STRUCTURE SELECTION REPORT

Transcription

1 STRUCTURE SELECTON REPORT Bayfield Parkway over the Los Pinos River Replacement of Existing Structures: P-6-G & P-6-H Prepared for The Town of Bayfield By AMEC July 214

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT HSTORY... 1 STRUCTURE PURPOSE... 1 STRUCTURE DATA AND DESGN CRTERA... 2 FOUNDATON ALTERNATVES... 3 STRUCTURE LAYOUT LOS PNOS RVER BRDGE... 4 STRUCTURE LAYOUT LOS PNOS OVERFLOW CHANNEL BRDGE... 5 CRTERA FOR EVALUATNG STRUCTURE TYPES... 6 STRUCTURE TYPE ALTERNATVES LOS PNOS RVER BRDGE... 8 STRUCTURE TYPE ALTERNATVES LOS PNOS OVERFLOW CHANNEL BRDGE... 9 STRUCTURE EVALUATON AND RECOMMENDATON... 1 ATTACHMENTS... 11

3 PROJECT HSTORY Bayfield Parkway was the original route of US 16 and was later converted into a business route US 16-B (Bayfield Parkway) when a town bypass was constructed. The route connects the eastern and western portions of town with the downtown, city hall and park area just east of the Los Pinos River. During 212, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) transferred ownership of US 16-B to the Town of Bayfield. As part of the ownership transfer, CDOT agreed to fund the replacement of the structures over the Los Pinos River and Los Pinos overflow channel. The roadway was renamed Bayfield Parkway. The existing Los Pinos River Bridge has an approximate length of 162 feet and a clear width of 24 feet. The Los Pinos overflow channel bridge has a length of with a clear width of 24 feet. Due to both structure s substandard roadway geometry, they are classified as functionally obsolete. Both bridges have truss superstructures that are considered fracture critical. According to the latest available CDOT inspection report, the fracture critical gusset plates were inspected in a detailed manner during 21. The results of that inspection were not available for AMEC to review. The Los Pinos River Bridge received a deck rehabilitation in 23, but still exhibits signs of efflorescence and spalling underneath the structure. With functionally obsolete and fracture critical classifications, CDOT and the Town of Bayfield have determined that the bridges will be replaced. The new structures will accommodate the required 4-foot shoulder widths, two 12-foot travel lanes, and a 5-foot sidewalk with curb and gutter width of 1-6 on the south side only. As part of this project, a pedestrian path will be constructed to connect Pine River Picnic Pavilion and town hall to the recreation fields south of Bayfield Parkway. STRUCTURE PURPOSE CDOT Str. No. P-6-G Overflow Channel Bridge CDOT Str. No. P-6-H Los Pinos River Bridge The purpose of this project is to replace two functionally obsolete, fracture critical three-span bridges. The new structures will have an out to out width of 41-6 and will be outfitted with Type 1M Bridge Rail. The bridge rail on the south side of the road will be a modified version of the Type 1M to accommodate pedestrian height requirements. The proposed horizontal alignment of Bayfield Parkway will be shifted slightly north of the existing alignment at both bridge sites to allow side slope approaches to remain within the right-of-way. The vertical alignment is being raised at the Los Pinos River bridge to provide adequate clearance for a pedestrian path near the east abutment. 1

4 The General Layout sheets in the Attachments section shows the proposed Bayfield Parkway structures over the Los Pinos River and the Overflow Channel. Two alternatives had been proposed prior to the preparation of AMEC s involvement. These alternatives involved utilizing either multiple prefabricated or precast arch panels to span the waterways, or constructing prefabricated truss structures. Neither of these options are considered in this report. The arch panel structures are not being included because of the difficulty involved in working within the waterways. For the prefabricated truss option, the cost of steel and transportation to the site makes this structure cost prohibitive. STRUCTURE DATA AND DESGN CRTERA The following structural data and design criteria are applicable to these structures: Overall Bridge Width 41-6 Roadway Width 33 - clear (two thru lanes, shoulders) Shoulder Width 4 - outside shoulder on north side; south 5 - to provide a curb and gutter section off of the bridge. Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified on South Side for Pedestrians) Deck CP Concrete w/3 asphalt wearing surface and waterproofing membrane Sidewalks 5-6 on south side of bridge (includes 6 inch curb) Design Live Load HL-93 and Colorado Permit Vehicle Design Dead Load ncludes 5 PSF for permanent deck forms (where applicable) with no allowance for additional wearing surface Design Methodology Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Specifications AASHTO LRFD, 7 th Edition; CDOT Bridge Design Manual Utilities Hydraulics Pedestrian Path Requirements Freeboard Conduits in bridge rail curbs (each side); gas line; sewer line; future water line Zone A floodplain 8-6 minimum vertical clearance; 1 - width Bridge low chord: 5-foot over 1-year water surface elevation for recreational users in the river, 8-6 clearance for the pedestrian path at the eastern abutment, and 1.96 freeboard over the 1-year water surface elevation. 2

5 FOUNDATON ALTERNATVES A geotechnical investigation was done during April of 214 for the Bayfield Parkway bridge replacement project. One boring at each of the bridge s abutments was investigated. The results show that the subsurface material consists of soil and rock with very dense alluvial deposits above bedrock. The underlying bedrock is Animas Formation. This includes layers of claystone, shale and sandstone materials. Bedrock was found anywhere between 18 to 28 feet below the roadway surface. Groundwater was located at approximately the river elevation at all sites. The preliminary design report recommends using piles or caissons for the deep foundations. Pile foundations are preferred at the abutment locations to allow for integral abutments. ntegral abutments will allow the design team to eliminate expansion joints on the project, which reduces future maintenance requirements. Caissons will be used at the Los Pinos River Bridge s center pier. Caissons are easier to install in a sensitive location such as in and around the river. A pile foundation would require a pile cap, which is expensive and increases the work zones needed within the river. Both bridge sites are subject to scour, which eliminates shallow foundations such as spread footings. Predrilling is recommended for pile sections so they can penetrate the weathered bedrock layer. A temporary casing is recommended to assist predrilling through areas with groundwater and cobble/gravel material. For the purpose of this report and the associated cost estimates, HP 12x74 piles are used. The geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system (GRS-BS) was evaluated as a foundation alternative for this project. The Los Pinos River and Channel Overflow Bridges do not fit within the FHWA span criterion, making it not a candidate for GRS-BS. n addition, based on geotechnical and hydraulic limitations listed in the GRS-BS nterim mplementation Guide, the use of GRS-BS at this site is not recommended. Bedrock is fairly deep at both abutment locations, resulting in a potential for scour. Mitigating the scour potential requires constructing walls at or below the maximum scour depth, which requires construction below the water table. Building these abutments under the water table on the banks of a river is difficult and costly. Therefore, GRS-BS is not recommended at this location. 3

6 STRUCTURE LAYOUT - LOS PNOS RVER BRDGE There are several possible configurations for the Los Pinos River Bridge. Due to the large width of the Los Pinos River channel at Bayfield Parkway, a single span structure would require a deep superstructure. Since a pedestrian path is going to be placed at the eastern abutment, minimizing the superstructure depth is an important span criteria. Based on preliminary design calculations, there are no feasible single span options that can satisfy the geometry for the pedestrian path. Therefore, a single span structure will not be considered further. A three span bridge offers the shallowest superstructure options for this site. However, the pier locations would be in the Los Pinos River channel and the irrigation ditch, which increases environmental impacts making the construction difficult. A two span option allows the center pier to be placed near an island in the middle of the channel. While temporary river impacts are still expected, they will be greatly minimized with this configuration. The following are the two-span layouts being considered: LAYOUT SPAN CONFGURATON COMMENTS 2:1 Spill Slopes, 1-1 foot Spans Minimal environmental impacts or A modifications to the river Span provides a larger hydraulic opening than the existing bridge Minimizes dewatering requirements Requires a greater superstructure depth than layout B ntegral stub abutments are simple to construct Full Height Abut. Wall, foot This provides a similar hydraulic B Spans opening to the existing structure Full height abutment walls are expensive and timely to construct Large amounts of dewatering required Reduces superstructure depth Will require the use of expansion joints at the abutments 4

7 STRUCTURE LAYOUT - LOS PNOS OVERFLOW CHANNEL BRDGE The Pinos Overflow Bridge does not see a constant flow like the river site. t does contain marsh areas and wetlands. During preliminary engineering, AMEC tried to reduce this bridge s span as much as possible. The original intent was to provide a series of box culverts. Based on hydraulic design with the FEMA no-rise criteria, this is not possible. Numerous adjacent properties to the bridge site see a raise to the 5-year floodplain. Therefore, a bridge is warranted at this location. AMEC iterated hydraulic openings to minimize the spans required and save project costs. Only options C and D are feasible at this location. Since there are no clearance restrictions, a two or three span structure is not economically viable at this location. LAYOUT SPAN CONFGURATON COMMENTS 2:1 Spill Slopes, 13 foot Span Minimal impacts or modifications C to the marsh and wetlands Span provides an adequate opening to satisfy FEMA requirements ntegral stub abutments are simple to construct Requires a greater superstructure depth than layout D D Full Height Abutment Wall, 92 foot Span Requires work in the marsh to install footings and deep foundations, dewatering possible Full height abutments are expensive and difficult to construct The superstructure depth can be shallower than layout C Will require the use of expansion joints at the abutments E Concrete Box Culvert (CBC) A box is simple to construct Saves design costs if the CDOT standard designs are used Hydraulically, this option is not feasible due to impacts to the FEMA floodplain, even with a multi-cell option 5

8 CRTERA FOR EVALUATNG STRUCTURE TYPES Key considerations for the project include: providing economical structures within the project budget, minimizing the need for temporary easements, minimizing environmental impacts, providing pedestrian access on both structures, a pedestrian underpass on the river bridge, and allow for current and future utilities to be placed on both bridges. Other criteria include maintenance, aesthetics, and a construction detour. Construction Cost Construction cost for the bridge structures is an important consideration in the structure selection process. For comparison purposes, detailed cost estimates were prepared for the major items of each structure type. These costs do not encompass the total project cost and should be used for comparison purposes only. Quantity costs were derived from recent CDOT Cost Data Books on projects of similar size and location and adjusted for market trends. Environmental The project site has numerous wetlands near the river and overflow bridges. There are also some threatened and endangered species in the area. These include the Southwest Willow Flycatchers, Yellow Billed Cuckoos, and the New Mexico Jumping Mouse. The project team will consider these impacts as the project progresses. Schedule The construction schedule for this project is anticipated for approximately one year. The contractor will close Bayfield Parkway and construct the bridges, one at a time to maintain property access. Due to the migratory bird treaty, clearing and grubbing operations need to occur prior to spring restrictions. A temporary easement will likely be required during construction. Utilities The bridge structures currently carry multiple utilities including gas, sewer and telephone lines. The proposed bridge rails on the new structures will carry 2-2 inch diameter conduits for future fiber optic or telephone lines (4 total for each bridge) and utility space for a new gas and sewer line. The gas and sewer lines will be mounted on the exterior girder for box superstructures or on the overhang for bulb tees. The town requested that the gas and sewer lines run on the south side of the bridges. Maintenance All options investigated are considered to be low maintenance structures. Full height abutment options will require an expansion joint at abutment locations. These joints require ongoing maintenance and replacement every 5 to 15 years. This difference in maintenance activities will be weighted into the final selection criteria. Aesthetics Aesthetic considerations do not play a large role in the structure selection for this bridge. All of the options are roughly equivalent in regards to aesthetics. t is anticipated that architectural enhancements to the bridge will be very basic and will not have an impact on the selection of the preferred structure. 6

9 Constructability and Construction Phasing Since both of the existing bridges have truss superstructures, phased construction by removing half of each bridge while reconstructing the new bridge in halves is not feasible. With right-of-way tight throughout the corridor, building the new bridge on a different alignment is not possible. Therefore, the project team decided to close Bayfield Parkway during the construction. However, in order to maintain continuous access to a private property in between both bridges the phasing will include the construction of one bridge at a time. This will elongate the construction time frame compared with closing the road and building the bridges simultaneously. 7

10 STRUCTURE TYPE ALTERNATVES - LOS PNOS RVER BRDGE Four alternatives were evaluated for the bridge over the Los Pinos River. All options are two span structures. A steel girder with stub abutments option was not considered due to the increased cost and structure depth associated with steel girders over prestressed options. Typical sections and detailed cost estimates for these options are provided in the Attachments section: Structure Type Options Option 1, Layout A: Adjacent Prestressed Box Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments $1,65, The prestressed adjacent box girder option utilizes a 5 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced side-by-side with a clear overhang of 9. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 3-11 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). 2:1 spill slopes covered in riprap are placed in front of the integral stub abutments. Option 2, Layout A: Prestressed Concrete (BT 54) Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments $1,37, The prestressed concrete BT 54 girder option utilizes an 8 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced at 8-7 ½ with an overhang of 3-6. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 5-8 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). 2:1 spill slopes covered in riprap are placed in front of the integral stub abutments. Since this option has a greater superstructure depth compared with the adjacent box option, it requires an additional roadway raise. This cost is not reflected in the above number. Option 3, Layout B: Adjacent Prestressed Box Girders with Full Height Abutments $1,73, The prestressed adjacent box girder option utilizes a 5 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced side-by-side with a clear overhang of 9. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 3-5 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). The girders will be supported on non-integral full height abutments. Option 4, Layout B: Prestressed Concrete (BT42) Girders with Full Height Abutments $1,63, The prestressed concrete BT 42 girder option utilizes an 8 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced at 8-7 ½ with an overhang of 3-6. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 4-8 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). The girders will be supported on non-integral full height abutments. Since this option has a greater superstructure depth compared with the adjacent box option, it requires an additional roadway raise. This cost is not reflected in the above number. 8

11 STRUCTURE TYPE ALTERNATVES - LOS PNOS OVERFLOW CHANNEL BRDGE Four alternatives were evaluated for the bridge at the overflow channel. All options are single span structures. A steel girder with stub abutments option was not considered due to the increased cost and structure depth associated with steel girders over prestressed options. Typical sections and detailed cost estimates for these options are provided in the Attachments section: Structure Type Options Option 5, Layout C: Spread Prestressed Box Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments $1,14, The prestressed spread box girder option utilizes a 5 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced at 8-4 ½ with a clear overhang of 1-6. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 6-2 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). 2:1 spill slopes covered in riprap are placed in front of the integral stub abutments. Option 6, Layout C: Prestressed Concrete (BT 72) Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments $1,4, The prestressed concrete BT 72 girder option utilizes an 8 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced at 8-7 ½ with an overhang of 3-6. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 7-2 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). The girders will be supported on non-integral full height abutments. Option 7, Layout D: Spread Prestressed Box Girders with Full Height Abutments $1,28, The prestressed spread box girder option utilizes a 5 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced at 8-4 ½ with a clear overhang of 1-6. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 5-2 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). The girders will be supported on non-integral full height abutments. Option 8, Layout D: Prestressed Concrete (BT 54) Girders with Full Height Abutments $1,23, The prestressed concrete BT 54 girder option utilizes an 8 inch composite concrete deck. The girders are spaced at 8-7 ½ with an overhang of 3-6. The bridge has a superstructure depth of 5-8 (measured to the top of the HMA wearing surface). The girders will be supported on non-integral full height abutments. 9

12 STRUCTURE EVALUATON AND RECOMMENDATON This selection procedure is intended to identify a structure that best encompasses the established project criteria listed in this report. For the Los Pinos River bridge, the adjacent prestressed box configuration detailed in Option 1 provides the most economical solution while satisfying all of the project criteria and goals. The primary advantage of utilizing an adjacent box girder superstructure is that it provides the necessary clearance needed for the pedestrian path at the east abutment. The bulb tee option cannot satisfy this constraint without raising the road s profile. Any further raise requires permanent easement for approach grading. For the Los Pinos Overflow Channel crossing, the prestressed (BT 72) girder configuration detailed in Option 6 provides the best solution. This configuration will produce the most economical and efficient structure. The above options also have the advantages of maximizing the hydraulic openings and provide integral abutments which eliminate expansion joints and reduce long term maintenance costs. At the Los Pinos River crossing, the design team recommends proceeding to final design with a 2-foot, two span adjacent prestressed box beam girder bridge with integral stub abutments on driven H-piles and a pier founded on caissons. *At the Los Pinos Overflow Channel crossing, the design team recommends proceeding to final design with a 13-foot, single span prestressed (BT 72) girder bridge with integral stub abutments on driven H-piles. *Amec Foster Wheeler was instructed to use a reduced bridge length of 15. This allowed the use of BT 54 girders as opposed to BT 72 girders. 1

13 ATTACHMENTS (Location Figure) (Cost Estimates) (Proposed General Layout) (Typical Sections) 11

14 Vicinity Map N Overflow Structure Location River Structure Location

15 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 1, Layout A: Adjacent Prestressed Box Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) TF JWJ/BAC TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 77 $ 2. $ 15, Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 24 $ 35. $ 7, Embankment Material (Complete n Place) CY 5 $ 25. $ 1, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 14 $ 11. $ 15, Pile Tip EACH 14 $ 15. $ 2, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 378 $ 75. $ 28, Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 329 $ 9. $ 29, Drilled Caisson (42 nch) LF 5 $ 35. $ 17,5 56- Riprap CY 46 $ 8. $ 32, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 884 $ 25. $ 22, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 42 $ 65. $ 273, 62-2 Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB 565 $ 1.5 $ 84, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 482 $ 2. $ 96, Prestressed Concrete Box (Depth 32" Through 48") SF 833 $ 7. $ 562,31 a) $ 1,287,79 b) Contingency 2% of a) $ 257,558 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 13,23 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,648,371 Main - Opt 1 Page 1 of 1

16 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 2, Layout A: Prestressed Concrete (BT 54) Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) TF JWJ/BAC TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 1 $ 2. $ 2, 26-1 Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 345 $ 35. $ 12, Embankment Material (Complete n Place) CY 5 $ 25. $ 1, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 14 $ 11. $ 15, Pile Tip EACH 14 $ 15. $ 2, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 35 $ 75. $ 26, Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 31 $ 9. $ 27, Drilled Caisson (42 nch) LF 5 $ 35. $ 17,5 56- Riprap CY 46 $ 8. $ 32, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 884 $ 25. $ 22, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 535 $ 65. $ 347, Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB 735 $ 1.5 $ 11, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 482 $ 2. $ 96, Prestressed Concrete (BT54) LF 14 $ 24. $ 24,96 a) $ 1,71,65 b) Contingency 2% of a) $ 214,321 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 85,728 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,371,654 Main - Opt 2 Page 1 of 1

17 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 3, Layout B: Adjacent Prestressed Box Girders with Full Height Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) TF EHP TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 246 $ 2. $ 49, Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 31 $ 35. $ 18, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 114 $ 11. $ 12, Pile Tip EACH 32 $ 15. $ 4, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 48 $ 75. $ 36, 52-1 Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 312 $ 9. $ 28, Drilled Caisson (42 nch) LF 49 $ 35. $ 17, Riprap CY 1 $ 8. $ 8, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 7 $ 25. $ 17, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 645 $ 65. $ 419, Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB 1616 $ 1.5 $ 15, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 394 $ 2. $ 78, Prestressed Concrete Box (Depth Less Than 32 nches) SF 6273 $ 6. $ 376,38 a) $ 1,47,124 b) Contingency 15% of a) $ 211,69 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 112,57 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,73,763 Main - Opt 3 Page 1 of 1

18 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 4, Layout B: Prestressed Concrete (BT 42) Girders with Full Height Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) TF EHP TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 246 $ 2. $ 49, Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 31 $ 35. $ 18, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 114 $ 11. $ 12, Pile Tip EACH 32 $ 15. $ 4, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 48 $ 75. $ 36, 52-1 Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 32 $ 9. $ 28, Drilled Caisson (42 nch) LF 49 $ 35. $ 17, Riprap CY 1 $ 8. $ 8, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 7 $ 25. $ 17, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 712 $ 65. $ 462, Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB $ 1.5 $ 177, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 394 $ 2. $ 78, Prestressed Concrete (BT42) LF 785 $ 22. $ 172,7 a) $ 1,274,98 b) Contingency 2% of a) $ 254,82 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 11,928 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,63,845 Main - Opt 4 Page 1 of 1

19 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Overflow Channel Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 5, Layout C: Spread Prestressed Box Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) BAC TF TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 5 $ 2. $ 1, 26-1 Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 518 $ 35. $ 18, Embankment Material (Complete n Place) CY 2114 $ 25. $ 52, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 98 $ 11. $ 1, Pile Tip EACH 14 $ 15. $ 2, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 257 $ 75. $ 19, Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 187 $ 9. $ 16, Riprap CY 344 $ 8. $ 27, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 624 $ 25. $ 15, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 339 $ 65. $ 22, Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB 43 $ 1.5 $ 64, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 34 $ 2. $ 68, Prestressed Concrete Box (Depth Greater Than 48 nches) SF 328 $ 85. $ 272,68 a) $ 889,615 b) Contingency 2% of a) $ 177,923 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 71,169 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,138,77 Overflow - Opt 5 Page 1 of 1

20 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Overflow Channel Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 6, Layout C: Prestressed Concrete (BT 72) Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) BAC TF TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 5 $ 2. $ 1, 26-1 Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 64 $ 35. $ 21, Embankment Material (Complete n Place) CY 2114 $ 25. $ 52, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 98 $ 11. $ 1, Pile Tip EACH 14 $ 15. $ 2, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 243 $ 75. $ 18, Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 173 $ 9. $ 15, Riprap CY 344 $ 8. $ 27, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 624 $ 25. $ 15, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 35 $ 65. $ 227, Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB 46 $ 1.5 $ 69, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 34 $ 2. $ 68, Prestressed Concrete (BT72) LF 642 $ 28. $ 179,76 a) $ 89,45 b) Contingency 2% of a) $ 161,89 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 64,724 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,35,578 Overflow - Opt 6 Page 1 of 1

21 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Overflow Channel Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 7, Layout D: Spread Prestressed Box Girders with Full Height Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) TF BAC TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 311 $ 2. $ 6, Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 276 $ 35. $ 96, Embankment Material (Complete n Place) CY 888 $ 25. $ 22, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 79 $ 11. $ 8, Pile Tip EACH 32 $ 15. $ 4, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 432 $ 75. $ 32, Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 272 $ 9. $ 24, Riprap CY 228 $ 8. $ 18, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 488 $ 25. $ 12, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 518 $ 65. $ 336, Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB 86 $ 1.5 $ 129, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 266 $ 2. $ 53, Prestressed Concrete Box (Depth Greater Than 48 nches) SF 1857 $ 85. $ 157,845 a) $ 1,2,575 b) Contingency 2% of a) $ 2,515 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 8,26 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,283,296 Overflow - Opt 7 Page 1 of 1

22 7/2/214 Bridge over Los Pinos River Overflow Channel Cost Estimate Bayfield Parkway Bridges CREATED BY: 144 CHECKED BY: Option 8, Layout D: Prestressed Concrete (BT 54) Girders with Full Height Abutments Structure Selection Report (Field nspection Review) TF BAC TEM NO. DESCRPTON UNT QUANTTY UNT PRCE COST 22-1 Removal of Structure EACH 1 $ 1,. $ 1, 26- Structure Excavation CY 311 $ 2. $ 6, Structure Backfill (Class 1) CY 276 $ 35. $ 96, Embankment Material (Complete n Place) CY 888 $ 25. $ 22, Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (75) TON 79 $ 11. $ 8, Pile Tip EACH 32 $ 15. $ 4, Steel Piling (HP 12x74) LF 432 $ 75. $ 32, Drilling Hole to Facilitate Pile Driving LF 272 $ 9. $ 24, Riprap CY 228 $ 8. $ 18, Waterproofing (Membrane) SY 488 $ 25. $ 12, Concrete Class D (Bridge) CY 52 $ 65. $ 338, 62-2 Reinforcing Steel (Epoxy Coated) LB 865 $ 1.5 $ 129, Bridge Rail Type 1M (Modified) LF 266 $ 2. $ 53, Prestressed Concrete (BT54) LF 465 $ 24. $ 111,6 a) $ 958,38 b) Contingency 2% of a) $ 191,676 c) Mobilization 8% of a) $ 76,67 TOTAL a)+b)+c) $ 1,226,726 Overflow - Opt 8 Page 1 of 1

23 Los Pinos River High Pressure Gas Line 22'-6" BF Abut. to BF Abut. (To be relocated) To Durango Existing Fence SA '-7" 42'-6" Proposed 24'-6" 18'-" Wingwall (Typ) Existing Structure P-6-H (To be removed) 1'-" Type 1M Bridge Rail (Typ) 38+ 4'-" 12'-" 12'-" 4'-" Shldr Lane Lane Shldr 5'-" Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Proposed Structure 1'-" SA 688 To Pagosa Springs Telephone Line (To be relocated) Approach Slab (Typ) Sewer Line (To be relocated) 31+ Water Line Ò Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 688 Edge of Gravel Road PLAN ' 15' 3' 6' carl.fisher 2:35:2 PM P:\Project\Transportation\Town of Bayfield\9. CADD\9.1 Bridge\Drawings\144-GLA_River.dgn Print Date:7/2/214 File Name: 144-GLA_River.dgn Horiz. Scale:1:3 Unit nformation Vert. Scale: As Noted Unit Leader nitials:rdb AMEC Colorado Center Tower 2 2 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 2-1 Denver, Co 8222 Phone: ntegral Stub Abutment (Typ) Steel H-Piles (Typ) F Proposed Grade 1'-" 22'-6" BF Abut. to BF Abut R-X Date: SECTON.18% 1'-" Ò Abutment 1 Ò Pier 2 Ò Abutment 3 2:1 Sheet Revisions Comments nit. Prestressed Concrete Box Girder F Caissons (Taken at Ò Bayfield Pkwy.) 8'-6" Min. 2:1 1'-" No Revisions: Revised: Void: F Proposed Pedestrian Path Construction Designer: Detailer: Approach Slab (Typ) Sheet Subset: Existing Grade B. Chamberlin C. Fisher Bridge Proposed Grade GENERAL LAYOUT LOS PNOS RVER BRDGE Structure Numbers Subset Sheets: B1 of B ' 15' 3' PRELMNARY PLANS SSR Sheet Number 3' 15' ' Project No./Code 144

24 Ò Bayfield Pkwy.HCL & PGL 4 Out to out Ò Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 4 Out to out 33'-" Clear Roadway 33'-" Clear Roadway Curb and Curb and Gutter 4'-" 12'-" 12'-" 4'-" 5'-" Shdr Lane Lane Shdr Sidewalk 3" HMA over waterproofing membrane Type 1M Barrier (Typ) 4'-" Shdr 12'-" Lane 3" HMA over waterproofing membrane 12'-" Lane 4'-" Shdr Gutter 5'-" Sidewalk Type 1M Barrier (Typ) 3'-11" Prestressed Concrete Box Girder (Typ) 3'-5" Prestressed Concrete Box Girder (Typ) 3'-3" 7 5'-" = 35'-" 3'-3" 3'-3" 7 5'-" = 35'-" 3'-3" TYPCAL SECTON TYPCAL SECTON Option 1, Layout A: Adjacent Prestressed Box Option 3, Layout B: Adjacent Prestressed Box Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments Girders with Full Height Abutments carl.fisher 2:52:5 PM P:\Project\Transportation\Town of Bayfield\9. CADD\9.1 Bridge\Drawings\144-Typical Section_River.dgn Print Date:7/2/214 File Name: 144-Typical Section_River.dgn Horiz. Scale:1:1 Vert. Scale: As Noted Unit nformation Unit Leader nitials:rdb AMEC Colorado Center Tower 2 2 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 2-1 Denver, Co 8222 Phone: Ò Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 4 Out to out 33'-" Clear Roadway Curb and Gutter 4'-" 12'-" 12'-" 4'-" 5'-" Shdr Lane Lane Shdr Sidewalk 3" HMA over waterproofing membrane 5'-8" 8" Deck Prestressed Concrete Girder BT54 (Typ) 3'-6" 4 8'-7 " = 34'-6" 3'-6" TYPCAL SECTON Option 2, Layout A: Prestressed Concrete (BT54) Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments Sheet Revisions Date: Comments nit. R-X Type 1M Barrier (Typ) 3'-6" 4'-" No Revisions: Revised: Void: 12'-" Construction 4 Out to out 4'-8" 12'-" 8" Deck 4 8'-7 " = 34'-6" Designer: Detailer: Sheet Subset: B. Chamberlin C. Fisher Bridge 4'-" 5'-" Shdr Lane Lane Shdr Sidewalk 3" HMA over waterproofing membrane Ò Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 33'-" Clear Roadway Prestressed Concrete Girder BT42 (Typ) TYPCAL SECTON Option 4, Layout B: Prestressed Concrete (BT42) Girders with Full Height Abutments TYPCAL SECTONS 3'-6" LOS PNOS RVER BRDGE Structure Numbers Curb and Gutter Subset Sheets: B2 of B4 Type 1M Barrier (Typ) PRELMNARY PLANS SSR Project No./Code 144 Sheet Number

25 Los Pinos River Overflow Channel 688 Existing Fence Existing Water Line 689 To Durango '-7" 42'-6" 24'-6" 18'-" '-" BF Abut. to BF Abut. 12'-" 12'-" 4'-" Lane Lane Shldr Proposed Structure Existing High Pressure Gas Line (To be relocated) Approach Slab (Typ) Ò Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 35+ To Pagosa Springs 6885 Sewer Line (To be relocated) Sign (Typ) SA Type 1M Bridge Rail (Typ) 4'-" Shldr 5'-" Sidewalk Curb and Gutter 688 Wingwall (Typ) 688 Telephone Line (To be relocated) SA 688 Existing Fence Existing Structure P-6-G (To be removed) PLAN carl.fisher 2:33:58 PM P:\Project\Transportation\Town of Bayfield\9. CADD\9.1 Bridge\Drawings\144-GLA_Overflow.dgn Print Date:7/2/214 File Name: 144-GLA_Overflow.dgn Horiz. Scale:1:3 Unit nformation Vert. Scale: As Noted Unit Leader nitials:rdb AMEC Colorado Center Tower 2 2 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 2-1 Denver, Co 8222 Phone: ntegral Stub Abutment (Typ) Steel H-Piles (Typ) F ' 15' 3' 6' 13'-" BF Abut. to BF Abut. Ò Abutment 1 Ò Abutment 2 Proposed Grade 1.6% BT72 Girders R-X Date: Sheet Revisions Comments nit. SECTON (Taken at Ò Bayfield Pkwy.) 2:1(Typ) F Approach Slab (Typ) No Revisions: Revised: Void: Construction Existing Grade Proposed Grade Designer: Detailer: Sheet Subset: GENERAL LAYOUT LOS PNOS OVERFLOW CHANNEL BRDGE B. Chamberlin C. Fisher Bridge Structure Numbers Subset Sheets: B3 of B ' 15' 3' PRELMNARY PLANS SSR Sheet Number 3' 15' ' Project No./Code 144

26 ~ ~ 4'-" Shdr ~ Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 4 Out to aut " Clear Roadway ' 12'-" 12'-" 4'-" Lane Lane Shdr 3" HMA aver ~waterproofing membrane N to ' ~Prestressed Concrete Box Girder (T yp) Curb and Gutter 5'-" Sidewalk ~ Type 1M Barrier <Typl 4'-" Shdr ~ 4'-" ~ Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 4 Out to out " Clear Roadway ' 12'-" 12'-" 4'-" Lane Lane Shdr 3" HMA over ~ ~aterproofing membrane ' ' N Ln \ Prestressed Concrete Box Girder (Typ) ,/2" = " Curb and Gutter 5'-" Sidewalk ~ 4'-" Type 1M Barrier <Typ) 4'-" ,/;~" = " 4'-" TYPCAL SECTON Option 5, Layout C: Spread Prestred Box Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments TYPCAL SECTON Option 7, Layout : Spread Prestressed Box Girders with Full Height Abutments ij > c t ll " u ~ :;: g i ~ / i ~ D "' / 5i u "' / " o; ~ D c 1- / c ~ 4'-" Shdr ~ -, " ~ Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 4 Out to out " Clear Roadway ' 12'-" ' 12'-" 4'-" Lane Lane Shdr 3" HMA over f waterproofing ' membrane ~ N ~ r... ""' u Prestressed Concrete Girder BT72 (Typ) ,/2" = " Ql.,... Curb and Gutter 5'-" Sidewalk ~ " Type 1M Barrier <Typl 4'-" Shdr! 3 1-6" 12'-" Lane ~ Bayfield Pkwy. HCL & PGL 4 Out to out " Clear Roadway 3" HMA over /waterproofing ' / membrane 12'-" Lane ""' u Ql Girder BT54 (Typ) ,/2" = " f;l- ~ TYPCAL SECTON TYPCAL SECTON ~ Option 6, Layout C: Prestressed Option 8, Layout : Prestressed PRELMNARY PLANS " ~ Concrete (BT72) Girders with ntegral Stub Abutments Concrete (BT54) Girders with Full Height Abutments SSR ~~P~r=in=t=oa=t=e:~7=/2~/~2=1=4==================:r---~------~S~h-e-e~t-R~e~vi~s~io_n_s------~ ~--C-o_n_s_t_r_u_c_ti_o_n--~ T~Y~P~C~AL~~S~E~C~T~~D~N~S~----~~P-r_o_j_e_c_t_N_o_._/_C_o_d_e~ ~ F~e Name: 144-TypicaiSeclion-Overflow.dgn Date: Comments!nit. ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L~O~S~~P~~N~O~S~~O~~~E~R~F~L~O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Horiz. Scale: 1:1 Vert. Scale: As Noted ~ ost office sox 2683 No Revisions: CHANNEL BRDGE ~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-i ~ ~~~~r-~~~~~~~~~~-i -i Unit nformation Unit Leader nitials:rdb c:::::> i :~:-A:,:~~ 5 c 3 o; '-" Shdr Curb and Gutter 5'-" Sidewalk 3 1-6" Type 1M Barrier <Typl Revised: Designer: B. Chamberlin Structure ~~------i 1kljljklkjl De c. Fisher Numbers :!! 2 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 2-1 '----' - FAx t i g Denver Co 8222 Phone: c:::::> Void: Sheet Subset: Bridge Subset Sheets: B4 of B4 Sheet Number