Viable Alternatives. One viable alternative, deemed the preferred alternative, is proposed for the project. The preferred alternative is the 20-Year Flexible Rehabilitation Alternative, which proposes to implement a 20-year flexible rehabilitation pavement design. Two other alternatives that were described in the PSSR have been rejected: the 40- year flexible rehabilitation alternative and the No-Build Alternative. This section focuses on the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative consists of a 20-year flexible rehabilitation pavement design, as recommended by the District 4 Office of Engineering Services on February 7, 2019. The Materials Recommendation for the preferred alternative is provided as Attachment F. The evaluation of the existing pavement condition for this project was based on review of as-built plans, Caltrans Maintenance Program 2016 Pavement Condition Report (PaveM) and photos of the roadway facility. Based on the evaluation, District 4 Materials recommends the following: For the mainline, it proposes a complete removal of 0.35' asphalt concrete (AC) and 0.25' of asphalt treated permeable base (ATPB) and replace it with 0.20' rubberized hot mix asphalt - gap graded (RHMA-G) and 0.40' hot mix asphalt type A (HMA-A) with geosynthetic pavement interlayer (GPI) embedded in between the new asphalt. See Attachment C for typical sections and attachment D for Layout plans. The recommended rehabilitation will maintain the existing profile grade. For all asphalt paved mainline shoulders, ramps and at-grade portion of connectors, it proposes removal of existing 0.35' AC and replace with 0.20' RHMA-G and 0.15' HMA-A. See Attachment C for typical sections and attachment D for Layout plans. For at grade-portion of freeway connectors and travel lanes that consists of PCC pavement, it proposes to remove the damaged PCC pavement and replace with 1.25' rapid strength concrete (RSC) with a bond breaker embedded at the replaced base level. The recommended rehabilitation mentioned above will maintain the existing profile grade. In addition to the above District 4 Materials recommendation, the preferred alternative will include the following major items of work: Upgrade 28 existing curb ramps to the current ADA standard. Repair the existing localized uneven roadway profile by injecting expanded polyurethane materials to strengthen the foundation soils beneath the pavement structural sections and the Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) approach and departure slabs (see attachme...

Viable Alternatives. The project has two alternatives: One Build Alterative and the No-Build Alternative. This section focuses on the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative, the Programmable Project Alternative, will place 401 lights approximately 200 feet apart. See Attachment B for typical cross sections; see Attachment C for layouts. The project proposes to install light-emitting diode (LED) lighting to provide luminosity along the I-80 mainline within the project limits. Lighting Standard Type 32, a luminaire with one mast arm, will generally be placed near the outside shoulders. Lighting Standard Type 21D with double luminaire mast arm will be placed in the median where outside luminaire placement is not possible. The intervals between lighting will generally be about 200 feet. The project will install total of approximately 401 lights. Each light to be placed in the median will be supported by a 12-foot deep cast-in- drilled-hole (CIDH) pile in a Type 60G Barrier (Modified). The lights near the outside shoulder will have a foundation 8 feet in the ground, and the aboveground part will be breakaway. To provide wire connections to the proposed lighting, trenching will be done to depths of about 30 inches in the dirt areas, and jacking will be done more than 18 inches below the bottom of the pavement structural sections. As part of the project, the existing median concrete barriers will be removed and a new barrier will be installed from east of the overhead sign (Ala-80–PM R7.652) at the beginning of the project to CC-80–PM 10.0, just west of the I-80/SR 4 separation structure. The Type 60MG Concrete Barriers will be installed in the tangent sections to reduce glare from the opposite direction, and Type 60G (Modified) will provide support for the light poles. The Type 60M Concrete Barriers will be used for the curve sections due to horizontal sight distance requirements. On structure decks, Type 60A and Type 60GA are proposed to replace the existing concrete barriers. The existing slotted drains underneath the median concrete barrier may be damaged because of the barrier removal. New slotted drains may need to be installed to replace the ones that are damaged. The existing HOV signs will be replaced along with the barriers. Midwest guardrail system and other safety devices will be installed and upgraded at various locations. To install the lighting and upgrade the median barriers, traffic lanes in both directions will need to be shifted out from the mostly 6-foot wide me...

Viable Alternatives. The Build Alternative is the structure replacement alternative. The new bridge would be 1,275 feet in length and would be constructed immediately adjacent and parallel to the existing structure. The top deck elevation would be raised approximately 2 feet to accommodate a new profile and a deeper girder section required due to the 100 foot span and (the current span is 50 feet). The roadway approaches to the new structure would be reconstructed to conform to the existing highway approximately 1,000 feet south and north of the new south and north ends of the new bridge. The scope of work for this alternative generally includes constructing 2-12 feet lanes with 8 feet shoulders throughout the limits of the project. To provide pedestrian access, the project will construct an ADA compliant sidewalk on the west side of the roadway, from just north of 11th Street to the south end of the structure (approximately 850 feet of new sidewalk). A sidewalk would be constructed on the east side of the roadway from just north of 11th Street to 12th Street to fill in the gap that currently exists (approximately 205 feet of new sidewalk). Pedestrians would cross the structure via an 8 foot wide walkway separated from traffic by a concrete barrier. An 8 feet shoulder will provide pedestrian access from the north end of the structure to Xxxxxxxxxx Ave. Bicycles would have access via the 8 feet shoulder. On the east side of the bridge a concrete barrier with bicycle railing is proposed. To separate turning traffic from through traffic, a left turn lane from southbound SR 1 to eastbound 12th Street would be constructed (Traffic Operations concurs with the left turn lane). The 12th Street intersection would be modified to accommodate the new alignment and the left turn lane. There were no proposed changes or mitigating features in the project design resulting from the comments received from circulation of the environmental document.

Viable Alternatives. Alternative 1 – Programmable Project Alternative. This project’s pave- ment strategy does not consider the pavement section of future I-000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, only lane #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are being considered in this project. HOV lane and lane #1 will be part of future I-405 Express Lanes.

Viable Alternatives. On I-80, from west of Xxxxxx Road Interchange to Yolo Causeway East, and from I- 80/US 50 Separation to Sacramento River Bridge Overhead (Bryte Bend), this project proposes to place Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement Overlay on existing lanes and shoulders. On I-80 from the Yolo Causeway East to the I-80/US 50 Separation, and on US 50, this project proposes to reconstruct the existing two outer lanes with Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement and remaining lanes and shoulders with Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement. -Rehabilitate ramps by cold planing existing asphalt pavement and placing Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA) -Remove median concrete barrier, thrie beam barriers and Place Concrete Barrier (Type 60M) -Remove guardrailings and Place Midwest Guardrail Systems with vegetation control -Remove and replace dikes -Place shoulder backing -Reconstruct curb ramps -Replace textured xxxx pavements -Replace traffic stripes and roadside signs -Remove and replace existing overhead sign structure at Enterprise Blvd I/C to a new location to the east with two sign structures -Replace overhead signs in the median -Replace electrical pull boxes -Install fiber optic lines -Replace Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and Emergency Message Sign (EMS) -Replace ADA push buttons Structures The project proposes to replace the bridge median concrete barriers and widen two structures in the median on I-80 to facilitate staging and traffic handling during construction. The conditions of the existing bridge rails, decks and the need of approach slabs were assessed in defining the bridge health and identifying the scope of work. The Advance Planning Studies (APS) prepared by Structures Design are in Attachment D of this report. The existing structures within the project limits and proposed scope of work are listed in the table below. Xxxxxxx UC 22-0043 80 5.78 Place fiber optic conduit Yolo Causeway West 22-0044 80 5.81 Place fiber optic conduit Yolo Causeway East 22-0045 80 7.25 Place fiber optic conduit Enterprise Boulevard Undercrossing 22-0100 80 9.18 Replace median barrier Place fiber optic conduit Treat bridge deck Westacre Road Undercrossing 22-0102 50 2.18 Replace median barrier Place fiber optic conduit Treat bridge deck (westbound) Lake Washington Overhead 22-0131 L/R 80 R10.62 Place fiber optic conduit Place approach slab (Abutment 1) Route 80/50 Separation 22-0140R 80 R9.86 Place approach slabs W80-E50 Connector 22-0141F 80 R10.02 Replace Slope Paving at Abutment 1 W...

Viable Alternatives. Viable alternatives for the project include a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative, which are described in the following sections. Rejected alternatives are described in Section 5B.

Related to Viable Alternatives

Alternatives The Redeployment Committee or where there is no consensus, the committee members shall propose alternatives to cutbacks in staffing to the Hospital's Chief Executive Officer and to the Board of Directors. At the time of submitting any plan concerning rationalization of services and involving the elimination of any position(s) or any layoff(s) to the District Health Council or to the Ministry of Health, the Hospital shall provide a copy, together with accompanying documentation, to the Union.
Loss Mitigation and Consideration of Alternatives (i) For each Single Family Shared-Loss Loan in default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Assuming Institution shall undertake reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts, in accordance with any of the following programs selected by Assuming Institution in its sole discretion, Exhibit 5 (FDIC Mortgage Loan Modification Program), the United States Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program Guidelines or any other modification program approved by the United States Treasury Department, the Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any other governmental agency (it being understood that the Assuming Institution can select different programs for the various Single Family Shared-Loss Loans) (such program chosen, the “Modification Guidelines”). After selecting the applicable Modification Guideline for each such Single Family Shared-Loss Loan, the Assuming Institution shall document its consideration of foreclosure, loan restructuring under the applicable Modification Guideline chosen, and short-sale (if short-sale is a viable option) alternatives and shall select the alternative the Assuming Institution believes, based on its estimated calculations, will result in the least Loss. If unemployment or underemployment is the primary cause for default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Assuming Institution may consider the borrower for a temporary forbearance plan which reduces the loan payment to an affordable level for at least six (6) months. (ii) Losses on Home Equity Loans shall be shared under the charge-off policies of the Assuming Institution’s Examination Criteria as if they were Single Family Shared-Loss Loans. (iii) Losses on Investor-Owned Residential Loans shall be treated as Restructured Loans, and with the consent of the Receiver can be restructured under terms separate from the Exhibit 5 standards. Please refer to Exhibits 2(a)(1)-(2) for guidance in Calculation of Loss for Restructured Loans. Losses on Investor-Owned Residential Loans will be treated as if they were Single Family Shared-Loss Loans. (iv) The Assuming Institution shall retain its loss calculations for the Shared Loss Loans and such calculations shall be provided to the Receiver upon request. For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, (x) the Assuming Institution is not required to modify or restructure any Shared-Loss Loan on more than one occasion and (y) the Assuming Institution is not required to consider any alternatives with respect to any Shared-Loss Loan in the process of foreclosure as of the Bank Closing if the Assuming Institution can document that a loan modification is not cost effective and shall be entitled to continue such foreclosure measures and recover the Foreclosure Loss as provided herein, and (z) the Assuming Institution shall have a transition period of up to 90 days after Bank Closing to implement the Modification Guidelines, during which time, the Assuming Institution may submit claims under such guidelines as may be in place at the Failed Bank.
Alternative Warning Xxxxxxx may, but is not required to, use the alternative short-form warning as set forth in this § 2.3(b) (“Alternative Warning”) as follows: WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm - xxx.X00Xxxxxxxx.xx.xxx.
Alternative The provisions of Paragraph 5 will apply.
Alternative Proposals (a) Prior to the Offer Closing Date, GFI and the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) may (directly or through their Representatives), in response to a bona fide written Takeover Proposal, subject to compliance with Section 5.4(c) (Change in Recommendation): (i) furnish information with respect to GFI and the GFI Subsidiaries to the Person making such Takeover Proposal and its Representatives pursuant to and in accordance with a customary confidentiality agreement; provided, further, that a copy of all such information provided to such Person has previously been provided to Parent or its Representatives or is provided to Parent substantially concurrently with the time it is provided to such Person; and (ii) participate in discussions or negotiations with such Person or its Representatives regarding such Takeover Proposal; provided, in each case, that the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) determines in good faith (after consultation with its outside legal counsel and its independent financial advisor) that such Takeover Proposal is or could reasonably be expected to lead to a Superior Proposal. (b) As promptly as reasonably practicable after the receipt, directly or indirectly, by GFI of any Takeover Proposal or any inquiry with respect to, or that could reasonably be expected to lead to, any Takeover Proposal, and in any case within 24 hours after the receipt thereof, GFI shall provide oral and written notice to Parent of (i) such Takeover Proposal or inquiry, (ii) the identity of the Person making any such Takeover Proposal or inquiry and (iii) the material terms and conditions of any such Takeover Proposal or inquiry (including a copy of any such written Takeover Proposal and any amendments or modifications thereto). Commencing upon the provision of any notice referred to above and continuing until such Takeover Proposal is withdrawn or the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) has provided written notice to Parent that it is prepared to effect a Change in Recommendation pursuant to Section 5.4(c) (Change in Recommendation), (A) GFI (or its outside legal counsel) shall, in person or by telephone, keep Parent (or its outside legal counsel) reasonably informed of, and shall provide to Parent or Purchaser upon request, the status of such Takeover Proposal and any material developments related thereto, including material amendments or proposed amendments as to price and other material terms of such Takeover Proposal and (B) GFI shall, promptly upon receipt or delivery, and in any case within 24 hours after the receipt thereof, provide Parent (or its outside legal counsel) with copies of all drafts and final versions (and any comments thereon) of agreements (including schedules and exhibits thereto) relating to such Takeover Proposal exchanged between GFI or any of its Representatives, on the one hand, and the person making such Takeover Proposal or any of its Representatives, on the other hand. (c) Neither the Board of Directors of GFI nor any committee thereof (including the Special Committee) shall, directly or indirectly, effect a Change in Recommendation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at any time prior to Expiration Date, the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) may, in response to a Superior Proposal or an Intervening Event, effect a Change in Recommendation; provided that the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) determines in good faith (after consultation with its outside legal counsel and its independent financial advisor) that the failure to do so would reasonably be likely to be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to the stockholders of GFI under applicable Law; provided, further, that the Board of Directors of GFI may not effect such a Change in Recommendation unless (i) the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) shall have first provided prior written notice to Parent that it is prepared to effect a Change in Recommendation in response to a Superior Proposal or an Intervening Event, which notice shall, in the case of a Superior Proposal, attach the most current version of any written agreement relating to the transaction that constitutes such Superior Proposal, and, in the case of an Intervening Event, attach information specifying such Intervening Event in reasonable detail and any other information related thereto reasonably requested by Parent, it being understood and agreed that the delivery of such notice shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a Change in Recommendation, and (ii) Parent does not make, within four Business Days after receipt of such notice a proposal that the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) determines in good faith (after consultation with its outside legal counsel and its independent financial advisor) would cause the proposal previously constituting a Superior Proposal to no longer constitute a Superior Proposal or obviates the need for a Change in Recommendation as a result of the Intervening Event, as the case may be. GFI agrees that, during the four Business Day period prior to its effecting a Change in Recommendation, GFI and its Representatives shall, if requested by Parent, negotiate in good faith with Parent and its Representatives (so long as Parent and its Representatives are negotiating in good faith) regarding any revisions to the terms of the Transactions proposed by Parent intended to cause such Takeover Proposal to no longer constitute a Superior Proposal or to obviate the need for a Change in Recommendation as a result of an Intervening Event. Any material amendment to the terms of such Superior Proposal or material change to the facts and circumstances that are the basis for such Intervening Event occurring or arising prior to the making of a Change in Recommendation shall require GFI to provide to Parent a new notice and a new negotiation period of two Business Days (instead of four Business Days). (d) Nothing contained in this Section 5.4 shall prohibit GFI or the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) from taking and disclosing any position contemplated by Rule 14e-2 promulgated under the Exchange Act or making any statement contemplated by Item 1012(a) of Regulation M-A or Rule 14d-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act in respect of any Takeover Proposal, providing any information to stockholders of GFI required by Section 220 of the DGCL or making any disclosure to the stockholders of GFI if the Board of Directors of GFI (upon the recommendation of the Special Committee) determines in good faith (after consultation with its outside legal counsel) that the failure to make such disclosure would reasonably be likely to be inconsistent with its fiduciary duties to the stockholders of GFI under applicable Law; provided, however, that neither the Board of Directors of GFI nor any committee thereof (including the Special Committee) shall, except as expressly permitted by Section 5.4(c) (Change in Recommendation), effect a Change in Recommendation. (e) For purposes of this Agreement:
Emergency Replacement SAP may replace a Subprocessor without advance notice where the reason for the change is outside of SAP’s reasonable control and prompt replacement is required for security or other urgent reasons. In this case, SAP will inform Customer of the replacement Subprocessor as soon as possible following its appointment. Section 6.3 applies accordingly.
Aesthetics All decisions of the Design Professional on matters of aesthetics are final, conclusive, and binding on all parties if consistent with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
Intended Audience This Website is directed to adults in the United States and Canada for business use, and is not intended for children under the age of 16.
CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS 11.1 Effective consultation is essential for continuous workplace reform and such consultation can take place at any time during the life of a project. Consultative Committees may be set up on larger projects for this purpose. The Consultative Committee will operate for the purpose of continually assessing the efficiency of working arrangements, monitoring the outcomes of this Agreement, coordinating training activities and sharing pertinent information.
Benchmark Replacement Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in any other Loan Document, if a Benchmark Transition Event and its related Benchmark Replacement Date have occurred prior any setting of the then-current Benchmark, then (x) if a Benchmark Replacement is determined in accordance with clause (a) of the definition of “Benchmark Replacement” for such Benchmark Replacement Date, such Benchmark Replacement will replace such Benchmark for all purposes hereunder and under any Loan Document in respect of such Benchmark setting and subsequent Benchmark settings without any amendment to, or further action or consent of any other party to, this Agreement or any other Loan Document and (y) if a Benchmark Replacement is determined in accordance with clause (b) of the definition of “Benchmark Replacement” for such Benchmark Replacement Date, such Benchmark Replacement will replace such Benchmark for all purposes hereunder and under any Loan Document in respect of any Benchmark setting at or after 5:00 p.m. (New York City time) on the fifth (5th) Business Day after the date notice of such Benchmark Replacement is provided to the Lenders without any amendment to, or further action or consent of any other party to, this Agreement or any other Loan Document so long as the Administrative Agent has not received, by such time, written notice of objection to such Benchmark Replacement from Lenders comprising the Required Lenders. If the Benchmark Replacement is Daily Simple SOFR, all interest payments will be payable on a quarterly basis.

Viable Alternatives Sample Clauses

Filter & Search

Related Clauses

Related to Viable Alternatives