Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br /> <br />EN HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />May 14,2009 <br /> <br />Agenda Item I.A <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />County Road E Bridge Update <br /> <br />BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION <br /> <br />In February, staff requested quotes from consultants in the City's engineering pool for final design <br />services for pedestrian improvements to the CR E bridge over TH 51. The proposed design layout <br />was based on the feasibility report completed in 2004. This layout was submitted in 2004 and 2006 <br />for Cooperative Agreement funding. The design includes reconfiguration of the lanes on the existing <br />bridge, construction of cantilevered supports to widen the bridge deck, and construction of a 7.5 foot <br />sidewalk. During the RFQ process, staff learned that the Mn/DOT Bridge Office had commented on <br />the 2006 Cooperative Agreement submittal. However, these comments were not included in the <br />original comment letter from Mn/DOT in 2006, but have since been provided to the City. Their main <br />concern was how these improvements might compromise the bridge's structural integrity. They were <br />also concerned that the proposed improvements would lower the rating for the deck geometry, which <br />is already at a deficient level. <br /> <br />The Mn/DOT Bridge Office has indicated that the proposed project would trigger additional <br />improvements to the bridge so that it would no longer be functionally obsolete. The Bridge -Office <br />would not support this project as proposed without correcting the bridge's deficiencies, and currently <br />there is no funding available for bridge expansion. In light of this, the City has been working with <br />Mn/DOT to determine what improvements, if any, they would support on the existing bridge to <br />improve safety. <br /> <br />Two alternatives have been identified: <br /> <br />Alternative 1: Modification to the existing bridge at the existing width <br /> <br />\ \Metro-inet\ardenhilIs\Admin \Council\Agendas & Packet Information \2009\05-18-09 W orksession \Packet Information \5-18-09_ Memo- <br />CR_ E.doc <br />