The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 16 - Council Reading File - Madonna Road BridgeExhibit 6‐A LAPG, Application/Scope Definition Form Local Assistance Program Guidelines EXHIBIT 6-A HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-43 LPP 01-12 December 20, 2001 EXHIBIT 6-A HBRRP APPLICATION/SCOPE DEFINITION FORM See Section 6.6, Chapter 6 of the LAPG for information about this form. This form shall replace Exhibit 7-D, “Major Structure Data,” from Chapter 7, “Field Review,” of the LAPM. Wherever the LAPM requires Exhibit 7-D for other programs, Exhibit 6-A may be substituted. Bridge projects funded entirely through other programs should continue to use Exhibit 7-D. (One bridge per application, separate applications are required for multiple bridges at same location. Multiple bridges may be combined into one federal aid project later.) State Bridge No. 49C0372 Local Bridge No. Project Number (Caltrans to provide project number for new projects) Responsible Agency City of San Luis Obispo Caltrans District 05 County San Luis Obispo Project Manager David Athey Title Supervising Civil Engineer Phone (805) 781-7200 Fax (805) 781-7198 E Mail DAthey@slocity.org Project Location Madonna Road over Perfumo Creek, East of Oceanaire Dr. Project Limits 200' NE of the Bridge to 200' SW of the Bridge Type of Work Replacement Work Description Replace the Functionally Obsolete (FO) 4-lane Triple Box Culvert with a 6- Lane Multicell PC RC Box Culvert HBRRP Category: Rehabilitation Scour Countermeasure Replacement Replacement Due to Flood Control Project Painting New Bridge to Replace Ferry Service Bridge/Railing/Approach Barrier Replacement Historic Bridge Low Water Crossing Replacement High Cost Bridge Minimal Application: Only questions 1,2,3, 4, cost data and signoff will be completed. Other information will be submitted at a later time after PE has been federally authorized to scope the project. See Section 6.6.2 “Minimum Application Requirements” for additional information. EXHIBIT 6-A Local Assistance Program Guidelines HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-44 December 20, 2001 LPP 01-12 The field review process enables the proper scoping of projects. Some field reviews are mandatory, most are optional. Field reviews are critically important to identify difficult environmental, Right of Way, and bridge type selection issues early in the project development phase. Please see Chapter 7 of the LAPM for further discussion. 1. Do you request that Caltrans initiate a field review? Yes No 2. Do you need help with consultant selection/oversight? Yes No 3. Do you need help with the federal process? Yes No 4. Caltrans engineers are available to provide an optional cursory review of the PS&E. The review looks at constructability, standard details and specifications, foundation/hydraulic design, and HBRRP funding eligibility. Do you request Caltrans perform a cursory PS&E review for this project? (If yes, please also request a field review.) Yes No Federal Congressional District(s) 24 State Senate District(s) 17 State Assembly District(s) 35 Preliminary Engineering by: Local Agency Staff Consultant Other… Design by: Local Agency Staff Consultant Other… Foundation Investigation by: Local Agency Staff Consultant Other… Hydrology Study by: Local Agency Staff Consultant Other… Detour, stage construction, or close road? Stage Construction Length of detour: 1.58 Miles Resident Engineer for Bridge Work: Local Agency Staff Consultant Other… Local Assistance Program Guidelines EXHIBIT 6-A HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-45 LPP 01-12 December 20, 2001 For painting & scour scopes of work, skip this page. NBI data is from the Bridge Inspections Report (SI&A sheet) Contact the DLAE/SLA for assistance, if needed Date Constructed (NBI Item 27): 1958 Historical Bridge Category (NBI Item 37) 5 Structure Data Existing Proposed Minimum AASHTO Standards Structure type Grade Top RC double box culvert widened with RC single box culvert Multicell PC RC Box Culvert Structure length (specify units) 40 feet 36 feet Spans (No. and length) 2 @ 11 ft 1 @ 15.5 ft 3 @ 12' Curb to Curb width (See NBI Item 51 definition) 80 ft 84 ft 84 ft Number of lanes 4 6 Lane widths 11 ft 11 ft 11 ft Shoulder widths 12 ft Lt 12 ft Rt 8 ft Lt 8 ft Rt 4.4.2 Width of Shoulders: 6-ft to 8-ft shoulder width is preferrable Bike lanes (identify only if not included in the shoulder dimensions) 0 ft Lt 0 ft Rt 0 ft Lt 0 ft Rt Included in the shoulder dimension Sidewalks/separated bikeways 9 ft Lt 9 ft Rt 6 ft Lt 6 ft Rt 4.17.1 Sidewalks: 6-ft when adjacent to the curb Approach roadway width (traveled way + paved shoulders, tapered approaches should be measured at the touchdown points not the abutments) 80 ft 84 ft 84 ft EXHIBIT 6-A Local Assistance Program Guidelines HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-46 December 20, 2001 LPP 01-12 Approach road length (from each abutment) 200 ft abt1 200 ft abt2 200 ft abt1 200 ft abt2 Total bridge deck width 98 ft 98 ft Local Assistance Program Guidelines EXHIBIT 6-A HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-47 LPP 01-12 December 20, 2001 Summary of Major Deficiencies of Existing Bridge (See Section 6.12 for information) (Contact the DLAE/SLA for assistance, if needed) Data is from SI&A Sheet (Last page of Bridge Inspection Report) Sufficiency Rating (SR) = 54.1 Status SD FO Blank Description of Data Item NBI Data Item Deficient Criteria Results What are the Deficiencies? Deck Item 58 = N ≤ 4 is problem OK NG-SD Superstructure Item 59 = N ≤ 4 is problem OK NG-SD Substructures Item 60 = N ≤ 4 is problem OK NG-SD Culvert and Retaining Walls Item 62 = 7 ≤ 4 is problem OK NG-SD Structural Condition Item 67 = 3 ≤ 3 is problem OK NG Stage-2 cracking on barrel walls Waterway Adequacy Item 71 = 8 ≤ 3 is problem OK NG Deck Geometry Item 68 = 9 ≤ 3 is problem OK NG-FO SD = Structurally Deficient FO = Functionally Obsolete Blank = Not SD or FO NG = Not Good (Deficiency) [Item 62 applies only if the last digits of Item 43 are coded 19.] [Item 71 applies only if the last digit of Item 43 is coded 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9.] EXHIBIT 6-A Local Assistance Program Guidelines HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-48 December 20, 2001 LPP 01-12 Description of Data Item NBI Data Item Deficient Criteria Results What are the Deficiencies? Under- clearances Item 69 = N ≤ 3 is problem OK NG-FO Approach Roadway Alignment Item 72 = 8 ≤ 3 is problem OK NG-FO Scour Criticality Item 113 = 8 ≤ 3 is problem OK NG Bridge Railing Item 36A = 0 = 0 Review OK NG Non-standard bridge railing; Does not meet the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Guardrail Transition, Approaches, Guardrail Ends Item 36B = 0 Item 36C = 0 Item 36D = 0 = 0 Review OK NG No approach railing Other deficiencies not identified in Bridge Inspection Report Discuss in detail, attach additional pages and photographs as needed to justify HBRRP funds to correct problem: Stormwater inlets and public service utilities encroach into the walkway on approach to limit access [Item 69 applies only if the last digit of Item 42 is coded 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 or 8.] Local Assistance Program Guidelines EXHIBIT 6-A HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-49 LPP 01-12 December 20, 2001 5. If this application is for rehabilitation or replacement scope, will all deficiencies be resolved by the project? If no, please discuss below or attach discussion on separate pages to application. Yes No Not Applicable 6. Discuss any special condition or proposed design exceptions: 7. Identify and justify “betterments” that are HBRRP participating but are not related to the major deficiencies. Attach additional pages as needed. 8. Refer to Exhibit 6-B. Identify and justify specific items requiring Caltrans funding approval. Attach additional pages as needed. Proposed bridge replacement recommended due to Stage-2 cracking on the wall and throughout barrel. Traffic volumes support the additional lanes. EXHIBIT 6-A Local Assistance Program Guidelines HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-50 December 20, 2001 LPP 01-12 9. Other comments: (identify non-HBRRP participating work) Estimated Construction Costs: Exclude Contingencies, Supplementary Work, and Construction Engineering HBRRP Participating NOT HBRRP Participating* Construct Bridge $880,000.00 $0.00 Bridge Removal $190,000.00 $0.00 Slope Protection $0.00 $0.00 Channel Work $90,000.00 $0.00 Detour – Stage Construction $110,000.00 $0.00 Approach Roadway $270,000.00 $0.00 Utility Relocation $100,000.00 $0.00 Mobilization $164,000.00 $0.00 Total $1,804,000.00 $0.00 Total Cost $1,804,000.00 ∗ Items that are not HBRRP participating could be participating through other federal programs. See the LAPG for other eligibility requirements of other programs. Local agencies that are unsure which project costs are HBRRP participating should contact the DLAE/SLA for resolution. Note that the total of the HBRRP participating costs should carry over into the construction line (direct costs) on the next page. Local Assistance Program Guidelines EXHIBIT 6-A HBRRP Application/Scope Definition Form Page 6-51 LPP 01-12 December 20, 2001 Summary of HBRRP Participating Costs Please indicate the HBRRP total participating (eligible for reimbursement) costs for this project. Based on the amounts below and the federal reimbursement rate, Caltrans will program (reserve) the HBRRP funds needed for this project. Other federal funds (RSTP, TEA, etc.) needed for this project should be shown in the Field Review form Exhibit 7-B from Chapter 7 of the LAPM. Target dates represent a commitment by the local agency when the project will need HBRRP funding. Failure to meet target dates may cause funds to be reprogrammed to other projects by other local agencies. The reprogramming of HBRRP funds is at the discretion of Caltrans. PE = Preliminary Engineering (Total not to exceed the greater of $75 K or 25% of CON and consultant contract management and quality assurance not to exceed 15% of consultant costs). R/W = Right of Way CE = Construction Engineering (Not to exceed 15% of CON). CON = Construction Cont = Contingency (including supplement work) not to exceed 25% (preliminary estimate) nor 10% of CON for final design $5 K min. Enter CE Rate: 15% Enter Contingency Rate: 25% Direct Costs Indirect Costs* HBRRP Participating $** Target Dates PE $451,000.00 + $0.00 = $451,000.00 2017 R/W $100,000.00 2019 CON $1,804,000.00 CE $270,600.00 $0.00 Cont $451,000.00 Subtotal $2,525,600.00 + $0.00 = $2,525,600.00 2020 Total Participating Cost $3,076,600.00 Enter Fed. Match Rate: 88.53% HBRRP Requested $2,723,714.00 * See Chapter 5, “Accounting/Invoices,” of the LAPM for approval of indirect costs. ** Participating costs exclude ineligible work items. Please review the HBRR Program Guidelines for reimbursable scopes of work and program cost limits. Other federal funds will be shown in the Field Review form, Exhibit 7-B, Chapter 7, “Field Review,” of the LAPM. Exhibit 6‐B LAPG, Special Cost Approval Checklist Local Assistance Program Guidelines EXHIBIT 6-B HBRRP Special Cost Approval Checklist Page 6-53 LPP 01-12 December 20, 2001 EXHIBIT 6-B HBRRP SPECIAL COST APPROVAL CHECKLIST The purpose of this form is to help local agencies identify project costs that require Caltrans funding approval. Local agencies are responsible for contacting the DLAE to resolve any items requiring Caltrans review. This form is not a substitute for reading Chapter 6 of the LAPG or the LAPM. Local agencies are still financially accountable for meeting all the requirements of the LAPG and the LAPM. Project Number State Bridge No. 49C0372 (one bridge per application) Local Bridge No. Project Location Madonna Road over Perfumo Creek, East of Oceanaire Dr. Chapter 6 LAPG Section #’s Topic Status 6.2.1 – Rehab 6.2.2 - Replace Adding Additional Lanes (including turn lanes) Requires Caltrans/MPO Approval Caltrans has Approved Costs MPO has Approved Scope in FTSIP Not Applicable 6.2.1 – Rehab Scope is Bridge Replacement, but SR>50 Requires Caltrans Approval Caltrans has Approved Costs Not Applicable 6.2.4 – Rail No bridge railing work to be done, but other safety work related to bridge is needed. Requires Caltrans Approval Caltrans has Approved Costs Not Applicable 6.2.4 – Rail (applies to all scopes of work) New sidewalks to be installed where none existed before. Please identify as “betterment” in Exhibit 6-A. Requires Caltrans Approval Caltrans has Approved Costs Not Applicable 6.2.1 – Rehab 6.2.2 – Replace 6.2.10 – Historic 6.3 – Standards Rehabilitation/Replacement will not address all major bridge deficiencies Requires Caltrans Approval Caltrans has Approved Costs Not Applicable 6.5.11 – Replace “Replaced” bridges to remain in place. Applies to work beyond specified examples in Section 6.5.12 Requires Caltrans Approval Caltrans has Approved Costs Not Applicable Exhibit Exhibit of Vicinity Map Project Location/Vicinity Map San Luis Obispo, CA Project Site N Not to Scale Exhibit General Plan & Project Limits MADONNA ROADBRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYBRIDGE NO. 49C0372 MADONNA ROADBRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYBRIDGE NO. 49C0372 MADONNA ROADBRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYBRIDGE NO. 49C0372 Exhibit Photographs Exhibit 7‐B LAPM, Field Review Form Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 7-B Field Review Form Page 1 of 4 January 2016 EXHIBIT 7-B FIELD REVIEW FORM Local Agency ______________________________ Field Review Date __________________ Project Number ______________________________ Locator (Dst/Co/Rte/PM/Agncy) __________________ Project Name ______________________________ Bridge No.(s) __________________ 1. PROJECT LIMITS (see attached list for various locations) _____________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ Net Length ______________ (mile) 2. WORK DESCRIPTION _____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ ITS project or ITS element: Yes No If yes, choose: High-Risk (formerly “Major”) ITS , Low-Risk (formerly “Minor”) ITS , Exempt ITS 3. PROGRAMMING DATA FTIP (MPO/RTPA) ______________ FY ______ Page ____ Amendment No. __________ FTIP PPNO _______ FHWA/FTA Approval Date ___________ Federal Funds $________________ Phases PE ______ R/W _______ Const ____ Air Basin: _________________________ (CMAQ only) 4. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: On the Federal-aid System Principal Arterial – Freeway or Expressway Other Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Off the Federal-aid System Rural Minor Collector Local Major Collector Urban Minor Collector 5. STEWARDSHIP CATEGORY High Profile (Stewardship): Yes No Delegated (Stewardship): Yes No (a) DLAE oversight: Yes __ No __ (b) District Construction Yes __No __ ITS High-Risk project or element requiring FHWA oversight per stewardship: Yes __ No __ 6. CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT Is it required? Yes _____ No _____ 7. COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN $1,000’s Fed. Participation (Including Structures) PE Environmental Process Yes ____ No ____ Design Yes ____ No ____ ITS System Manager or Integrator Yes ____ No ____ City of San Luis Obispo 05/SLO/Madonna Rd. Madonna Rd. over Perfumo Creek 49C0372 From the intersection of Oceanaire Dr. and Madonna Rd., approx. 200' W of the Bridge to approx. 200' E of the Bridge. 0.01 Replace the Functionally Obsolete (FO) 4-lane Grade Top Double Box Culvert with a 6-Lane Multicell PC RC Box Culvert. 135.30 315.70 N/A EXHIBIT 7-B Local Assistance Procedures Manual Field Review Form Page 2 of 4 January 2016 CONST Const. Contract Yes ____ No ____ Const. Engineering Yes ____ No ____ R/W Preliminary R/W Work Yes ____ No ____ Acquisition: Yes ____ No ____ (No. of Parcels ____ ) Yes ____ No ____ (Easements ____ ) Yes ____ No ____ (Right of Entry ____ ) Yes ____ No ____ RAP (No. Families ) Yes ____ No ____ RAP (No. Bus. ____ ) Yes ____ No ____ Utilities (Exclude if included in contract items) Yes ____ No ____ TOTAL COST $ 7a. Value Engineering Analysis Required? Yes _____ No _____ (Yes, if total project costs are $50M or more on the NHS, or $40M or more for bridges on the NHS) 8. PROPOSED FUNDING Total Cost Cost Share Grand Total $ ____________ Federal Program #1_________ $ ____________ Fed. $ _________ Reimb. Ratio _________ (Name/App. Code) #2_________ $ ____________ Fed. $ _________ Reimb. Ratio _________ Matching Funds Breakdown Local: . $ $ _________ _____% State: $ _________ _____% Other: $ _________ _____% State Highway Funds? Yes _____ Source __________________________ No _____ State CMAQ/RSTP Match Eligible Yes _______ No ______ Partial _____ Is the Project Underfunded? (Fed $ < Allowed Reimb.) Yes ______ No _____ 9. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Agency Consultant State PE Environ Process ______________ ___________ Design ______________ ___________ System Man./Integ. ______________ ___________ R/W All Work ______________ ___________ 2155.00 270.60 45.00 2 55.00 100.00 3076.6 3,076,600 HBP 3,076,600 2,723,714 88.53 352,886 11.47 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 7-B Field Review Form Page 3 of 4 January 2016 CONST ENGR Contract ______________ ___________ CONSTRUCTION Contract ______________ ___________ MAINTENANCE ______________ ___________ ___________ Will Caltrans be requested to review PS&E? Yes ______ No _____ 10. SCHEDULES: PROPOSED ADVERTISEMENT DATE _________________________________________ Other critical dates: __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 11. PROJECT MANAGER’S CONCURRENCE Local Entity Representative: _________________________________________ Date: ___________ Signature & Title: _________________________________________ Phone No. ___________ Is field review required? Yes ______ No ______ Caltrans (District) Representative: _______________________________________ Date: ___________ (if attended Field Review) Signature & Title: FHWA Representative: (if attended Field Review) Signature & Title: ________________________________________________ _______________________________________ ________________________________________________ Date: ___________ 12. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Include all appropriate attachments if field review is required. See the “[ ]” notation for minimum required attachments for non-NHS projects) _____ Field Review Attendance Roster or Contacts Roster _____ _____ Vicinity Map (Required for Construction Type Projects) IF APPLICABLE ( Complete as required depending on type of work involved) _____ Roadway Data Sheets [Req’d for Roadway projects] _____ _____ Typical Roadway Geometric Section(s) [Req’d for Roadway projects] _____ Major Structure Data Sheet [Req’d for HBP] _____ Signal Warrants _____ Railroad Grade Crossing Data Sheet _____ Collision Diagram Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 David Athey (805) 781-7200 EXHIBIT 7-B Local Assistance Procedures Manual Field Review Form Page 4 of 4 January 2016 _____ Sketch of Each Proposed Alternate Improvement _____ CMAQ/RSTP State STIP Match _____ TE Application Document _____ Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) _____ Existing federal, state, and local ADA deficiencies not included on other Attachments _____ Req’d for High-Risk (formerly “Major”) and Low-Risk (formerly “Minor”) ITS projects 13. DLAE FIELD REVIEW NOTES: A. MINUTES OF FIELD REVIEWS B. ISSUES OR UNUSUAL ASPECTS OF PROJECT Distribution: Original with attachments – Local Agency Copy with attachments (2 copies if HBP) – DLAE Exhibit 7‐C LAPM, Roadway Data Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 7-C Roadway Data Page 7-15 LPP 11-05 December 12, 2011 ROADWAY DATA 1. TRAFFIC DATA Current ADT ____ Year 20 __ Future ADT ______ Year 20___ DHV ____ Trucks __% Terrain (Check One)____ Flat _____ Rolling ____ Mountainous Design Speed ____________ Proposed Speed Zone ____ Yes mph ___________ No 2. GEOMETRIC INFORMATION ROADWAY SECTION Thru Traffic Lanes Shoulders Facility Year Constr. Min. Curve Radius No. of Lanes Total Width Type Each Width Lt/Rt Type Median Width Exist. Prop. Min. Stds. selected: AASHTO____ 3R ____ Local ____ N/E Contig. Sect. S/W Contig Sect. Remarks (If design standard exception is being sought, cite standard and explain fully how it varies): _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3. DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTING FACILITY (Mark appropriate one(s)) _____ Pavement Surface ______ Drainage _____ Alignment ______ Bridge _____ Crossfall ______ Safety (Attach collision diagram or other documentation) _____ Pavement Structure ______ _____ Federal Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA), State or Local accessibility requirements Other (describe below) Remarks _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 4. TRAFFIC SIGNALS ____Yes ___New (attach warrants)___Modified _____No 5. MAJOR STRUCTURES Structure No.(s) _____________________ (attach structure data sheet) _____________________ 6. OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (Name) _______ None _______ Railroad _______________________________________ (attach railroad data sheet) _______ Airports _______________________________________ (attach airport data sheet) _______ Transit _______________________________________ _______ T Bicycle _______________________________________ _______________________________________ 26,985 08 3430,912 3 50 mph 45 1958 4 80 ft AC 12 ft AC 0 ft 2020 6 94 ft AC 8 ft AC 2 ft AC946 AC8 49C0372 EXHIBIT 7-C Local Assistance Procedures Manual Roadway Data Page 7-16 July 21, 2006 LPP 06-03 7. AGENCIES AFFECTED Utilities [mark appropriate one(s)] _______ Telephone ________ Electrical ________ Gas _______ Water ________ Irrigation _______ Other ________ Sanitary Major Utility Adjustment: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ High Risk Facilities: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Remarks: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Relocation of overhead communication and electrical lines and relocation of underground sanitary sewer, domestic water, fire water, storm drain and communication. Exhibit 7‐D LAPM, Major Structure Data Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 7-D Major Structure Data Page 1 of 2 July 2016 EXHIBIT 7-D MAJOR STRUCTURE DATA (Attach a separate sheet for each structure) Project Number Bridge Name (facility crossed) State Br.No. Date Constructed Historical Bridge Inv. Category Road Name Location STRUCTURE DATA Existing Proposed Minimum ASHTO Standards Structure Type: Structure Length: Spans (No. & Length): Clear Width (curb to curb): Shoulder Width: Lt Rt Lt Rt Lt Rt Sidewalk or bikeway width: Lt Rt Lt Lt Lt Rt Total Br. Width: Total Appr. Rdwy. Width: 1. Preliminary Engineering by: 2. Design by: 3. Foundation Investigation by: 4. Hydrology Study by: Detour, Stage construction, or Close Road: Length of Detour: Resident Engineer for Bridge Work: Agency Consultant (On Retainer as City/County Engineer) Responsible Local Official: Discuss any special conditions; for example, federal ADA, state or local accessibility requirements, or proposed design exceptions: ESTIMATED STRUCTURE AND RELATED COSTS Federally Participating? Bridge Cost: Yes No Construct Bridge: Bridge Removal: Slope Protection: Channel Work: Perfumo Creek 49C0372 1958 5 Madonna Rd. East of Oceanaire Dr. Grade Top RC box culvert 40 ft 2 @ 11 ft ;1 @ 15.5 ft Multicell PC RCB 36 ft 3@12ft 84 ft 84 ft80 ft 12 ft 12 ft 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 8 ft 9ft 6ft 6ft 6ft9ft 98 ft 80 ft 6ft 98 ft 84 ft 98 ft 84 ft City + Consultant Consultant Consultant Consultant Stage Construction 1.58 Miles $ 880,000 $ 190,000 $0.00 $ 90,000 ✔✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 7-D Major Structure Data Page 1 of 2 July 2016 Detour- Stage Construction: Approach Roadway: Preliminary Engineering: Construction Engineering: Right of Way Costs: Utility Relocation: Mobilization: Total: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type of HBP funds; Check one: Seismic/Voluntary Painting (88.53%) (Major type if more than one) (88.53% Fed. Share) Painting (80%) Rehabilitation (80%) Special (80%) Replacement (80%) Low Water Xing (80%) Railing (88.53%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summarize HBP funded costs of above estimate (HBP Federal-aid + local match for HBP only): Prelim. Engr.: $ Right of Way: $ Construction: $ Total: $ Indicate the estimated date for Federal-aid Authorization & Obligation or Check the box: Date: Not needed for this project Not needed for this project Not needed for this project VALUE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Required (Yes, if on the NHS and total project costs for bridges are $40M or more) Yes No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Remarks: ***** The following must be attached if the project is funded by the HBP: 1. Plan view of proposed improvements. 2. Typical Section. ***** The following is recommended: 1. Right of way map to determine whether right of way acquisition or construction easements are necessary. Distribution: Attach to Field Review Form + Contingency $ 110,000 $ 270,000 $ 451,000 $ 270,600 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 164,000 + $451,000 $ 3,076,600 451,000 200,000 2,425,600 03/01/2017 01/01/2019 01/01/2020 3,076,600 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Exhibit Right‐of‐Way Maps