7D, Snelling Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

Mr. Matt Woodruff, P.E., September 3, 2010, P. 2 Task 1: Topographic Su�vey This task consists of providing a topographical survey of the proj ect area, including setting up control points, locating utility information, and providing cross-section point data at 50 foot stations, and all driveway locations. Shot data will be provided for all topographic features. We understand the RFQ states that the cross section data should extend 10 feet beyond the right-of-way. There is significant cost associated with extending the topographic survey this far beyond each edge of the roadway. We have modified the survey limits to extend to the existing tree line only, therefore reducing the survey costs for the proj ect significantly. We feel this is a prudent change given that it is very unlikely the roadway section would be widened due to the low ADT on this roadway. Task 2: Base Mapping The base map for the proj ect will be created to show all topographic features from the field data, utility locate information, and City as-built drawings. A TIN model and contours will be created for the proj ect area. We will provide the City with electronic files and 50-scale plan and profile drawings. 4ur subconsultant, E.G. Rud and Sons, will provide the scope of work for Task 1 and 2. Task 3: Bridge �tecommendation As a part of this task, we will provide an analysis of the existing structure (Bridge 4627), a recommendation for rehabilitation or replacement of the structure, and an estimate of the anticipated construction costs of the bridge reconstruction. Specifically, Kimley-Horn will conduct a field visit of the bridge to verify the Ramsey County inspection information. The site observations will be performed by Matt Jensen, P.E. a certified bridge safety inspection team leader. We will conduct a preliminary hydraulic analysis of the existing waterway to identify the anticipated 100- year water surface elevation and flow rate at the existing bridge location per the most recent flood insurance study. Based upon this field visit, hydraulic study, and the Ramsey County safety inspection information, Kimley-Horn will provide a technical memo describing our findings for two bridge alternatives. The memo will include the advantages and disadvantages for structure rehabilitation compared to structure replacement and a recommendation for the preferred alternative. We will prepare one preliminary engineering estimate of probable construction cost for the preferred alternative. This cost estimate will include bridge construction costs including demolition, bridge replacement, and other associated bridge construction costs. Project contingency and indirect costs will be included in the estimate. The permits required to rehabilitate or reconstruct the bridge will be identified as part of the evaluation process, since the permits may affect the project costs. For example, the waterway in which this bridge crosses has an associated FEMA floodplain that if