HomeMy WebLinkAbout1A, Cty Road E Bridge Update
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 14,2009
Agenda Item I.A
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
County Road E Bridge Update
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION
In February, staff requested quotes from consultants in the City's engineering pool for final design
services for pedestrian improvements to the CR E bridge over TH 51. The proposed design layout
was based on the feasibility report completed in 2004. This layout was submitted in 2004 and 2006
for Cooperative Agreement funding. The design includes reconfiguration of the lanes on the existing
bridge, construction of cantilevered supports to widen the bridge deck, and construction of a 7.5 foot
sidewalk. During the RFQ process, staff learned that the Mn/DOT Bridge Office had commented on
the 2006 Cooperative Agreement submittal. However, these comments were not included in the
original comment letter from Mn/DOT in 2006, but have since been provided to the City. Their main
concern was how these improvements might compromise the bridge's structural integrity. They were
also concerned that the proposed improvements would lower the rating for the deck geometry, which
is already at a deficient level.
The Mn/DOT Bridge Office has indicated that the proposed project would trigger additional
improvements to the bridge so that it would no longer be functionally obsolete. The Bridge -Office
would not support this project as proposed without correcting the bridge's deficiencies, and currently
there is no funding available for bridge expansion. In light of this, the City has been working with
Mn/DOT to determine what improvements, if any, they would support on the existing bridge to
improve safety.
Two alternatives have been identified:
Alternative 1: Modification to the existing bridge at the existing width
\ \Metro-inet\ardenhilIs\Admin \Council\Agendas & Packet Information \2009\05-18-09 W orksession \Packet Information \5-18-09_ Memo-
CR_ E.doc
5/15/2009
Page 2
Mn/DOT has indicated that they would consider modifications to the existing bridge deck. The
existing bridge width from parapet to parapet is 35 feet. With two 12' lanes, a 4' offset to the parapet
on the south side, and a 2' offset to the raised sidewalk, a 5' walk could be constructed along the
north side. These offsets are minimum standards that the Bridge Office would require. This new
cross-section would require an alignment shift on the bridge and approach modifications. Mn/DOT
has agreed to perform the structural analysis for the changed loading on the beams if the City Council
decides to proceed with this alternative.
In order to use State Aid funds, the proposed improvements must meet standard design guidelines.
The standard width of a sidewalk is 6 feet, with two feet of clearance on either side; the proposed
sidewalk is 5 feet, with two foot clearance from the westbound lane, and no clearance to the northern
parapet. Staff is currently in contact with Mn/DOT State Aid to determine whether a variance could
be requested for this configuration that would allow for the use of State Aid funds. An update will be
provided to the City Council once staffhas received a response.
This alternative would not meet guidelines for federal funds.
Alternative 2: Construction of a standalone shared-use pathway bridge north of the existing bridge
The City Council may choose to consider this alternative if structural analysis shows that Option 1 is
not feasible, or if the City Council considers alternative 1 to be inadequate. This bridge would be
constructed north of the existing bridge; the final location would be coordinated with Mn/DOT to
accommodate a future wider bridge at CR E. Trail connections would also be constructed to tie the
pedestrian bridge I into the existing sidewalk to the east and shoulder to the west.
The Metropolitan Council has announced the 2009 solicitation for federal transportation project
funding. Pathway projects are eligible under the Transportation Enhancements (TE) category. The
funding is available for federal fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Applications are due June 15, 2009;
however, the application review process will take six months. The Transportation Advisory Board
will select projects for the 2011-2014 TIP in January or February, 2010. The federal funding
requires a 20% local match; engineering fees are not an eligible cost. This project would be eligible
for State Aid funds.
CONCLUSION
In light of the change in scope of this project, staffhas asked the consultants to revise their proposals
to include these two alternatives. Staffwill present the proposals to the City Council at their May 26,
2009 meeting.
Staff is requesting questions and comments from the City Council regarding the alternatives for the
CR E bridge. Staff is also requesting feedback on whether a 5-foot sidewalk is acceptable. If the
City Council chooses to apply for federal funding for Alternative 2, the selected consultant would
complete the application as part of their scope.