Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br />EN HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: May 21,2009 <br /> <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br /> <br />FROM: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer <br /> <br />SUBJECT: County Road E Pedestrian Bridge Improvements <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />The City of Arden Hills approved an engineering consultant pool on August 27, 2007 for use on <br />specialized projects or projects that the City ofRoseville's Engineering Department may not have the <br />capacity to assist with. <br /> <br />One of the City Council's goals for the City is to eliminate the bottleneck for pedestrians and <br />bicyclists that exists on the existing bridge on County Road E over Trunk Highway 51. City staff has <br />been working with Mn/DOT to determine what improvements, if any, they would support on the <br />existing bridge to improve safety. Another alternative under consideration is the construction of a <br />standalone pedestrian bridge north of the existing bridge. <br /> <br />Rosevil1e staff does not have the expertise in structural design to complete this project. Therefore, a <br />scope of work was prepared for final design and construction services for both alternatives: <br /> <br />Alternative I: Modification to the existing bridge at the existing width <br />MnlDOT has indicated that they would consider modifications to the existing bridge deck. The <br />existing bridge width from parapet to parapet is 35 feet. With two 12' lanes, a 4' offset to the parapet <br />on the south side, and a 2' offset to the raised sidewalk, a 5' walk could be constructed along the <br />north side. This new cross-section would require an alignment shift on the bridge and approach <br />modifications. Mn/DOT has agreed to perform the structural analysis for the changed loading on the <br />beams. <br /> <br />Alternative 2: Construction of a standalone shared-use pathwav bridge north of the existing bridge <br />The City Council may choose to consider this alternative if structural analysis shows that Option 1 is <br />not feasible, or if the City Council considers alternative I to be inadequate. This bridge would be <br />constructed north of the existing bridge; the final location would be coordinated with MnlDOT to <br /> <br />\\Metro-inet\ardenhills\Admin\Council\Agendas & Packet Information\2009\05-26-09 Regular\Packet Information\7Al 5-26- <br />09Memo _ eRE _ ContractAward.doc <br />