recently Awarded Roadway Construction Contracts

Contract Number

Letting Date Roadway Project Description

Contract Award Amount (Millions)

IR-30114 09/04/08 US 31 New Road Construction $24.4 IR-30844 09/04/08 SR 25 New Road Construction $10.5 IR-27845 11/19/08 US 231 New Road Construction $29.9 IR-28976 03/11/09 PR 641 New Road Construction $10.1

IR-30115 03/11/09 Lilac and Tyler Roads (Marshall Co.)

New Road Construction $2.3

IR-30160* 03/11/09 US 24 New Road Construction $24.7 SR-29135 03/25/09 US 33 New Road Construction $10.1 IR-30298 04/08/09 PR I-69 New Road Construction $13.6 IR-31322 04/15/09 I-69 New Road Construction $8.0

SIR-30025 04/29/09 US 136 New Interchange and Bridges $13.8 IR-30116 05/06/09 US 31 New Road Construction $4.5 R-31726 05/06/09 Elkhart CR 17 New Road Construction $7.3

SIR-30106* SIR-31948*

05/20/09 05/20/09

US 31 (PCCP) US 31 (HMA)

New Road/Bridge Construction New Road/Bridge Construction

$11.3 $11.1

SIR-30843* 05/20/09 SR 25 New Road/Bridge Construction $29.6 IR-30029 05/27/09 I-65 New Interchange Construction $8.2

IR-31879 05/27/09 Kenilworth Road (St. Joseph Co.)

New Road Construction $2.2

R-31668 05/27/09 126th Street (Hamilton Co.)

Road Construction $10.2

*4-Lane Divided Rural Highway, Construction Cost greater than $10 million, awarded between September2008 and June 2009 Of the 17 Roadway Contacts, the unit prices from the four construction contracts awarded within the above timeframe having a construction cost greater than $10 million and that have similar features to the proposed I-69 (e.g. 4-lane, divided, rural highway) as indicated by an asterisk (*) in Table 1 were analyzed to develop the unit prices. The average unit prices obtained from the four contracts listed in Table 1 (2009 dollars) were projected to 2010 dollars using a one year of inflation at 3.5 percent. The cost estimating model presented a range of costs based on different design criteria value assumptions. The low cost criteria reflected a median width of 60 feet, a clear zone value of 30 feet, and the use of full depth asphalt pavement with asphalt shoulders. The initial criteria reflected a median width of 84 feet, a clear zone value of 35 feet, and use of concrete pavement for travel lanes and shoulders on the mainline and interchange ramps. Roadway construction costs are divided into six (6) categories: pavement; earthwork; drainage; miscellaneous; percentage costs; and Trns-port Estimator items. Unit prices were used to estimate the construction cost for the pavement, earthwork, drainage and miscellaneous items; percentages were used to estimate the construction cost for the percentage items (mobilization

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 3 Section 4

and demobilization, construction engineering, and other minor item costs). Construction cost for the Trns-port Estimator items were estimated where appropriate.

Alternative design criteria were incorporated in order to provide a range of construction costs. Both the initial and low-cost criteria satisfy design standards in INDOT’s Design Manual (IDM). A “Low Cost Design Criteria Studies Summary” was prepared in April of 2010 to address the design criteria used in both the initial standards criteria and the Low Cost standards criteria for Section 4. Tier 2 Low Cost Design Standards The design standards developed for the Section 2 and Section 3 Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEISs) utilized two sets of criteria, the “Initial” (desirable criteria) and “Low Cost” (minimum criteria). The Low Cost standards utilized “minimum” criteria for a freeway facility from the INDOT Design Manual. Most of these are consistent with current interstate construction in much of Indiana. The FHWA has already accepted several of these criteria for the Section 1 construction packages. Accordingly, these accepted criteria have been incorporated into the Initial design criteria for Section 4. Other cost savings measures identified within Sections 2 and 3 have also been incorporated into the Low Cost Design Criteria for Section 4. These criteria are summarized in the Table 2 below.

Additional Section 4 Cost Savings Measures Section 4 engineers worked closely with INDOT and the Tier 2 PMC to identify additional cost savings measures. Many of the measures focused on minimizing the effects of the topography within Section 4. This study area features steep hills and valleys with vertical relief of over 500 feet in some areas, as well as karst limestone geology with numerous caves, sinkholes and springs. The Tier 2 Team adopted a “Practical Design” approach to this section. The additional cost savings measures were fully examined and evaluated for their safety implications. Although

Table 2 – Tier 2 Design Standards    Sections 2 & 3 Section 4 All Sections

Initial Criteria Initial Criteria Low Cost Criteria

FHWA Accepted Criteria

Median Width 84 ft 60 ft 60 ft

Inside Shoulder Width 6 ft Paved 4 ft Paved 4 ft Paved

Maximum Grade 3% (Level) 4% (Rolling) 4% (Rolling)

Sections 2 & 3 - Low Cost Criteria

Pavement Type Concrete Asphalt

Clear Zone 35 ft 30 ft

Minimum Grade 0.5% 0%

Bridge Slope Treatment 2:1 spill slopes MSE Walls

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 4 Section 4

some of the measures did not meet minimum values for either the Design Manual or the 2005 “AASHTO Design Standards for the Interstate System”, and would require a Level 1 or Level 2 Design Exception, each measure was investigated to better determine whether one or more of them could provide substantial cost savings without compromising safety. After careful consideration of the potential cost savings and safety implications, several of the measures identified have been incorporated into the Section 4 Low Cost Design Criteria. These criteria are shown in Table 3 followed by further discussion of each.

Critical Length of Grade

Critical length of grade is defined as the maximum length of a specific upgrade on which a loaded truck can operate without an unreasonable reduction in speed. Critical length of grade is measured by quantifying the reduction in truck speeds below the average running speed of adjacent traffic. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2004) and the Indiana Design Manual (IDM) recommend a 10 mph speed reduction as a general guide to determine critical lengths of grade on major routes such as freeways. However, the AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book) also notes that this standard is not a strict control, but is a guideline and in some instances, the terrain or other physical control may preclude meeting this guideline. It was found that using the 10 mph critical length of grade criterion, coupled with interstate freeway design criteria, restricted the design of the vertical profile such that it could not match the slopes of the existing terrain in Section 4. High fill areas and deep cuts along the roadway were needed to make up the remaining elevation differences, resulting in high earthwork costs (a major project issue). In order to reduce earthwork costs, a Level 2 design exception request for critical length of grade was prepared. This design exception analyzed the cost and safety implications of using a maximum 20 mph truck speed reduction to design the Section 4 vertical roadway profile. Its findings and observations are summarized below.

Table 3 – Additional Section 4 Cost Saving Measures Section 4 - Cost Saving Measure Initial Criteria Low Cost Criteria Critical Length of Grade – Max. Truck Speed Reduction on Upgrades

10 mph (Min 60 mph) 20 mph (Min 50 mph)

Lvl 2 DE Req’d

Rock Cut Slope Treatment 2:1 Rock Cut Benching (20 ft)

Guardrail Embankment Ht. >24 ft >24 ft

Fill Slope Treatment 3:1 2:1 behind Guardrail

Interchanges -Reduced Ramp Spacing -Low speed loop ramps

-Reduced Ramp Spacing -Low speed loop ramps

State & Local Road Design Criteria 3R Desirable:

Local Roads only

3R Desirable: All Local Roads &

SR 45 & SR 54 Crossings

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 5 Section 4

Data cited in the Green Book indicates the crash involvement rate for a 20 mph speed reduction to be more than 4 times greater than the 10 mph speed reduction involvement rate. These data, which are used as the basis for recommending a 10 mph speed reduction, have some shortcomings, in that they did not use accident and speed data from any specific grade or unsafe location and used data from a combination of 2-lane and multi-lane highways.

A more recent study, “Revising the AASHTO Curve: Accident Involvement Rates for Trucks and Speed Differentials on Highway Grades” Brazil, 2007, found the same level of safety (similar truck crash involvement rates) on multi-lane divided highways at a 20 mph (30 km/hr) speed differential as the Green Book data suggests for a 10 mph (20 km/hr) speed differential.

The design exception request also noted that on a multi-line interstate with a projected Level of Service of A or B, vehicles can readily move to the adjacent lanes to pass the slower moving trucks without much difficulty,

A benefit to cost ratio (B/C) analysis was performed and included with the Level 2 design exception request (prepared 10/28/09 and approved 11/14/09). INDOT B/C analysis methodology calculates a user benefit based on savings from reduced accidents as one of the main factors. Therefore, this analysis considered the crash reduction savings of the 10 mph speed reduction as the user benefit because a 20 mph speed reduction is expected to have an increased crash rate. Consequently, the costs are the additional costs to construct the interstate to the 10 mph speed reduction criterion as the 20 mph criterion results in a cost savings. The analysis resulted in B/C ratios of 0.44 and 0.23 for two critical locations in Section 4. In other words, the benefit of using the 10 mph speed reduction, a reduced number of crashes, does not out-weigh the higher construction cost of the 10 mph truck speed reduction criterion when compared to using a 20 mph truck speed reduction to design the vertical profile.

With a posted speed limit of 70 mph, the calculated minimum truck speed of 50 mph on upgrades, using the 20 mph speed reduction criterion, is still greater than the 45 mph minimum speed limit often posted on Indiana interstates.

The Level 2 design exception request documented careful consideration of impacts to safety, mobility and project costs and recommends that the Section 4 Low Cost Design Criteria include a maximum 20 mph speed reduction for the critical length of grade calculation. This allows the profile to better follow the terrain thereby reducing the earthwork quantities and bridge lengths. Preliminary profiles were developed for the Low Cost alternative that varied only the critical length of grade analysis from the Initial Criteria. Approximately $100 million in construction costs were saved using a maximum 20 mph speed reduction versus using a maximum 10 mph reduction for the critical length of grade analysis. Rock Cut Slope Treatment

The IDM allows for benching of the backslope when a cut is required in rock. However, at this point in the project development, the stability, depth, and location of the rock layer is somewhat unknown. A rock cut backslope of 2:1 was decided upon for the Initial design criteria. This assumes some rock layers could be less stable and unable to be benched, but also does not assume the increased cost of 3:1 slopes through the entire corridor. Based on a geological

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 6 Section 4

opinion of the type of rock anticipated in Section 4, the Low Cost design assumed a 20 foot benching height. Both designs assume a 10 foot overburden sloped at 3:1. Preliminary designs showed an estimated cost difference of over $30 million between these two rock cut backslope criteria.

Figure 1 - I-69 Section 4 – Rock Cut Slope Treatments

Guardrail Embankment Height and Grading Behind Guardrail

In accordance with the roadside barrier warrants for embankments, from the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, a cost-effectiveness evaluation was performed using the design criteria specific to I-69 Section 4. This analysis was used to determine the height of embankment above which guardrail is warranted for safety reasons. The crash frequency, severity, and costs were determined for guardrail installation and compared to different heights of unprotected slopes. The accident costs were then added to the earthwork, guardrail, and pavement costs for each scenario. An embankment height of 24 feet was found to be the point at which the accident severity on the unprotected embankment begins to offset the additional guardrail costs. Both the Initial and Low Cost designs include the installation of guardrail in areas where embankment heights reach 24 feet and above. A cost savings measure was also associated with the use of guardrail in high fill areas. The typical section of I-69 without guardrail includes a 6:1 sloped clear zone, 30 feet – 35 feet from the edge of the travelway, for vehicle recovery before the foreslope or backslope. In areas where the embankment heights are 24 feet or more, the recovery area is minimized to the shoulder width with guardrail protection, and the embankment foreslope begins behind the guardrail, approximately 15 feet from the edge of the travelway. This measure reduces the amount of earthwork fill needed, lowering overall construction costs while still providing a comparable degree of safety along the roadway since guardrail is already warranted.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 7 Section 4

The Low Cost design further expands on this measure by increasing the high embankment foreslopes from 3:1 to 2:1. By increasing the slope behind the guardrail, the amount of fill needed was further decreased, resulting in less required excavation or borrow to balance the earthwork. It also results in a smaller right-of-way footprint which reduces right-of-way costs and environmental impacts.

Figure 2 - I-69 Section 4 – Guardrail Embankment Height and Grading Behind Guardrail

Interchange Ramps

The proposed interchanges within Section 4 were reviewed for measures to reduce interchange footprints and alternative configurations. A reduced ramp spacing of 800 feet was incorporated into both the Initial and Low Cost designs of the SR 45 interchange. The 2030 projected traffic volumes at this interchange indicate that stop controlled intersections will operate at Level of Service “A”. The IDM recommends an intersection spacing of 1300 feet for efficient traffic signal operation. Since signals will not be required at this interchange in the design year, reduced ramp spacing was used as a cost savings measure. It also reduces the number of residential displacements and right-of-way costs. Some interchange ramps at the proposed County Line and SR 37 Interchanges, with forecasted low traffic volumes, were designed using a minimum 30 mph design speed. There are three proposed low-speed ramps including: 1. County Line – NB I-69 to WB Connector Road 2. SR 37 – NB I-69 to SB SR 37 3. SR 37 – NB SR 37 to SB I-69

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 8 Section 4

Utilization of the smaller radii reduced the footprint at these two interchanges, reducing construction costs, residential displacements, and right-of-way costs. State & Local Road Design Criteria: 3R Desirable or 4R

As explained in a design memo dated January 20, 2010 from DLZ to the I-69 Tier 2 PMC, the state roads within the Section 4 corridor were evaluated to determine any benefits to using 3R desirable design standards verses 4R design standards. The existing conditions of SR 45 at proposed I-69 and SR 54 at proposed I-69 include narrow or non-existent shoulders and other sub-standard roadside conditions. A review of the crash histories and existing geometrics indicate that the overall safety of these roads will be improved, over the existing conditions, using 3R desirable criteria. Also, the relatively low traffic volumes, expected decrease in traffic once I-69 is constructed and classifications on the 3R Network lend additional credence that desirable 3R criteria is appropriate. Therefore it is recommended that state and local roads be constructed using the less costly 3R desirable criteria as opposed to 4R criteria used for new roads. One exception to the recommendation to use 3R desirable criteria for state and local roads is the new intersection and realignments of SR 45, SR 445 and the new County Line Interchange Connector Road. Construction cost savings could be realized by using 3R desirable criteria in this location, however, the IDM defines 4R reconstruction as major revisions to the existing horizontal and vertical alignment or reconstruction of a significant portion of the existing pavement structure. It also defines new construction as an intersection relocated to a new point of intersection. The proposed relocation of SR 445, including reconfiguration of the existing 3-way intersection into a 4-way intersection, would constitute major revisions and therefore it is recommended that SR 45, SR 445 and the County Line Interchange Connector Road be constructed to 4R design criteria. Section 4 Cost Savings Measures – Not Recommended As part of the engineering development for the I-69 Tier 2 Studies in Section 4 several measures were evaluated that did not warrant incorporation into the Low Cost Design Criteria. The following cost saving measures were studied but are not recommended: Reduced design speed – from 70 mph to 60 mph Steeper maximum grade – from 4.0 to 5.0 percent Bifurcation of horizontal and/or vertical alignments Narrower median width with barrier Reduced Design Speeds – A reduction of the design speed to 60 mph in Section 4 was evaluated to determine effects and potential cost savings. Lowering the design speed would have an adverse effect on the overall mobility benefit provided by I-69. Additionally, while the design speed evaluation showed a cost savings, it was found to be mainly due to the effect of design speed on the critical length of grade rather than any changes to the horizontal and vertical geometry. The critical length of grade increases as the initial truck speed decreases. Similar or

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 9 Section 4

greater cost savings were realized by utilizing a 20 mph truck speed reduction in the critical length of grade calculation without lowering the running speed of non-truck traffic. A lower design speed would also be inconsistent with Tier 1 performance evaluations. For example, such a reduction for 20 miles of Section 4 would decrease the Evansville to Indianapolis travel time savings by 3 minutes, which is 11 percent of the 27 minute savings determined in the Tier 1 study. Evansville to Indianapolis travel time was the performance measure for one of three Tier 1 core goals. Therefore a 60 mph design speed is not recommended. Steeper Maximum Grade – A change in the maximum grade criterion from 4 to 5 percent was considered in an effort to reduce earthwork balances through the Section 4 terrain. It was found, however, that the critical length of grade decreased as the slopes increased, severely limiting the length of steep grades. The most economical design slopes did not exceed 4 percent in any event; therefore, no meaningful benefit would be gained by increasing the maximum grade to 5 percent. Bifurcated Alignments – The varying topography of the I-69 corridor in Section 4 creates situations where there are potential cost advantages to splitting the north and southbound lanes to follow independent alignments and profiles. There would be advantages if ridges of land were to run parallel to each other for a distance and coincide with the route of the highway. However, within the project corridor the terrain undulates and changes so abruptly that the geometric criteria for the horizontal and vertical alignments limit any advantages of two separate lane groups. Furthermore, the many ridges and valleys in the corridor generally run perpendicular to the Section 4 alignments, or parallel for only a short distance, such that few opportunities for cost savings are available. Preliminary bifurcated alignments were developed; however, the initial results did not show any apparent cost advantages in separating the north and southbound lanes. The right-of-way footprint also increases, resulting in additional costs and environmental impacts. Bifurcated alignments, therefore, are not a recommended means of reducing costs. Narrow Median with Barrier – Two different types of reduced medians were considered, a 48 foot median with a high-tension cable barrier system and a 26.5 foot median (the narrowest median allowed by the Indiana Design Manual for a rural freeway) with full depth paved shoulders and a concrete median barrier. While both options reduced the footprint and earthwork costs, these savings were offset by the additional costs associated with the median barrier. For example, the 26.5 foot median was estimated to save approximately $17 million in earthwork and right-of-way costs over the 27 mile length of Section 4, however additional concrete median barrier, full depth pavement and bridge and culvert costs were calculated at approximately $38 million for a net increase in total cost of about $21 million. Conclusion Several cost saving measures were investigated within Section 4 of I-69 to identify those which would provide a substantial cost savings for I-69. These are shown in the following summary Table 4. After careful consideration of impacts to safety, mobility and project costs, several of these design elements were incorporated into the Section 4 Low Cost Design Criteria. Combined, the Section 4 Low Cost design criteria are estimated to save the project up to $250 million in construction and right-of-way costs compared to the Initial design criteria.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 10 Section 4

Table 4 – Summary of Cost Savings Measures

Section 4 - Low Cost Savings Summary Approximate Cost Savings

vs. “Initial Criteria”

Critical Length of Grade – 20 mph Maximum Truck Speed Reduction $113 M

Rock Cut Slope Treatment – 20 ft Benching $30 M

Fill Slope Treatment – 2:1 Behind Guardrail $19 M

State & Local Road Design Criteria – 3R Desirable $250,000

Low Cost Criteria Determined in Sections 1, 2 and 3 $88 M

Total Cost Savings $250 M

Pavement: The pavement cost analysis used forecasted traffic volumes (for the Year 2030) to determine the number of mainline travel lanes required at various locations. For cost estimating purposes, the total length (in linear feet) of each type of lane configuration (i.e. 4, 6, 8, or 10-lane) was calculated. Based on the forecasted traffic volumes for each potential interchange, the number of lanes required for each ramp was determined. For cost estimating purposes, the total length (in linear feet) for each type of ramp configuration (i.e. 1 or 2-lane) was calculated. Other roadways (e.g. frontage roads, realigned roads, improvements to existing roadways, etc.) which will need to be constructed or substantially reconstructed were identified. Based on forecasted traffic volumes, the number of lanes required for these roadways was determined. For cost estimating purposes, the total length (in linear feet) for each type of roadway configuration (i.e. 2 or 4-lane) was computed. Pavement costs were developed under the low cost criteria using full depth asphalt pavement items, and the initial criteria used concrete pavement items for the mainline and interchange ramps pavements. Asphalt pavement was utilized for the other roadways for the initial and low cost scenarios. Earthwork: The projects analyzed estimated earthwork requirements by identifying appropriate construction techniques at different locations. These techniques included: common excavation (all unconsolidated, overburden soil); common excavation with friable (rippable) rock (use of additional equipment above normal excavating procedures); and common excavation with hard rock (blasting or other removal techniques required). Once the appropriate earthwork technique was identified, and a profile grade established, earthwork quantities were calculated and an earthwork cost was estimated by using the appropriate unit prices. Existing ground cross sections along with a proposed roadway template were used to calculate the earthwork quantities by the average end area method. For cost estimating purposes, ditch depths on the outside of the roadway were set a minimum of two (2) feet deep, a 15 percent shrinkage factor was used and a 30 percent swell factor was used for rock fills.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 11 Section 4

Templates for the low cost criteria and initial criteria were run using refined profiles to estimate earthwork volumes. Consequently, the earthwork quantities vary depending on the criteria being applied. Drainage: Structures over 20 feet in length are evaluated as bridges and are discussed below. Pipes at least 48 inches in diameter and culverts with spans less than 20 feet are included in this section. Preliminary hydraulic analysis identified the location and size of the drainage structures. Appropriate unit prices were used to estimate costs and the summation of the costs of these drainage elements represents the “structures less than 20 feet” cost in the methodology. The lengths of pipes and culverts were adjusted to reflect different design criteria; applying the low cost criteria results in shorter pipes and culverts. Another component of the overall drainage costs are underdrains, which drain the subgrade under the pavement to extend the pavement life. Unit costs were determined per lineal foot of underdrains, and included the costs for the following items: six inch (6”) perforated underdrain pipe; geotextiles placed within the excavated underdrain trench; aggregate used to backfill the underdrain trench; six inch (6”) underdrain outlet pipe; and outlet protectors at 650 foot spacing. The unit price assumed one (1) longitudinal underdrain run; therefore for standard divided typical sections (rural or urban) four (4) runs will be necessary: one (1) on each outside edge of pavement and one (1) on each inside (median) edge of pavement. For an urban typical section with a concrete median barrier, three (3) underdrain runs will be necessary: one (1) on each outside edge of pavement and one (1) next to the median barrier. In this EIS, unit costs were updated for the rural sections, but not for the urban sections. Since Section 4 does not have any urban sections, these unit costs were not updated. Miscellaneous: Quantities were estimated for the following miscellaneous items: Clearing Right-of-Way (lump sum); Maintenance of traffic (various methods on a per number (EACH) basis and a lump sum); square yards (SYS) of Subgrade Treatment; lineal feet (LFT) of pavement markings; square yards (SYS) of seeding and sodding; and lineal feet (LFT) of fencing. If necessary, estimates also were made of quantities of these items: lineal feet (LFT) of concrete median barrier; number (EACH) of traffic signals; and number (EACH) of interchange signing and lighting installations. Estimates assume that the Subgrade Treatment extends to a point two (2) feet outside the paved shoulder width. Additionally, Subgrade Treatment will be utilized under all pavement (i.e. mainline, ramps, other roadways) in both cut and fill sections. Linear feet (LFT) of Fencing (farm field or chain link) were estimated for the right-of-way line on each side of the mainline; therefore, two (2) rows of fencing are required. Linear feet (LFT) of Median Barrier were estimated including the following: 45” high, standard, concrete median barrier; H-5 inlets at 500 foot spacing; and twelve inch (12”) INDOT Type 2 (storm sewer) pipe. Median barrier is used only in urban sections where providing at least a sixty foot (60’) depressed median would result in significantly increased impacts.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 12 Section 4

Numbers (EACH) of Traffic Signals were estimated, including all necessary components (signal heads, signal poles, detector loops, controller/cabinet, etc.) to construct a traffic signal at a four-legged intersection. Proposed traffic signal locations (e.g. ramps of an urban diamond interchange, intersections of proposed access/frontage roads, etc.) were identified. Numbers (EACH) of Interchange Signing and Lighting were estimated, including all necessary components (sign trusses, cantilevers, panel signs, light masts, luminaries, wiring, etc.). Appropriate signing and lighting costs were estimated based on the type and location of interchange. Percentage Costs: The following costs were estimated as a percentage of the total project construction cost: mobilization and demobilization; construction engineering (performed by the contractor, not construction inspection); and other minor costs (e.g. signage, temporary erosion control, etc). Through the bid tab analysis performed at the DEIS stage, the following percentages were determined:1 Mobilization and demobilization is 5.5 percent of construction costs, Construction engineering is 1.6 percent of construction costs, and Other minor costs are 10 percent construction costs. These percentage costs total 17.1 percent of total construction costs. The remaining 82.9 percent is the total of pavement, earthwork, drainage and miscellaneous costs. Trns-port Estimator Items: INDOT provided a copy of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation’s Officials’ (AASHTO’s) Trns-port Estimator (construction cost estimating) program. A list of INDOT Standard Pay Items for roadway costs was used in the five previous categories. However, these pay items are not all inclusive. Where other items are needed for a construction cost estimate, they are added on a case-by-case basis. Examples of these additional items include mechanically stabilized earth walls, paved side ditches, curbs, and guardrail. The following parameters were used with the Trns-port Estimator Program to obtain costs for these additional items. These items are not included in other categories, and are added on a case-by-case basis as needed.

Specification (Spec) Year: 06 (2006) Letting Date: 2/28/09 Unit System: E (English) Work Type: G300 New Road Construction Highway Type (EEAC to identify appropriate type)

o INTR Interstate Rural

1 These percentages were determined in the cost estimating procedures used in the DEIS. In the smaller number of projects evaluated to update the costs, the sum of the percentages for mobilization/demobilization and construction engineering was 6.8%, versus 7.1% used previously. The 7.1% previously established for mobilization/demobilization and construction engineering was not modified.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 13 Section 4

o INTU Interstate Urban Urban/Rural Type (EEAC to identify appropriate type)

o R Rural o U Urban

Season: Spri Spring County: EEAC to identify appropriate county Engineering judgment was used to judge the reasonableness of each unit price supplied by the Trns-port Estimator program. Geotechnical/Karst Construction: In addition to the six (6) categories listed above, additional costs will be incurred for construction in areas to address geotechnical issues related to subsidence and karst features. Subsidence due to mining. Section 4 does not pass through any areas where there has been any coal mining either surface of subsurface mining. Therefore no cost associated with subsidence due to coal mining activities has been included. Karst-related costs. The PMC analyzed costs of previous INDOT projects in areas with karst features to estimate karst-related increases in construction costs. This analysis showed that, on average, construction in areas with karst features leads to an increase of 5 percent in roadway construction costs. It is reasonable to assume that such practices in karst areas will be relatively similar and that the impact on the total bid price will remain close to the 5 percent value. In areas with karst features, this methodology adds 5 percent to roadway costs (see next paragraph). Note: there will be no construction in karst areas in segments A and B and only a portion of segment C. Therefore the cost associated with construction in karst areas as a percentage of roadway construction costs is as follows: Segment A and B are at 0 percent. Segment C is at 2.5 percent (half of segment within karst area) and Segments D, E, F, G and H at 5 percent. The presence of commercial limestone quarries is predominately in Segment H. Special methods for removal of hard rock (limited blasting) may be employed in the vicinity of these quarries where there is a concern of fractures propagating into the limestone reserves. To account for increased costs to the contractor, a premium of $.25 per cubic yard of rock excavation will be applied to the rock excavation that has been estimated for Segments G and H. This increased cost of excavation will be added to the karst cost to get the total Geotechnical/Karst Cost. Roadway Construction Cost Calculation: A spreadsheet was written in Microsoft Office Excel format to calculate the construction cost estimates. The “Roadway” worksheets estimated the construction costs for the pavement, earthwork, drainage, miscellaneous and percentage costs items. The total of these costs is called the Worksheet Roadway Cost. In order to arrive at the total roadway cost, Trns-port Estimator cost items were added separately, if applicable. Finally, an additional percentage of the “Roadway” (worksheet) plus the cost of blasting restrictions near limestone reserves is added for projects in areas with karst features. The “Total Section Costs” worksheet estimates the total Roadway Construction Cost. The Roadway Construction Cost is the sum of the Worksheet Roadway Cost, the Trns-port Estimator Items Cost and the

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 14 Section 4

Geotechnical/Karst Cost (Roadway Construction Cost = Worksheet Roadway Cost + Trns-port Items Cost + Geotechnical/Karst Cost). The spreadsheet provides Year 2009 construction costs in the “Total Section Costs” worksheet. Construction Year: To provide a consistent basis for comparison, all construction costs are reported in Year 2010 dollars. Section 3 of this appendix describes how the Year 2009 costs provided by this methodology are adjusted to Year 2010 dollars. Section 2. Bridge Construction Cost Typical Bridge Construction Cost Eighteen bridge or road-bridge combination contracts (containing at total of 28 individual bridges), awarded by INDOT from September 2008 through June 2009 were reviewed. See Table 5 for the listing of contracts reviewed.

Table 5 – 2009 Awarded Bridge Construction Contracts Contract Number Letting Date Roadway Feature Crossed

B-29705 02/11/09 Huron and Williams Rd (Lawrence Co.)

East Fork White River

B-30926 02/11/09 Canal Road (Vigo Co.) Thompson Ditch IB-28950 02/11/09 Howard CR 50 N US 31 SB-29950 02/27/09 US 40 White Lick Creek

IR-30160 (5 bridges)

03/11/09 US 24 Norfolk Southern Railroad, Sampson Rd, Woodburn Rd (EB), Woodburn Rd (WB), Bull Rapids Road (o/US 24)

IB-30838 03/11/09 Tippecanoe CR 500 E SR 25 and Norfolk Southern Railroad IB-30471 03/11/09 Hanna Ave (Hamilton Co.) I-465 SB-29015 03/25/09 Locust Rd (St. Joseph Co.) US 20 SR-29135 03/25/09 US 31 Yellow Creek IR-30298

(3 bridges) 04/08/09 I-69

Trib. Pigeon Creek, Pigeon Creek (NB), Pigeon Creek (SB)

R-31726 (2 bridges)

05/06/09 Elkhart CR 17 CR 30, CR 32

IB-30841 05/06/09 Tippecanoe CR 800 E SR 25 and Norfolk Southern Railroad IB-30837 05/06/09 Tippecanoe CR 300 N SR 25 and Norfolk Southern Railroad SB-29731 05/20/09 SR 312 (Chicago Ave) Indiana Harbor Canal SB-28901 05/20/09 US 52 Norfolk Southern Railroad SIR-30106 05/20/09 Howard CR 100 S Relocated US 31 SIR-30843 (4 bridges)

05/20/09 SR 25 Sugar Creek, CR 900 N, Unnamed Creek, Bridge Creek

R-31668 05/27/09 126th Street (Hamilton Co.) Mud Creek These 18 projects were analyzed to estimate bridge costs as unit costs per square foot of bridge surface.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 15 Section 4

This cost includes all items needed for the project. These items include reinforced concrete bridge approaches. Costs of bridges over waterways include bank treatments (riprap, geotextiles, slopewalls, etc.). MSE walls are included in this study, but estimated separately from the deck square footage cost. Earthwork and guardrail costs were not included in these costs. These items are a part of the roadway cost estimate. The bridge areas were determined using anticipated out-to-out bridge lengths and out-to-out bridge widths. The unit cost was multiplied by the area of the bridge (in square feet) to estimate its cost. Unit costs for complex bridges will be determined as detailed in the Project Guidance Manual, drawing upon the analysis described below. For the purposes of this analysis, the items that can be attributed to the bridge construction were isolated from the other items in the construction contracts to obtain a bridge-only cost. This analysis determined that the costs of bridges with MSE walls and bridges without MSE walls varied significantly and therefore, the bridge projects with MSE walls were further analyzed, and the cost of the MSE wall was calculated separately from the cost of the bridge. Based on this analysis a lower per square foot bridge cost for bridges with MSE walls is proposed as compared to bridges with spill-through slopes; however, the added cost of the MSE walls will offset some of the savings. Table 6 summarizes the analysis. It compares the unit prices used in the DEIS cost estimates for Sections 2 and 3 with those obtained from the analysis of more current construction bids.

Table 6 – Bridge Square Foot Cost Comparison

Item Sections 1-3 DEIS Tier 2 Methodology Unit Price

(2007 Dollars)

Sections 1-3 DEIS Tier 2 Methodology Unit Price

(Inflated to 2009 Dollars)

Average Unit Price from Contracts Listed in Table 5(2009 Dollars) Applied to

Section 4 Initial Criteria (spill-through slopes)

$110 $118 $99.20

Low Cost Criteria (MSE walls)

$110 $118 $87.80

MSE Wall Cost $170,000/bridge $182,000/bridge $216,000/bridge

Complex Bridge Construction Cost: Complex bridges will be required in single point interchanges, directional interchanges or over major waterways. Four such projects were analyzed to estimate the costs of such bridges. Indianapolis International Airport (Midfield Terminal) Interchange at I-70, Indianapolis, Indiana: Three complex bridges were included in this new directional interchange. These bridges are Cast-In-Place Continuous Post Tensioned Box Girder bridges. The bridge carrying an eastbound ramp over I-70, an interchange ramp and collector-distributor routes is seven spans, with a total length of 1354 feet. The longest span length is 220 feet. The width of this bridge is typically 53’-4” but varies at select locations. The bridge carrying an eastbound ramp over I-70 and eastbound & westbound collector-distributor routes is four spans, with a total length of 820’-

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 16 Section 4

7”. The longest span length is 221’-8”. The width of this bridge is typically 53’-4” but varies at select locations. The bridge carrying a westbound ramp over two westbound collector-distributor routes is two spans, with at total length of 347 feet. The longest span length is 169’-4”. The width of this bridge typically is 37’-4”, but varies. This project was let in May 2003. Its cost was adjusted to bring it to Year 2009 dollars, based on the US Department of Labor Producer Price Index for Highway and Street Construction. The three bridges were similar in nature, and their square foot cost was determined to be $216/ft2 in Year 2009 dollars. SR 66 (Lloyd Expressway) over Green River Road, Evansville, Indiana: Twin structures were built to carry SR 66 over Green River Road. The previous diamond interchange was replaced with an urban single point interchange. The bridges are Continuous Post-Tensioned Bulb Tee Beam bridges. They are three single-span bridges, with a total length of 96.762 m (317.5 feet). The longest span length is 41.509 m (136.2 feet). The width of each bridge is 17.207 m (56.5 feet). As is typical with Single Point interchanges, sight distance is a critical design element. Therefore a more complex substructure configuration was required in the design of this bridge. The square foot cost of these bridges was determined to be $134/ft2 in Year 2009 dollars. This bridge was built in phased construction. Temporary sheeting and shoring was required to stabilize the portion of the roadway that was open to traffic. This project was let in November 2002. Its cost was adjusted to bring it to Year 2009 dollars based on the US Department of Labor Producer Price Index for Highway and Street Construction. The square foot cost of these bridges (in Year 2009 dollars) was $134/ft2 without the temporary sheeting and shoring and $181/ft2 including temporary sheeting and shoring. Emerson Road over I-465, Indianapolis, Indiana: This structure was built to carry Emerson Road over I-465. The previous diamond interchange was replaced with an urban single point interchange. The bridge is a Continuous Composite Steel Plate Girder bridge. It has two spans, with a total length of 48.751 m (160 feet). Each span length is 24.0 m (78.7 feet). The width of the bridge varies from 75.058 m (246.3 feet) at the end bents to 43.07 m (141.3 feet) at the pier. This bridge is complex in nature because the Emerson Road intersection passes over I-465. Since the focal point of this interchange is on the bridge, the geometry of this bridge is unusual. The project was let in February 1999. The cost was adjusted to bring it to Year 2009 dollars, based on the US Department of Labor Producer Price Index for Highway and Street Construction. The square foot cost of this bridge was determined to be $192/ft2 in Year 2009 dollars. I-465/I-74 Interchange, Indianapolis, Indiana: Four bridges were included in the I-465/I-74 Interchange contract. Three of these bridges are within this Directional Interchange, and were studied as complex structures. In this contract, each of these bridges was designed and detailed twice (generally one design used Steel Girders, and the other design used one of two concrete bridge types, Prestressed Concrete or Cast-in-Place Concrete Box Girders). The contractor bidding on this project was then given the responsibility to determine the most economical bridge for each of these three structures. For each bridge, the top three bidders based their bids on the same bridge option as shown below:

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 17 Section 4

The bridge carrying the southbound I-465 to eastbound I-74 ramp over I-465 is an elevated ramp, and I-74 is a Continuous Composite Curved Steel Plate Girder bridge. It has eleven spans, with a total length of 522.064 m (1712.8 feet). The longest span length is 60.5 m (198.5 feet). The width of this bridge is 12.0 m (39.4 feet). The square foot cost of this bridge was determined to be $134/ft2 in Year 2009 dollars. The bridges carrying I-74 over I-465 are Continuous Composite Prestressed Concrete Bulb Tee Beam bridges. These bridges have three spans, with a total length of 97.967 m (321.4 feet). The longest span length is 40.7 m (133.5 feet). The widths of these bridges vary. The Westbound structure width varies, 16.7 m (54.8 feet) to 17.244 m (56.6 feet). The Eastbound structure width varies, 16.7 m (54.8 feet) to 17.897 m (58.7 feet). The square foot cost of these bridges was determined to be $104/ft2 in Year 2009 dollars. The bridge carrying the westbound I-74 to southbound I-465 ramp over I-74, I-465 and a collector-distributed route is a Continuous Composite Curved Steel Plate Girder bridge. It has nine spans, with a total length of 358.054 m (1174.7 feet). The longest span length is 52.304 m (171.6 feet). The width of this bridge is 12.0 m (39.4 feet). The cost of this bridge was determined to be $118/ft2 in Year 2009 dollars. This project was let in January 2001. Its cost was adjusted to bring it to Year 2009 dollars, based on the US Department of Labor Producer Price Index for Highway and Street Construction. Where the need for a complex structure was identified, preliminary layout of the location of the complex structure including spans and pier locations was determined. Using this layout, the parameters (span lengths, required clearances, construction depth, etc.) were used to determine the most economical type of structure for the location. Once the structure type was identified, the costs associated with these example complex structures as well as any other project information found for similar structures, was used to determine the square foot cost to be used for the bridges studied. This determination of the structure size and type was submitted to the PMC for approval. Costs ranged from $104 to $216 per square foot in 2009 dollars. The bridges at the I-69/US 231 interchange were analyzed as complex structures due to the long span lengths and their location in a single point diamond interchange (under one interchange option). In order to provide adequate sight distance at this interchange, the span lengths generally need to be longer and the pier layout more complex than is typical to allow vehicles exiting from I-69 to see under the bridge and view approaching traffic on US 231. After determining the preliminary layout of these structures and reviewing other similar projects, it was determined that a cost of $150/ft2 in 2009 dollars would be appropriate for these structures. For these complex structures, the pay items and bid information are not represented in the Estimator program. The pay items are unique and do not directly correspond to information provided in the program. Similarly, no information for these unique bridge types is provided in the Indiana Design Manual. Thus, in order to determine the year 2009 equivalent cost for complex bridges, the unit costs for the complex projects studied were adjusted based on the producer price index.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 18 Section 4

Construction Year: The cost model gives these costs in year 2009 dollars. For comparison purposes, costs were inflated to the Year 2010. See Section 3 of this appendix below for information on how costs were inflated to provide Year 2010 costs. Section 3. Reporting Year Cost Adjustments Construction Year: The cost methodology provides a base Year 2009 cost. Both the Year 2009 Roadway Cost, as well as the Year 2009 Bridge Costs, were increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent to provide Year 2010 costs. The 3.5 percent per year cost increase rate is the standard inflation value used by INDOT in its 2007 Long Range Plan Update to estimate project costs in future years. Design Modifications: At the onset of a large project, the scope of both design and construction may not be easily definable. Additionally, even if there is a clearly defined scope, the scope may change during project development due to unforeseen circumstances. These potential design modifications can materially affect the final cost of the project. The Year 2010 construction costs for both roadway and bridges were adjusted to account for design modifications. Roadway and bridge costs were increased by 2 to 4 percent to account for possible design modifications. Construction Change Orders: After projects are bid there may be increased costs for changes that are specified during construction. These “change orders” result in an increase in construction costs. These changes can occur due to unforeseen field conditions and/or quantities that exceed those estimated (e.g. driving piles longer than anticipated). The Year 2010 construction costs for both roadway and bridges were increased by 2.5 to 5 percent to account for potential change orders. Section 4. Design Costs Highway Design Engineering: The cost for Highway Design Engineering is a percentage of the Roadway Construction Cost described in Section 1 (above). Different percentages were used for construction in urban and rural areas. For rural areas, Highway Design Engineering is estimated as 4 to 5 percent of the Roadway Construction Cost. Due to the potential for more design complexities within an urban area, Highway Design Engineering in urban areas is estimated as 7-8 percent of the Roadway Construction Cost. Other development cost including permitting, supplemental surveying, utility coordination, geotechnical investigations, etc were investigated. It was determined that 1 percent of the roadway construction cost would be added to the design engineering cost to reflect these added development costs. Given the rural nature and relative lack of complexity in this Section, this 1 percent factor was added to the lower end of the previously-established 4 percent design engineering cost. This provides an estimate of design engineering as 5 percent of roadway construction cost. Bridge Design Engineering: The cost for Bridge Design Engineering is a percentage of the Bridge Construction Cost described in Section 2 (above). The Bridge Design Engineering is estimated at 7-8 percent of the Bridge Construction Cost. It was determined that 1 percent of the bridge construction cost would be added to the design engineering costs to account for geotechnical investigations. Given the rural nature and relative lack of complexity in this

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 19 Section 4

Section, this 1 percent factor was added to the lower end of the previously-established 7 percent design engineering cost. This provides an estimate of design engineering as 8 percent of bridge construction cost. Right-of-Way Engineering and Services: The cost for Right-of-Way Engineering & Services is developed as a part of the Right-of-Way Cost described in Section 6 (below). The Right-of-Way Engineering & Services is the administrative cost listed in that section. Section 5. Construction-Agency Administration Cost In order to oversee construction activities, INDOT incurs additional costs which are difficult to quantify precisely. These costs include, but are not limited to: construction inspection, general project administration (e.g. reproduction of construction plans and contract documents), and public outreach. To account for these costs, 7.5 percent of the total constructed cost has been added to the cost estimate.

Section 6. Right-of-Way Cost Relocation and Right-of-way Acquisition Cost Methodology: The projected relocation and right-of-way acquisition costs include right-of-way costs for acreage and improvements required for actual construction, relocation costs, costs for acquiring structures and improvements due to lost access, and administrative fees. These costs were estimates based on field surveys. A windshield survey was conducted to evaluate the properties that would be impacted by the various working alignments. The properties were categorized into ranges of values as shown on Table 7. The following statement regarding relocation procedures will be included in each Tier 2 EIS: “Final right-of-way requirements have not yet been determined and are only estimated at this time. A home or business was considered displaced if it was located within the project right-of-way or if reasonable access to the property could not be maintained. The displacement of structures is estimated based upon predicted right-of-way requirements. These costs and relocation numbers are for comparison purposes only. They could change after more precise right-of-way requirements have been determined.” The costs shown in Table 7 will be adjusted in each Section to reflect local circumstances. These detailed cost estimate tables were used for estimation purposes only and are in the project file. The total right of way and relocation costs are reported in the EIS. Explanations of items in the table are included in the notes following the table:

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 20 Section 4

Table 7 – Relocation and Right-of-Way Cost (Example)

TYPE NUMBER

(Properties) COST NUMBER

RELOCATEESADMINISTRATIVE FEE

RELOCATION COSTS

TOTAL COST

Residential-Sp 1 $10,000 (-) 1 $10,000 $20,000 $40,000

Residential-1 1 $10,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $40,000

Residential-2 1 $20,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $50,000

Residential-3 1 $50,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $80,000

Residential-4 1 $75,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $105,000

Residential-5 1 $100,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $130,000

Residential-6 1 $125,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $155,000

Residential-7 1 $150,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $180,000

Residential-8 1 $200,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $230,000

Residential-9 1 $250,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $280,000

Residential-10 1 $300,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $330,000

Residential-XXX

1 $600,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $630,000

Farm Homestead

1 $300,000 1 $10,000 $20,000 $330,000

Multi-Family Housing

5 $35,000 1 $10,000 $8,000 $193,000

Church-1 1 $250,000 1 $10,000 $* $

Church-2 1 $400,000 1 $10,000 $* $

Church-3 1 $500,000 1 $10,000 $* $

Gas Station 1 $500,000 1 $10,000 $* $

Gas Station/Conv Store

1 $750,000 3 $10,000 $* $

Specialty

$400,000 1 $10,000 $* $

Commercial-1 1 $100,000 1 $10,000 $* $

Commercial-2 1 $150,000 1 $10,000 $* $

Commercial-3 1 $200,000 2 $10,000 $* $

Commercial-4 1 $250,000 2 $10,000 $* $

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 21 Section 4

Table 7 – Relocation and Right-of-Way Cost (Example)

TYPE NUMBER

(Properties) COST NUMBER

RELOCATEESADMINISTRATIVE FEE

RELOCATION COSTS

TOTAL COST

Commercial-5 1 $300,000 2 $10,000 $* $

Commercial-6 1 $400,000 2 $10,000 $* $

Commercial-7 1 $500,000 2 $10,000 $* $

Commercial-8 1 $750,000 2 $10,000 $* $

Bill Boards 1 1 $10,000 * $

Special (Large facility)

$0 0 $10,000 * $0

Damages NA $3,500,000 0 * $3,500,000

SUB-TOTAL $

Area (AC) Unit Cost ($/AC)

Aggregate Land Value Estimate 1 $10,000 $10,000

Unimproved Parcel Estimate**

10 $10,000 $100,000

SUB-TOTAL $

TOTAL $ * To be determined by estimator. ** Includes additional parcels and parcels without significant structures. This includes unimproved farmland, pasture and forest.

Notes for Table 7:

1. Cost estimates are in Year 2007 dollars. Final reported costs are given in 2010 dollars.

The section following these notes explains how these adjustments were made. 2. This study assumes that the Administrative Fee per parcel is $10,000. The estimates for

multi-family and commercial relocatees are modified based on individual circumstances. The Administrative Fee of $10,000 per parcel covers the cost of R/W Services. Right-of-way services include appraisals, reviews, buying, recording and property management. This figure is an estimate based on recent INDOT right-of-way acquisitions.

3. A relocation cost estimate of $20,000 per single-family residential relocation and $8,000

for each residential unit in a multi-family development is used as an average cost. This fee includes differential housing payments, closing expenses and other residential relocation benefits. This figure is an estimate based on recent INDOT relocation costs. The figure was revised if local circumstances warranted.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 22 Section 4

4. Utility-related costs for impacts to large transmission lines, service structures and

substations include only land values. Actual utility relocation costs were estimated as part of construction costs, as described in Section 7.

5. Billboards are included in the R/W estimate and considered as individual parcels. Large

business signs that are located on the business site are included as a part of the property acquisition at that site.

6. Commercial and industrial properties are considered to have sites large enough to support

the only existing improvements. Excess land associated with a particular facility is included under aggregate land values.

7. Working farms are evaluated as businesses, separate from the household relocations. A

farm is considered to be separate business relocation. 8. For illustrative purposes the commercial/office/industrial section is divided into eight (8)

categories. These were adapted to suit the section being studied. 9. Commercial/office/industrial parcels may also include additional relocatees, such as

tenants and related businesses. 10. Landlocked parcels and damaged parcels (where acquisition involves a portion of the

property) are grouped under Damages. Landlocked parcels, land and homes without legal access to a road or highway are considered as being purchased. Parcels that are damaged by loss of value or utility such as parking, setbacks and other losses are noted and included under Damages.

11. Since analysis at the NEPA stage has limited title information, the estimator may have

included additional parcels in the estimate to address possible title uncertainty. The estimator made this determination using the best available information.

12. Unimproved right-of-way is included in the aggregate land section. The aggregate land

value is a weighted average of the land to be acquired within each section. The aggregate land value estimate is an average of the different land types (commercial, agricultural, residential, etc.) weighted and combined to derive a weighted average rate.

13. This will be a limited access facility. Access rights will be acquired as part of the project.

Therefore any damages incurred were included in the right-of-way cost estimates. Tier 2 Studies R/W Reporting Cost Adjustments: The value of property along with administrative costs and costs for relocation services were obtained in the Year 2007 and noted as the present value. For the Tier 2 studies, the values were adjusted to their expected value in the Year 2010. Additional information was obtained to make projections of future property values for southwest Indiana.

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 23 Section 4

For Tier 2 I-69 Sections 2 through 4, a 4.0 percent per year increase was applied to the Year 2007 total right-of-way and relocation costs to obtain Year 2010 costs. In Sections 5 and 6, a 4.5 percent per year increase was used. These are average percent per year increases for the various types of property along the corridor, i.e., residential, farmland, developing land etc. It also is necessary to account for increases in administrative costs and relocation services associated with property acquisitions. These costs are not increasing at the same rate as property values. INDOT estimates that these costs are increasing at approximately 1 percent per year. In late 2009, the numbers used for inflation in the DEIS were reevaluated to determine if these assumptions were still accurate. The years 2005 through 2009 saw extreme price fluctuations in farmland values, with double digit increases in land values between 2005 and 2008, only to be followed by downturns or flat prices in late 2008 and 2009. Looking back historically on farmland values in Indiana, the average percent increase per year for the time period from 1975 to 2009 is between 3.5 and 4.0 percent. (Source: Indiana Land Values and Cash Rent, Craig L. Dobbins – Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, reports from 2003 through 2009). The housing price indexes as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Agency for the three major metropolitan areas within the I-69 Corridor have also shown major fluctuations between 2005 and 2009. For the past 4 years, Bloomington has shown an average 3 percent increase per year, Evansville a 0.9 percent increase and Indianapolis a 1 percent increase per year. The 10 year housing price index from 1997 through 2006 which showed an average yearly increase between 4 and 5 percent for the project corridor is a more typical rate of increase for Indiana. Based upon these observations, it was decided that the yearly inflation rate of 4 percent for Sections 1 through 4 and 4.5 percent for Sections 5 and 6 should remain unchanged from the DEIS. Following are the sources for the inflation rates used in the estimations above: 1. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight - 10 year House Price Index (1997-2006)

for Indiana (including the Evansville, Bloomington and Indianapolis MSA's). Bloomington MSA - 4.2 percent yearly increase in House Price Index for past 10 years Indianapolis MSA - 4.1 percent yearly increase Evansville MSA - 4.9 percent yearly increase Indiana - 4.5 percent increase

2. Indiana Land Values and Cash Rent, Craig L. Dobbins - Department of Agricultural

Economics, Purdue University, 2003 – 2009. Percent Change in land values for top and average land (representative year): Southwest Indiana - 3.5 to 5.3 percent (includes Vanderburgh, Gibson, Pike, Daviess and Greene Counties) Southeast Indiana - 3.1 to 6.1 percent (includes Morgan and Monroe Counties) Central Indiana - 6.3 to 6.4 percent (includes Johnson and Marion Counties)

I-69 EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS TIER 2 STUDIES APPENDIX D, COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ March 3, 2011 Page 24 Section 4

3. INDOT Production Management Division - Real Estate (Estimates for administrative costs and relocation services) assume about a 1 percent increase per year. These costs make up about 10 to 20 percent of the total right-of-way and relocation cost.

The adjustments of R/W and relocation costs were determined by multiplying the Year 2007 cost by a factor to estimate their cost in Year 2010 dollars. For Sections 1 through 4, an adjustment factor of 1. 125 (3 years at 4 percent) was used. For Sections 5 and 6, an adjustment factor of 1.141 (3 years at 4.5 percent) will be used. Section 7. Utility Relocation Costs There has been ongoing coordination with local utilities regarding potential conflicts with their facilities. Where it was determined that a major utility (e.g. electric transmission lines, gas transmission pipelines, etc.) would need to be relocated due to the proposed construction, and if the relocation is determined to be eligible for reimbursement (i.e. the utility company has an easement for its facilities), then an estimated relocation cost was determined through consultation with that utility. The total cost of all necessary relocations for each alternative studied is the Utility Relocation Cost. Relocation costs developed for the Year 2007 were escalated and reported in 2010 dollars. Utility relocation costs in 2007 dollars were increased by 3.5 percent per year to show costs in 2010 dollars. Section 8. Mitigation Costs The PMC was responsible for providing guidance regarding mitigation information (cost, amount, location, etc.) for all mitigation that will take place outside of the proposed right-of-way for each section (e.g. wetland mitigation, core forest mitigation, etc.). Much of this base information for determining costs was provided by INDOT. This section’s study identified potential mitigation measures and associated costs for each proposed alternative, as well as mitigation that is to be applied to account for impacts within the section. Mitigation costs are estimated for entire sections, since they cannot meaningfully be broken down by subsection. See DEIS Chapter 7.4 for a discussion on these mitigation costs.