Development of Alternatives. The Consultant shall identify and evaluate potential design alternatives that would meet the City’s defined project objectives for both short-term design solutions (to improve the existing drainage conditions) and long-term design solutions (that would further improve drainage conditions if necessary and provide for pedestrian and bicycle accommodations). These evaluations are not to be carried beyond the point of establishing the feasibility of each concept as a design alternative; only those significant environmental and geometric and/or hydrologic design constraints that bear on the feasibility should be identified. Short-term solutions may include, but are not limited to, converting the open channel system to a closed conduit system, ditch grading revisions, cross culvert diversions at select locations, etc. The need for guide rail shall be evaluated. The Consultant will perform hydrologic and hydraulic analysis on the storm sewer network for each design alternative. The Consultant shall prepare the necessary drawings for each design alternative analyzed. Drawings may include colored concept plan(s) with applicable callouts, typical sections and roadway and/or ditch profiles. The Consultant shall determine impacts to existing features (e.g. trees, roof drains, grading, driveways, etc.) associated with the proposed alternatives. The Consultant will prepare and submit a matrix identifying all pros and cons for all design alternative concepts for the City’s review. The Consultant will meet with the City to discuss the concepts, using the drawings as discussion aids to describe the relative order-of-magnitude costs and pros and cons of each.
Development of Alternatives. A Develop Conceptual Alt's. 4 8 8 20 $683.51 3.02.A.1 Highway Elements (plan, profile) 1 4 8 13 $384.05 3.02.B Non-Standard Features 1 2 3 $122.47 3.02.C Feasible Alternatives 1 2 3 $122.47 3.02.D Required Vertical Clearance of Under-Roadway (GradeSep) 3.02.E Bridge Deck Drainage Analysis 3.02.F Determine Take Lines 3.02.G Utility Relocations 8 8 $271.76 3.03.A Utility Costs 3.03.B Project Cost Estimates 1 16 17 $598.04 3.04.A Draft Design Report 4 40 8 52 $1,770.53 3.04.C DDAD - Reproduction 3.05 Agency Reviews (address comments) 1 12 13 $462.16 3.06A Public Info Meeting 8 16 8 32 $1,173.38 3.06B Meetings with Stakeholders 8 8 $436.23 3.07.A Structure Study Package 3.07.A.4 Bridge Site Data Sheets 3.07.A.5 Structure Study Plan 3.07.A.6 Structure Justification Rpt. 1 4 5 190.4058 3.07.E Foundation Design Criteria (Review) 1 1 $54.53 3.07.F Hydraulic Justification Report 3.07.G Final Design Approval Document 2 8 10 $380.81 3.07.H FDAD - Reproduction 3.07.I Design Approval - Funding 1 1 $54.53 Obligated Totals 35 124 32 191 $6,895.25 Xxxxx Street Culvert over Eagles Nest Creek
Development of Alternatives. A. Selection of Design Alternatives 0 Evaluate Design Alternatives - 14 Segments 8 14 28 28 78 B. Detailed Evaluations of Alternatives 0 Geometry 4 28 28 60 Maintenance Responsibility 4 4 MPT 4 4 8 Utilities 14 14 28 Conceptual landscape 0 Plans (1:250) Develop record centerline (curve and tangent information) 7 14 21 Develop sections and plan 14 28 42 Identify drainage systems 0 Prepare base drawings - datum, elev., exist. Ground 14 28 42 Typical Sections Prepare drawings - lane & shoulder widths, ditches, gutters, curbs, sideslopes 14 28 42
Development of Alternatives. A. Selection of Design Alternatives Evaluate Design Alternatives 0.0 Rudimentary plan 2.0 20.0 20.0 42.0 Rudimentary profile 1.0 8.0 8.0 17.0 Rudimentary sections 0.0 Meeting with Municipality to discuss concepts & select alternatives for further study includied in 1.06 0.0 59.0
Development of Alternatives. Assumes preliminary estimate for one (1) alternative and that the null alternative does not meet the project objectives
Development of Alternatives. Development of Alternatives was assumed in prior agreements to occur on the existing alignment and within the existing right-of-way. Current alternative shifted the Croton Point Avenue alignment to the south and requires right-of-way for which the Supplemental (No.1) did not include scope and budget for advancing through detailed design. In addition, evaluation of potential feasible overlay options to S. Riverside Avenue without impacting ROW was explored. Alternative initially to be progressed consisted of a 3-lane section with ground mounted signs for Veteran’s Plaza, a 4-lane section for Croton Point Avenue between Veteran’s Plaza and the US Route 9 southbound ramps with sidewalks only, 4-lane section with shared bike/pedestrian path on Croton Point Avenue from southbound ramps to S. Riverside Avenue, widen the SB US Route 9 exit ramp but maintain a single lane exit and narrow the US Route 9 northbound on ramp into the signal. XXX provided 4 design plan changes to arrive at the current proposed alternative as follows: Short segment of Veterans Plaza to be widened to 4-lane section with overhead signals for time of day lane designations and 8’ shared use path 4-lane section on Croton Point Avenue with 5’ bike lanes and 4’ wide sidewalk between Veterans Plaza and US Route 9 southbound ramps 4-lane section on Croton Point Avenue with 5’ bike lanes and 5’ wide sidewalk between southbound ramps and S. Riverside Avenue US Route 9 southbound exit ramp to be widened to consist of a two-lane section for turn lane with new 16’ wide pavement section Narrow the US Route 9 northbound on ramp into the signal
Development of Alternatives. Once the basic project purpose has been agreed upon according to the Purpose and Need Guidance, all reasonable alternatives that meet the basic purpose should be identified, and objectively compared. Any reasonable actions or alignments that avoid adverse impacts to Waters of the U. S./Waters of the State and associated sensitive species (see definitions) should be rigorously examined. If it is not possible to entirely avoid rivers, streams, and other Waters of the U. S./Waters of the State, crossings should be located to minimize impacts to aquatic resources. This could include actions such as shifting the alignment to reduce the footprint of the transportation facility on the aquatic resource.
Development of Alternatives. Restoration concepts will be defined based upon the overall goals and objectives for res- toration, flood management, and public access. Alternatives will include phasing options, with and without use of dredge materials, and different long-term habitat mixes of man- aged ponds and tidal xxxxx. Predictive modeling will be conducted and used to assist in designing an effective resto- ration strategy, evaluate the evolving site conditions over time, analyze the impacts of the alternatives, and ensure flood management capabilities. Engineering and Design, along with cost estimates of alternatives, will allow the project management team to determine the construction impacts of each alternative, compare the costs and benefits of the alternatives, and determine the feasibility of implementation.
Development of Alternatives. The Consultant generated 15 different alternatives and numerous construction cost estimates for the alignment of the trail to limit impact to property owners and reduce construction costs.
Development of Alternatives. The Contractor shall develop and evaluate potential transit service network and route restructuring alternatives based on: • Task 1 vision, goals and policy framework • Task 2 benchmarking and best practices peer analysis • Task 3 market assessment • Task 4 service evaluation • Task 5 operations review Task 7 shall be undertaken in concurrence with Task 6. While the Contractor, under Task 6, is charged with identifying candidates for early action, under Task 7, it shall identify positive changes in the network, service tiers, routings, schedules, and operation that will better meet existing and potential customer needs and desires within sustainable funding levels. The Contractor shall develop several alternatives for the City’s evaluation. Typically the alternatives do not involve completely different networks and services, but have common elements. The Contractor shall coordinate the actual development of alternatives at brainstorming sessions held over 9-12 days (likely three rounds of 3 to 4-day working sessions). The first session shall involve just the Core Contractor’s Team, as defined below, followed by one or two rounds of sessions with participants from the core team and the Project Working Group (“PWG”). The Core Contractor’s Team shall include: • Xxxxxxxx, Muller, Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxxx (TMD) • Xxxxxx (CHS) • Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx (Xxxxxx\Xxxxxxx) During the roundtable sessions the vision, goals, and policy framework and the findings of the market assessment, service evaluation, and operational review shall be presented for the PWG. The entire set of working data will be available for reference and research by the PWG during and prior to the working sessions. Following the stakeholder comment period, the PWG will be reassembled for a 1-3 day working session to make any necessary refinements in the preferred service plan.
