HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B Motion to Direct Staff to Apply for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Transportation Enhancements Funding
7B
Request for Council Action
Prepared By: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer Council Meeting Date: March 30, 2009
Motion to direct staff to apply for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Transportation Enhancements Funding
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/AN/AN/A
Recommendation:
1.Direct staff to apply for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Transportation Enhancements Funding
Supporting Documents:
See the attached memo from City staff.
1.
Transportation Enhancements (TE) Policies for the 2009 ARRA
2.
TE Projects- Qualifying Criteria
3.
Application for TE Funding under the ARRA
4.
Memo from Kimley-Horn, regarding the County Road E Bridge
5.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 27, 2009
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Transportation
Enhancements (TE) Funding
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
An announcement was recently made for project solicitation for American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Transportation Enhancements Funding. There is approximately $7.5
million available to the seven-county region for Transportation Enhancements projects from the
ARRA. This is a solicitation for project applications for the use of these funds. Attached to this
memo are the policies, qualifying criteria, and application for the Transportation Enhancement
Funding. Each applicant may submit only one proposal to be considered. The applications must be
received by the Metropolitan Council by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3.
City staff has identified the following projects that may be considered for this proposal:
County Road E Bridge Improvements
County Road E-2 pathway (Safe Routes to School project), possibly bundled
with the Perry Park pathway
CP Rail Bridge Improvements
Each of these projects has several issues that may impact their eligibility, fundability and feasibility
with respect to the solicitation requirements and associated timelines. Staff is further investigating
and following up with several agencies for clarification; this information will be provided to the City
Council at the meeting.
The key issues related to the CR E bridge improvements relate to the feasibility of adding width to the
bridge, the acceptability and fundability of a 7.5 foot wide sidewalk that is substandard for multi-use (bike
and pedestrian), and the fundability of a sidewalk on the bridge without an approved plan for a
sidewalk/trail to the west. A memo from Matt Jensen of Kimley-Horn, the City’s consultant engineer,
concerning the engineering issues related to the bridge is attached.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Admin\Council\Agendas & Packet Information\2009\03-30-09 Regular\Packet Information\7B - 3-30-
09Memo_ARRA_TE.doc
3/27/2009
Page 2
Direct staff to apply for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Transportation
Enhancements Funding.
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS POLICIES
FOR THE 2009 AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
1.TE funds are available to all Minnesota state agencies, the Metropolitan Council, other transit
providers, Indian tribal governments, the seven counties, all cities and towns within the Twin
Cities seven county region, and the ten Regional Park System Implementation agencies.
Other local or special governmental agencies and private groups are also eligible, but must
have a public agency sponsor. The agency sponsor is the local unit of government of record.
The local unit of government is responsible for making arrangements with the project
proposer to ensure all project requirements of the local unit of government are met.
An Agency Agreement is written between Mn/DOT and the local unit of government. The
local unit of government will administer the project using the State Aid for Local
Transportation (SALT) Delegated Contract Process (DCP) for federal aid projects.
2.Generally, TE funds are available for the activities listed under #1 of the Qualifying Criteria
and incidental activities associated with them if the incidental work does not constitute more
than 30% of the project costs. See Qualifying Criterion #1 for a description of what is meant
by “incidental activities”.
3.Generally, for projects that involve the construction of facilities, the TAB will provide TE
funds for project construction and materials, right of way, and land acquisition. For TE-
eligible projects that do not involve construction (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian safety education
activities), the TAB will provide TE funds for program implementation and related activities.
TAB will not provide TE funds for study completion, preliminary engineering, design,
construction engineering, or other similar costs.
4.A TE construction or reconstruction project must be a permanent improvement having
independent utility. Temporary construction is defined as work that must be essentially
replaced in the immediate future (within five years). Staged construction is considered
permanent rather than temporary so long as future stages build on, rather than replace,
previous work. All projects must comply with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Reconstruction of a bikeway/walkway facility is eligible as long as the
facility is beyond its useful life.
5.TAB will not award more than $1,300,000 in TE funds for a specific project. TAB reserves
the right to partially fund any project.
6.Projects will be added to the TIP only as a result of the TAB approval in response to this and
subsequent solicitations.
7.Projects listed in the region’s draft or adopted TIP are assumed to be fully-funded and to have
independent utility from other projects.
8.The Technical Advisory Committee shall prepare an annual report on the implementation of
regionally solicited TE projects for the review and approval of the TAB. This report,the
Annual Implementation Report shall include updated program, system and project
information. The TAC shall include such findings, recommendations and additional
information, as it deems appropriate.
9.If a project is added to the TIP, the entire project is included even though a portion of that
work extends beyond the period for which submittals were requested provided that a
significant portion of the work is scheduled for letting within the request period.
10.Project approvals for projects in the TE element of the TIP are specifically limited to the
federal fund amount identified in the Annual Implementation Report for purposes of plan
specification and estimate (PS&E) approval as well as project authorization. The federal
fund amount listed for each project may be used to fund 80% of any identifiable useable
element of the project described or to fund the entire project with a flexible federal/non-
federal participation. The federal fund amount listed in the Annual Implementation Report is
the total that shall be authorized as PS&E approval for all advertisements of the project
described. Any federal fund amounts authorized at PS&E approval in years prior to the
current year shall be deducted from the amount identified in the TIP at the time of approval.
As noted in Policy 5, TAB will not award more than $1,300,000 in TE funds for a specific
project.
13. TAB will not fund a Transportation Enhancements project for which the pedestrian,
bicycle or environmental components and benefits have been claimed in a related STP,
CMAQ or BIR project that was funded in a previous solicitation.
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS PROJECTS - QUALIFYING
CRITERIA
1.Qualifying Activities. The applicant must show that the proposed project falls under at least
one of the following list of twelve qualifying activities and must state the specific
category(ies) the project qualifies under. The list of qualifying TE activities provided in 23
only
U.S.C. 101(a)(35) of SAFETEA-LU is intended to be exclusive, not illustrative. That is,
those activities listed therein are eligible as TE activities.
1.Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2.Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
3.Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites including historic battlefields.
4.Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome
center facilities).
5.Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
6.Historic preservation.
7.Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities
(including historic railroad facilities and canals).
8.Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof
for pedestrian or bicycle trails).
9.Inventory, control and removal of outdoor advertising.
10.Archaeological planning and research.
11.Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce
vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
12.Establishment of transportation museums.
One or more of these activities must constitute at least 70% of the project cost. Unlisted
ancillary activities such as paving a parking lot, constructing buildings or providing restrooms
must constitute no more than 30% of the total project cost. Applicants whose project is part
of a larger transportation project must provide a construction cost summary demonstrating
that at least 70% of the project is eligible for Transportation Enhancement funds.
Many projects include a number of activities – some which are on this list and others that are
not. Only those project activities that are on the list may be counted as TE activities. For
example, a rest area might include a historic site purchased and developed as an interpretive
site illustrating local history. The historic site purchase and development would qualify as a
transportation enhancement activity.
Work that is made possible because a project presents an opportunity to improve and enhance
the environment and or aesthetics in the vicinity of a project may be eligible for enhancement
funding. For example, a construction project may present an opportunity to improve the
condition of an adjacent stream bed to improve water quality, construct a vital link for a
community bikeway system and develop a landscaped green area to enhance the downtown
environment.
Activities that are not explicitly on the list may qualify if they are an integral part of a larger
qualifying activity. For example, if the rehabilitation of a historic railroad station required the
construction of new drainage facilities, the entire project could be considered for TE funding.
2. The funded activities must be accessible to the general public or targeted to a broad segment
of the general public, and must be ADA compliant.
3. Projects must relate to surface transportation.
Project Linkage(from federal guidance)
To comply with Federal guidelines for eligibility there are two basic considerations:
Is the proposed action one of the listed activities in the TE definition in SAFETEA-LU?
How does the proposed action relate to surface transportation?
The applicant must provide a clear statement describing this linkage.
The definition of TE activities includes the phrase, "transportation enhancement activities
means, with respect to any project or the area to be served by the project, any of the following
activities, if such activity relates to surface transportation:..."
The nature of a proposed TE project's relationship to surface transportation should be
discussed in the project proposal that you submit. For example, where runoff from an existing
highway contaminates an adjacent water resource and a transportation enhancement activity
is proposed to mitigate the pollution caused by the run off a clear highway or transportation
relationship exists. Another example might involve the acquisition of a scenic easement. The
acquisition would be in connection with the preservation of a scenic vista related to travel
along a specific route.
Where a TE activity is for acquisition for scenic preservation purposes, and proposes to
contribute to the visual experience of the traveler, but is a substantial distance away with
respect to a highway or transportation project, the TE activity must be determined to make a
substantial contribution to the scenic viewshed.
Given the nature of the list of eligible activities, it is not necessary that each TE activity be
associated with a specific surface transportation project to be eligible for funding. Examples
which illustrate this include: the rehabilitation of a historic train structure, the provision of a
bike or pedestrian path, or the establishment of a transportation museum.
Proximity to a highway or transportation facility alone is not sufficient to establish a
relationship to surface transportation. Additional discussion, beyond proximity, is needed in
the TE project proposal to establish the relationship to transportation. For example, an
historic barn that happened to be adjacent to a particular highway facility would not
automatically be considered eligible for TE funds simply because of its location; visibility to
the traveler in a way that substantially enhances the traveling experience could qualify.
Specific documentation of the enhanced experience is required; conversely, a historic
structure, such as the barn in the above example, could not be disqualified from consideration
because it was not adjacent to a particular Federal-aid facility, as long as some other
relationship to surface transportation could be established.
It is not necessary to have a TE activity function as an active transportation facility, either
past or current, to qualify as an eligible TE activity. For example, a scenic or historic site may
have a relationship to transportation but not function as a transportation facility.
Once a relationship to surface transportation is established, TE activities can be implemented
in a number of ways. For example, they can be developed as parts of larger joint development
projects, or as stand-alone projects.
4. The project must be included in, be part of, or relate to a problem, need or direction discussed
in: 1) a local or county comprehensive plan found to be consistent with Metropolitan Council
plans; 2) a locally approved capital improvement program; 3) an officially adopted corridor
study reflected in the local plan; or 4) the official plan or program of the applicant agency.
The applicant must reference the appropriate comprehensive plan, CIP, corridor study
document, or other plan or program and provide copies of the applicable pages. Because all
communities in the seven-county Twin Cities region are currently in the process of updating
their local comprehensive plans, applications in the 2009 Solicitation may be for projects
included in the most recent local comprehensive plan that was found to be consistent with
Metropolitan Council plans. It also must not conflict with the goals and policies in these
adopted regional plans: the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Framework,
and the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan. Trail projects that claim to be part of the regional
trail network as defined in the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan must be identified in a
Metropolitan Council-approved trail master plan.
5. Typically a transportation project involves mitigation, work in addition to immediate
construction activities, that is negotiated with permitting agencies and local governments as a
condition of obtaining permit approval. Activities that are normally part of the mitigation of a
transportation project are not eligible.
NOT ELIGIBLE - Work that is required as a condition of obtaining a permit or concurrence
not eligible
for a different transportation project is for enhancement funding. For example, a
city may require a highway expansion project to include streetscape enhancements in order to
gain municipal consent. In that case, streetscape work performed to satisfy the municipal
consent requirement is not eligible for Transportation Enhancement funding. Federal
permitting and authorizing agencies may include the U.S. Forest Service, U. S. Corps of
Engineers, and others. State permitting agencies may include the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota State
Historic Preservation Office. Regional agencies may include watershed districts and
metropolitan planning organizations. Local agencies may include counties and cities.
6.The applicant must assure it will operate and maintain the property and facility of the project
for the useful life of the improvement, and not change the use of any right-of-way acquired
without prior approval from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration.
The FHWA requires that states agree to operate and maintain facilities constructed with
federal transportation funds for the useful life of the improvement, and not change the use of
any right-of-way acquired without prior approval from the FHWA. TAB has determined that
this requirement will be applied to the project applicant. FHWA considers most physical
constructions and total reconstructions to have a useful design life of 10 years or more,
depending on the nature of the project. Bridge constructions and total reconstructions are
considered to have useful lives of 50 years. The useful life of the project will be defined in
the inter-agency maintenance agreement that must be prepared and signed prior to the project
letting.
7.Proposed designs for bikeways and for combined bike/pedestrian facilities must meet
MN/DOT State Aid standards. Exceptions to the State Aid standards may be granted during
, not
final design if warranted based on social, economic or environmental alternatives
through this solicitation process. Failure to meet the standards or justify exemptions will
result in the loss of federal funds.
8.Projects must be coordinated with all affected communities and other levels and units of
government. Coordination is defined as written communication from the applicant to all
affected communities informing them of the project. The applicant must provide a copy of
the written communication as proof of coordination.
Applying for Transportation Enhancements (TE) Funding under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
There is approximately $7.5 million available to the seven-county region for Transportation
Enhancements projects from the ARRA. This is a solicitation for project applications for the use of these
funds.
Eligible Applicants
State agencies, cities and counties in the seven-county metropolitan area, regional park agencies, or non-
profit organizations with an application that is sponsored by a public agency are eligible for
Transportation Enhancements funding. All applicants are limited to only one proposal to be considered
for funding.
Directions for Submittal of Applications
Applications must be received by the Metropolitan Council by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 3. Applicants
may submit their application via email to or by mail at 390 Robert Street
james.andrew@metc.state.mn.us
North, St Paul, MN 55101. Applications received later than this time will not be accepted.
Policies for ARRA Transportation Enhancements Funding
The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) will not award more than $1,300,000 in Transportation
Enhancements funds for a specific project. An applicant may request funding for a project that has a cost
higher than this amount but must identify what funds it will use to fund the remainder of the project. All
cost increases must be paid for with local funds. An applicant’s financial participation that reduces the
amount of ARRA funding being requested is encouraged, and such participation will be considered in
project evaluation. TAB reserves the right to partially fund any project.
The TAB will not award a grant of less than $125,000 in Transportation Enhancements funds. Project
applicants can “bundle” projects together to meet this minimum. (Example: Bundled projects could
consist of signing and lighting a number of bike trails in several cities.) Communities may want to
consider using joint powers agreements for implementing bundled projects.
Applications may be for projects which are not in the 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) or for projects in the 2009-2012 TIP currently programmed for 2010 and later. Projects currently
programmed for 2009 are not eligible
for ARRA Transportation Enhancements funding.
The following items must be approved by State Aid in order for the project to be authorized:
Environmental Documentation
Right-of-Way Certificate
Plans
Specifications
Estimates
Failure to have any of these items approved by November 13, 2009 will result in a loss of funds to the
project.
The following types of projects are eligible for receiving Transportation Enhancements funds:
1.Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2.Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
3.Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites including historic battlefields.
03/19/2009
4.Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center
facilities).
5.Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
6.Historic preservation.
7.Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including
historic railroad facilities and canals).
8.Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for
pedestrian or bicycle trails).
9.Inventory, control and removal of outdoor advertising.
10.Archaeological planning and research.
11.Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-
caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
12.Establishment of transportation museums.
One or more of these activities must constitute at least 70% of the project cost. Unlisted ancillary
activities such as paving a parking lot, constructing buildings or providing restrooms must constitute no
more than 30% of the total project cost. Applicants whose project is part of a larger transportation
project must provide a construction cost summary demonstrating that at least 70% of the project is
eligible for Transportation Enhancement funds.
Many projects include a number of activities – some which are on this list and others that are not. Only
those project activities that are on the list may be counted as TE activities. For example, a rest area
might include a historic site purchased and developed as an interpretive site illustrating local history.
Only the historic site purchase and development would qualify as a TE activity.
Work that is made possible because a project presents an opportunity to improve and enhance the
environment and or aesthetics in the vicinity of a project may be eligible for enhancement funding. For
example, a construction project may present an opportunity to improve the condition of an adjacent
stream bed to improve water quality, construct a vital link for a community bikeway system and develop
a landscaped green area to enhance the downtown environment.
03/19/2009
ARRA Transportation Enhancements Application
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete and return application to the Metropolitan Council by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April
3. Applicants may submit their application via email to james.andrew@metc.state.mn.us or by mail at 390
Robert Street North, St Paul, MN 55101. Applications received later than this time will not be accepted.
All Projects
:
Provide a map of the project location within the context of its city and county.
Describe the opportunity that the proposed project is taking advantage of or the nature of the problem
that it aims to address. What is the acknowledged issue that this project would remedy? How significant
is it?
Provide a description (no more than one page) of the project.
Does the project take advantage of a time-sensitive opportunity (for example, funds will be lost,
landowner is a willing landowner, affiliation with another project, etc.)?
Is the project in the TIP? For what year?
Is right-of-way needed?
Is environmental documentation complete?
Will the project be fully funded if you receive the requested amount of ARRA funding?
How much, if any, other funding besides ARRA will be committed to this project and from what
sources? Provide documentation.
03/19/2009
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects:
How does the project fill a gap in a larger network, overcome a travel barrier or otherwise seize on a
significant opportunity in a bike/pedestrian network?
Does the project address an identified safety issue? Describe the safety issue, where it is identified, and
how the project will address it.
List significant travel attractors that the facility connects to including any transit routes. (Projects will be
evaluated on this answer as well as on the population density within one-mile of the project to determine
the potential use of the facility.) If a demand analysis for the facility has been conducted, you may
include it as additional information to help evaluate relative levels of demand.
All Other Project Types:
How does the project provide more than a local benefit?
How will the project benefit the experience of users of multiple modes of transportation (cars, bikes,
pedestrians, transit riders)?
What is the population density within one mile of the facility? (Applicants do not need to provide this
information; this will be calculated by Metropolitan Council staff using 2000 census data) If a demand
analysis for the facility has been conducted, you may include it as additional information to help
evaluate relative levels of demand.
03/19/2009
•
Ms.KristineGiga,P.E.
CityofArdenHills
From:
MattJensen,P.E.
Kimley-HomandAssociates,Inc.
RE:
CountyRoadEBridgeoverTH51
Bridge62010
TheCityofArdenHillswouldliketoaccommodatebetterpedestrianandbicycle
accessacrossTH51atCountyRoadE.Thecurrentbridgehasa2'-6"wide
sidewalkoneachsideofthebridge.Thesesidewalksarenotsafeorfunctional
aspedestrianorbikecrossings.TheCityisconsideringwideningtheexisting
bridgeonthenorthsidetoprovideawidersidewalk.
Sincetheexistingstructureisconsideredfunctionallyobsoleteandhasa
sufficiencyratingof81.9,wesuggestedtheCityreviewtheconditionofthe
bridgetoevaluateifthestructurewouldqualifyforBridgeBondingfundingin
thenearfuture.Kimley-HommetwithMarkPribulaoftheMn/DOTMetro
DistrictandPaulKivistooftheMn/DOTBridgeOfficeatthebridgeonMarch
18,2009.Thepurposeofthemeetingwastodiscussthebackgroundofthe
structureandreviewtheconditionofthebridge.Mn/DOTiscurrentlytheowner
andisresponsiblefortheinspectionandmaintenanceofthebridge.
Thebridgewasconstructedin1961.Thebridgeisatwospanstructurewith
prestressedconcretegirdersandacast-in-placeconcretedeck.Aswastypicalat
thetimethebridgewasconstructed,thereinforcingsteelinthedeckisnotepoxy
coated(Le.blackbar).
NomajormaintenancewasdocumentedonthestructureuntilMn/DOTleta
bridgemaintenancecontractin1994.Theprojectincludeda"limitedservice"
overlayandexpansionjointreconstruction.Thelimitedserviceoverlayinvolved
scarifying1/2"ofexistingdeckthicknessandplacementof2ofconcreteover
thewidthofthedrivinglanes(30-ftwide),butdidnotincludeanyconcrete
repairfortheunderlyingdeck.Weunderstandthat"limitedservice"likely
meansthattheexposedconcretebeneaththenewoverlaywasinpoorcondition
andnotcosteffectivetocompleterepairs.Generally,thistypeofoverlayhasan
expectedservicelifeof10-15years.Thecurrentoverlayisenteringits15thyear
ofservice.
•
Ms.KristineGiga
March2009
24,
Pageof3
TheCityappliedtoMn/DOTforCooperativeAgreementfundsin2006.We
understandthisrequestwasdenied.InreviewofMn/DOTmemos,theBridge
OfficecommentedthattheproposedbridgewideningwouldnotmeetMnlDOT
Standards.Specifically,theproposedwideningwould:
•Reducethevehicularlanewidthsto14feeteach,therebyloweringthe
deckgeometryappraisalratingto2
•Providea7'-6"widesidewalkthatissubstandardformulti-use
(pedestrian&bicycle)trailuse
•Potentiallyoverloadthefaciabeamundertheexpandedsidewalk
Overall,theBridgeOfficedidnotviewtheproposedwideningasaviable
alternativetoprovidingpedestrianaccessattheexpenseofvehicularsafetyona
nearly50-year-oldbridge.WeunderstandthatMn/DOTwouldlikeatleast30
yearsofservicefromanyimprovementtotheexistingbridge.
Weconductedabriefwalkaroundthestructure,performingvisualobservationof
thebridgeelements.Generally,thebridgeisinsatisfactorycondition.According
totheStructureInventory,theconditioncodesforthemajorbridgecomponents
areasfollows:
ComonentNBIConditionCodeConditionDescri
Deck6Satisfacto
SuerstructureSatisfacto
6
SubstructureGood
7
Mn/DOTreports10%oftheconcretedeckisunsound,baseduponestimationin
2004.Ourvisualobservationsnotednumeroustransversecracksthroughoutthe
concreteoverlay.Theconcreteoverlayislikelyneartheendofitsservicelife.
Eventhoughthedeckispartiallyunsound,thisdoesnotjustifyalowerrating.
Visually,theundersideofthedeckappearstobeinsatisfactorycondition.There
arenumeroustransversecracksbetweentheconcretebeamswithminorleaching,
butthisistypicalforabridgeofthisage.
Theexpansionjointsshowmoderatedeteriorationandminorleakage.Typically,
thistypeofjointisreconstructedwhenshowingthislevelofdeterioration.Other
maintenanceworkonthebridgewouldincludegreasingtheexpansionbearings
onthetwo-spanstructure.
Otherbridgeelements,includingtheprestressedconcretebeams,abutments,
piers,andrailingallareingoodtosatisfactorycondition.Overall,weagreewith
theconditioncoderatingsdocumentedontheMn/DOTbridgeinspectionreport
forthisstructure.Whiledifficulttodetermine,itislikelythatthisbridge,with
continuedmaintenance,willcontinueitscurrentserviceforatleastanother10
years.
Ms.KristineGiga
March2009
24,
Pageof3
WeassumethatURSdeterminedtheexistingbridgecansustaintheadditional
l'-2"ofdeckwidthforthenewsidewalk,pertheCooperativeAgreement
ProgramApplicationdatedOctober11,2006.Priortomovingforwardwiththe
wideningproject,wehighlyrecommendtheCitybetterunderstandthecondition
oftheexistingbridgebeyondsimplevisualobservations.Thestructureisnearly
50yearsoldandiscurrentlyfunctionallyobsolete.Werecommendmorein-
depthanalysisofthestructurebeconductedbeforecommittingCityfundstothis
structure.
WesuggestthatMn/DOT,asthebridgeowner,provideadditionaltestingofthe
existingbridgedeck.Thistestingwillbetterdeterminetheconditionofthe
existingconcretedeckbelowtheoverlay.Thesetestscanincludebothnon-
destructiveanddestructivetesting.Non-destructivetestscanincludeachain-
dragoftheexistingdecktodeterminetheextentofdelaminatedconcrete.
Destructivetestingcouldincludechloride-iontesting,partialexposureofdeck
rebar,andconductivityteststoevaluatethelevelofcorrosiononthenon-epoxy
coated(black)reinforcingbars.
ThesetestsarerelativelysimpleandwouldsubstantiallyhelpMnlDOTandthe
Cityevaluatewhatimprovementsshouldbeconsideredforthisstructure.Alocal
independenttestinglaboratorycouldprovidethisinvestigation,likelyunder
$4,000.Mn/DOTcouldpotentiallyutilizemaintenancefundsforthistesting.
Thisismoneywellspentwhenconsideringaninvestmentofover$350,000.
Ifthedeckstructureisfoundtobeingoodcondition,werecommendtheCity
collaboratewithMnlDOTtoprovideadeckwideningandbridgemaintenance
project.Theexistingstructurewouldneedstructuralanalysisandgeometric
standardreview;thisanalysishasbeenincludedinourbridgewideningfee.
Assumingthebridgeisviablestructurallyandgeometrically,theCitycoulduse
itsfundsforthedeckwidening,whileMn/DOTcouldusemaintenancefundsfor
deckrepairsandjointreconstruction.Bothagencieswouldrealizecostsavings
byhavingonecontractorprovidetherepairsandwidening.
Ifthedeckisfoundtobeinpoorcondition,ornotstructurallysuitablefor
widening,werecommendtheCityreconsiderthewideningproject.Mn/DOT
shouldthenre-evaluatetheconditioncodingofthebridge.Sincethisstructureis
ownedbyMnlDOT,StateTransportationFunds(BridgeBonding)cannotbe
usedtoreconstructthebridge.
Werecommendwhatevercourseispursued,thattheCityworkstogetherwith
Mn/DOTtodeterminethebestcourseofaction.
Cc:BethEngum,P.E.-KHA
JerryPertzsch,P.E.-KHA
MarkPribula,P.E.-Mn/DOT
PaulKivisto,P.E.-MnlDOT