Cleveland Metroparks Hauser Way Bike Path Feasibility Study

OSBORN ENGINEERING 1100 Superior Avenue, Suite 300 | Cleveland, OH 44114 | t 216 861 2020 | f 216 861 3329 | osborn-eng.com

Cleveland Metroparks Hauser Way Bike Path

Feasibility Study

Prepared By:

Osborn Engineering

February 2016

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Assumptions and limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Existing Site Conditions .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Proposed work ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

Approach path construction ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Elevated Structure ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Project Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Utilities ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Railroad coordination / Right-of-way ........................................................................................................................ 8

Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................................................................................. 8

Appendix A – Feasibility Sketches ...................................................................................................................... A1-A4

Appendix B – Preliminary Estimate of Probable Cost ........................................................................................ B1-B4

Appendix C – Approach Rendering ......................................................................................................................... C1

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study addresses the feasibility of constructing an elevated, shared-use bicycle path for the Cleveland

Metroparks adjacent to Hauser Way and the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) tracks. Such a path requires an

elevated structure with a free span of approximately 37’ to cross an existing Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer

District (NEORSD) diversion structure located in the proposed path of travel. Initial coordination with the NEORSD

and preliminary design calculations indicate that supporting the free-span elevated structure directly on the

diversion structure would be acceptable and preferred.

Two approach alternates have been proposed to reach the existing top of diversion structure elevation from the

lower surrounding grades. Approach Alternate 1 raises the existing grades and adds and modifies existing retaining

walls. The estimated cost of the project with Approach Alternate 1 is $800,000 to $1,000,000 depending on the

structure type utilized. Approach Alternate 2 employs an elevated walkway on single or double piers. The

estimated cost of the project with Approach Alternate 2 is $870,000 to $1,320,000 depending on the structure

type utilized. Utility work will be necessary for both alternates, with significant cost anticipated for the potential

relocation of existing underground lines to avoid structure foundations proposed in Approach Alternate 2.

Both approach alternates propose foundations, areas of cut, and a section of new retaining wall which extend into

the railroad’s “zone of influence”. Although the types of impacts to the NSRR are similar for both alternates,

Approach Alternate 2 requires a significantly greater number of foundations, a potential concern to the railroad.

Additionally, the Metroparks currently holds right-of-way only on the west side of the diversion structure and

would need to acquire additional right-of-way from NSRR on the east side in order to construct the project.

Taking into account the relative costs for each alternate, advantages and disadvantages, Approach Alternate 1 and

Structure Alternate 2 were found to be the preferred conditions.

INTRODUCTION

This study has been prepared to evaluate the feasibility of constructing an elevated

the Cleveland Metroparks adjacent to the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) tracks

The proposed shared-use path is part of

finished state, the path will provide a pedestrian and bicycle friendly link between Edgewater Park and Whiskey

Island/Wendy Park. This study addresses the portion of the path proposed to run on the south side of Hauser

Way/Whiskey Island Drive just south of the N

Wastewater Treatment Plant. This section of the path requires an elevated structure to carry pedestrian and

bicycle traffic over an existing NEORSD diversion structure.

FIGURE 1: AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED SITE

The following components of the proposed project

- Review of existing site conditions including approach grading, utilities, and right

- Comparison of two approach path alternates to address the necessary grade changes.

- Review of the existing NEORSD diversion structure construction

Way.

- Comparison of two structure alternates for spanning the NEORSD diversion structure.

- Discussion of project impacts on existing utilities

- Discussion of project impacts on the adjacent existing railroad lines.

- Preliminary estimates of probable cost for all alternates.

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

At the time that this study was performed, detailed survey data was not available. GIS data provided by Cuyahoga

County was utilized in combination with limited survey data provide

project area will be required prior to development of detail

utilities, right-of-way, property lines, etc.).

This study has been prepared to evaluate the feasibility of constructing an elevated, shared-

adjacent to the Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR) tracks.

use path is part of the Metroparks’ planned improvements to Cleveland’s lakefront. In its

ide a pedestrian and bicycle friendly link between Edgewater Park and Whiskey

This study addresses the portion of the path proposed to run on the south side of Hauser

Way/Whiskey Island Drive just south of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD)


bicycle traffic over an existing NEORSD diversion structure.

PROPOSED SITE

he following components of the proposed project will be addressed in this report.

existing site conditions including approach grading, utilities, and right-of-way.

ach path alternates to address the necessary grade changes.

the existing NEORSD diversion structure construction and existing retaining wall along Hauser

two structure alternates for spanning the NEORSD diversion structure.

project impacts on existing utilities in the area.

project impacts on the adjacent existing railroad lines.

estimates of probable cost for all alternates.

erformed, detailed survey data was not available. GIS data provided by Cuyahoga

County was utilized in combination with limited survey data provided by the Metroparks. Site specific s

project area will be required prior to development of detailed plans to establish all pertinent features (i.e. grades,

way, property lines, etc.).

PROPOSED SECTION

OF PATH

2

-use bicycle path for

Metroparks’ planned improvements to Cleveland’s lakefront. In its

ide a pedestrian and bicycle friendly link between Edgewater Park and Whiskey

This study addresses the portion of the path proposed to run on the south side of Hauser

wer District (NEORSD) Westerly


way.

ach path alternates to address the necessary grade changes.

and existing retaining wall along Hauser

erformed, detailed survey data was not available. GIS data provided by Cuyahoga

Site specific survey of the

ed plans to establish all pertinent features (i.e. grades,

3

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

The proposed site presents several challenges including steep existing grades, numerous existing utilities, and

narrow right-of-way. The figures below show the steep slope approaching the diversion structure (Figure 2) and

the existing NEORSD infrastructure which will be in the path of travel (Figure 3).

FIGURE 2: PATH APPROACH

FIGURE 3: NEORSD DIVERSION STRUCTURE

Existing Grades: Due to an existing retaining wall, existing grades in the area immediately surrounding the NEORSD

diversion structure are elevated above the adjacent roadway approximately five (5) feet. The maintained grassy

area extends from the back of the retaining wall approximately 20 feet to the toe of the neighboring railroad

embankment. To the west of the structure, the ground line remains relatively level to the end of the retaining wall.

At the end of the wall, a 4:1 slope carries grades back down to meet surrounding elevations as shown in Figure 2.

To the east of the structure, the ground line gradually recedes at an approximate slope of 5%.

Utilities: Existing utility information has been aggregated from OUPS responses, site visits, and existing plans and

survey. We have determined that gas, water, electric, sewer, lighting, and telecom facilities exist within the project

area. The table below summarizes the known utilities within the project area.

TABLE 1: UTILITIES

Company Facility Description

City of Cleveland Division of Water 16” Water Main, 12” Abandoned line, Misc.

valves and hydrants

Cleveland Public Power Aerial lines

Dominion East Ohio Gas 4” Gas Main, Misc. valves and vents

NEORSD Diversion Structure, 102” Brick Sewer

Verizon Aerial and buried cable

Windstream Buried fiber

CenturyLink Buried fiber

Job 8 Buried fiber (south of railroad tracks)

The majority of the buried utility lines run parallel to the roadway, squarely within the project area. In addition to

buried and aerial lines, numerous surfaces features including valves, vents, hydrants, and manholes are also

present.

Right-of-way: The Metroparks’ right-of-way is approximately 30’ wide on the south of the Hauser Way, extending

up to the west side of the diversion structure. The diversion structure itself sits in an easement provided by the

4

railroad to the NEORSD. East of the diversion structure, the railroad right-of-way extends up to the existing

roadway. Right-of-way lines are shown on the proposed plan alternates included in Appendix A.

PROPOSED WORK

As per the Metropark’s scope of work, the proposed trail will be 10’ wide with a maximum grade of 5%. The

maximum cross-slope will be 2%. Bicycle railings will be provided on the elevated portion of the trail as well as

along at-grade locations where the path is separated from the roadway laterally by less than 5’ or where adjacent

slopes are steeper than 1:1. These design values meet the recommendations of the AASHTO Guide for the

Development of Bicycle Facilities as well as the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A preliminary alignment and profile were established for this study. The alignment holds the proposed path within

the existing grassy shoulder as much as possible to minimize impacts to the railroad embankment while keeping

the front of the diversion structure accessible from the top as requested by NEORSD.

APPROACH PATH CONSTRUCTION

The top of the diversion structure is approximately four (4) feet above the existing retaining wall and nearly ten

(10) feet above the normal ground line on the east and west approaches. In order to meet a maximum 5% grade

and achieve the necessary elevation at the diversion structure, long approach paths on either side of the diversion

structure will be required. Two alternates have been developed to address this need, both resulting in a total trail

length of 765’. In Approach Alternate 1, existing grades would be raised to allow the majority of the trail

approaching and leaving the diversion structure to be at-grade. To retain the necessary fill, existing retaining walls

along the roadway would be extended to the east and west and the height of the existing wall west of the

diversion structure would be increased. This approach would minimize the length of elevated structure and the

number of foundations needed, however it would likely result in modification or replacement of approximately

107’ of existing retaining wall. Alternate 1 would require a number of utility facilities to be relocated or adjusted to

the proposed grades.

In Approach Alternate 2, an elevated boardwalk structure would be utilized for the approach path with minimal at-

grade path at either end. The approach boardwalk would be of the same construction as the elevated structure

crossing the diversion structure. This alternate would eliminate the need for additional retaining walls along the

roadway and minimize cut and fill requirements. However, significant utility work will likely be required to relocate

lines and facilities interfering with proposed boardwalk foundations and the additional number of foundations may

be of concern to the railroad.

At our preliminary site visit we observed the existing retaining walls to be in good condition, however, existing

plans for the walls were not included as part of the diversion structure documentation. For the purposes of this

study, we have assumed that the existing retaining wall footings extend behind the wall a distance equal to the

wall’s height. Based on the amount of fill necessary to construct the on-grade portion of Approach Alternate 1,

modification or replacement of the existing retaining walls is likely. Further investigation into the soundness of the

existing retaining walls and any necessary modifications or replacements will be reviewed as part of the detailed

design process.

Plan, profile and typical sections of Approach Alternates 1 and 2 are included in Appendix A. Probable cost

estimates for both alternates are included in Appendix B.

5

ELEVATED STRUCTURE

The NEORSD diversion structure is an irregularly shaped reinforced concrete structure constructed in 1979.

Existing plan drawings of the diversion structure were included as part of the NEORSD’s Westerly Interceptor Box

Culvert Repair/Replacement plans dated October 2007. The walls are 1’-0” thick and the top consists of removable

grating supported on steel framing. The structure is supported on a 1’-2” thick reinforced concrete slab. NEORSD

staff access the structure through the grating at the top. At our preliminary site visit, we observed the exterior of

the structure to be in good condition.

An elevated structure will be necessary for the path to mount and cross the NEORSD diversion structure. Due to its

size and irregular shape, a relatively long, level free span of approximately 37’ will be necessary at the top. Two

modular, prefabricated elevated structure type alternates are presented below. Prefabricated systems are

recommended in this application for ease and speed of construction, particularly in the limited access project area.

The structure type selected would also be continued on the approaches for the length determined by the approach

alternate selected.

SUPERSTRUCTURE ALTERNATES

STRUCTURE ALTERNATE 1 – PERMATRAK PRECAST CONCRETE BOARDWALK SYSTEM

The PermaTrak system consists of precast treads and beams. These elements can be supported on a variety of

foundation types including precast footings, drilled concrete caissons, timber piles, and helical piles. A typical

section of the PermaTrak system is shown below. Due to its composition of precast concrete, PermaTrak provides

a durable, no maintenance option with a lifespan of 50 to 75 years. Treads are available in various texture options

to alleviate common concrete slip concerns.

FIGURE 4: PERMATRAK COMPONENT LAYOUT

FIGURE 5: PERMATRAK TYPICAL SECTION

STRUCTURE ALTERNATE 2 – MODULAR

These more traditional boardwalk system

frames. The boardwalk sections are supported on

timber or helical piles depending on site conditions

FIGURE 6: WICKCRAFT TYPICAL LAYOUT AND SECTION

The primary benefits of a more traditional boardwalk system

present a significant advantage if it were

boardwalk for additional access to the top of the d

SUPPORT AND FOUNDATIONS

Coordination with NEORSD has resulted in

directly on the walls of the diversion structure.

diversion structure walls should be performed to accurately model the boundary conditions and pipe openings and

determine if any additional support to the walls will be necessary. At this time, p

pedestrian live loading of 90 pounds per square foot (psf)

the additional weight of either structure alternate

will depend on the superstructure alternate selected.

connected to the top of the wall using a single dowel.

attached to the boardwalk frame during fabrication

of both conditions are shown below.

structure is the best option to avoid the existing 102” brick sewer immediately to the

reasonable structure span length between supports.

ODULAR TRAIL STRUCTURES OR WICKCRAFT PREFABRICATED B

systems are composed of timber, plastic or composite treads supported on steel

supported on either adjustable leg bearing plates or connected to concrete,

depending on site conditions. A typical section of the Wickcraft system is shown below.

LAYOUT AND SECTION

of a more traditional boardwalk system are cost and self weight. A lighter system would

it were necessary to remove, temporarily or permanently,

additional access to the top of the diversion structure in the future.

Coordination with NEORSD has resulted in conceptual approval for supporting a portion of the elevated structure

directly on the walls of the diversion structure. During the detailed design phase, a finite element analysis of the


determine if any additional support to the walls will be necessary. At this time, preliminary calculations

of 90 pounds per square foot (psf) show the diversion structure to be

either structure alternate. Connection of the elevated path to the diversion structure walls

erstructure alternate selected. With Structure Alternate 1, a bearing/cap would be

the wall using a single dowel. For Structure Alternate 2, a custom bracket would be

boardwalk frame during fabrication and then doweled to the structure wall at erection.

Supporting the level portion of the elevated path directly on the diversion

structure is the best option to avoid the existing 102” brick sewer immediately to the west while maintaining a

reasonable structure span length between supports.

6

BOARDWALK

ds supported on steel

or connected to concrete,

system is shown below.

. A lighter system would

necessary to remove, temporarily or permanently, sections of the

approval for supporting a portion of the elevated structure

finite element analysis of the


calculations assuming a

show the diversion structure to be capable of carrying

Connection of the elevated path to the diversion structure walls

Alternate 1, a bearing/cap would be

Alternate 2, a custom bracket would be

then doweled to the structure wall at erection. Sketches

elevated path directly on the diversion

west while maintaining a

FIGURE 7: STRUCTURE ALTERNATE 1

The portions of elevated ramp approaching the diversion structure will require independent substructures.

documentation of the NEORSD diversion structure did not include geotechnical or subsurface information.

Geotechnical engineering, including subsurface borings, will be r

establish the necessary foundations for the elevated ramp structure

geotechnical exploration to establish the location and composition of the existing retaining wall footing will be

required if existing plan information is not available.

The type of support used for the elevated approach ramps will depend on

investigation. If shallow or spread footings are feasible, both structure types may be constructed utilizing

prefabricated supports. If deep foundations are necessary, either a double or single pier substructure may be

implemented. At the time of this report, we have assumed a double pier substructure as shown in the path

sections in Appendix A. This double pier option would allow for fast and simple construction using Sonotube forms,

however it may present more utility conf

a single foundation t-type or hammerhead

pier option would minimize the number of deep foundations, but woul

construct due to the custom formwork and additional reinforcement required.

ALTERNATE 1 FIGURE 8: STRUCTURE ALTERNATE 2

p approaching the diversion structure will require independent substructures.


Geotechnical engineering, including subsurface borings, will be required prior to development of detailed plans to

establish the necessary foundations for the elevated ramp structure and the proposed retaining walls.


required if existing plan information is not available.

The type of support used for the elevated approach ramps will depend on the results of the geotechnical


If deep foundations are necessary, either a double or single pier substructure may be

At the time of this report, we have assumed a double pier substructure as shown in the path

This double pier option would allow for fast and simple construction using Sonotube forms,

however it may present more utility conflicts due to the additional number of foundations required. Alternatively,

or hammerhead pier could be used, similar to that shown in Figure

pier option would minimize the number of deep foundations, but would require additional time and cost to

construct due to the custom formwork and additional reinforcement required.

FIGURE 9: TYPICAL T-TYPE PIER

7

p approaching the diversion structure will require independent substructures. Existing


equired prior to development of detailed plans to

proposed retaining walls. Additionally,


the results of the geotechnical


If deep foundations are necessary, either a double or single pier substructure may be

At the time of this report, we have assumed a double pier substructure as shown in the path

This double pier option would allow for fast and simple construction using Sonotube forms,

licts due to the additional number of foundations required. Alternatively,

could be used, similar to that shown in Figure 9 below. This single

d require additional time and cost to

8

PROJECT IMPACTS

UTILITIES

Due to the limited right-of-way, steep existing grades, and numerous facilities in the project area, impact on the

existing utility facilities will be inevitable. In addition to temporary relocation of overhead lines to allow access for

equipment during construction, permanent anticipated utility work is as follows:

TABLE 2: ANTICIPATED UTILITY WORK

Approach Alternate 1 Approach Alternate 2

- Relocate (1) telephone/power pole

- Relocate (2) fire hydrants

- Raise (3) water valves to grade

- Raise (1) gas valve to grade

- Relocate (4) gas vents

- Relocate (1) telephone/power pole

- Relocate (2) fire hydrants

- Raise (1) water valves to grade

- Relocate 350 LF each of water, gas, and

sanitary lines

The above anticipated utility work is based on the preliminary utility information available at the time of this study.

A subsurface utility investigation will be necessary during detailed design to better locate the numerous facilities

existing in the project area.

RAILROAD COORDINATION / RIGHT-OF-WAY

One major challenge presented by this project is its proximity to the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad (NSRR). At

the time of this study’s completion, preliminary plans showing path alignment, proposed work, and typical sections

had been submitted to the railroad for initial review. Successful completion of this project will require continued

coordination with the railroad. At this time, we anticipate that additional right-of-way will be necessary and that

the railroad will require right-of-way fencing to be constructed between the path and the railroad lines.

Additionally, the steepness of the existing cross-slopes combined with the path width necessitates some areas of

cut and a small retaining wall on the south side of the path. This work, as well as the proposed approach structure

foundations, falls within NSRR’s “zone of influence” as shown on the typical sections. Therefore, additional

approvals may be necessary and continued coordination will be required to ensure that all necessary design

requirements are met. Alternatively, to minimize impacts to the railroad, the grade of the path could be flattened

to increase the elevation in the potential “cut” areas and remove the need for a retaining wall. However, such a

modification would significantly increase the path length necessary to reach existing grades. Retaining wall, fill, and

structure foundation needs and costs would also increase correspondingly.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The construction of an elevated, shared-use bicycle path to cross the NEORSD diversion structure presents several

challenges. These include steep existing grades, limited right-of-way, railroad coordination, and utility work. This

study has presented several options to address these challenges.

The main objective of the Metroparks is to provide a continuous trail for the public that is not only safe and

enjoyable, but economical to design and construct. All alternates, as discussed above, will meet this goal.

An opinion of probable cost for the alternates discussed was prepared and is included as Appendix B. As soils

information and foundation recommendations were not available at the time of this study, cast-in-place concrete

drilled shafts were assumed. Additionally, live loading conditions for the elevated path structure were assumed to

be pedestrian only. While the AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges require

9

pedestrian bridges with clear widths of 10 feet to be designed for a maintenance vehicle load (H-5), this

requirement can be waived at the Owner’s specification of if vehicular access is prevented by a permanent physical

barrier such as a bollard. In this location, vehicular traffic is not anticipated as the path runs immediately adjacent

to a public roadway and does not provide a route to locations otherwise inaccessible by the roadway. Design of the

elevated structure for vehicular loading would significantly increase structure costs.

Taking into account the relative costs for each alternate, advantages and disadvantages, Approach Alternate 1 and

Structure Alternate 2 were found to be the preferred conditions.

APPENDIX A – FEASIBILITY SKETCHES

⅊ ⅊⅊

EX R

/W

⅊ ⅊

⅊

EX R

/W

EX R

/W

EX SW

EX S

W

⅊

⅊

B

B

D

D

A

A

C

C

A1

A2

⅊ ⅊⅊

EX R

/W

⅊ ⅊

⅊

EX R

/W

EX R

/W

EX SW

EX S

W

⅊

⅊

F

F

D

D

E

E

C

C

A3

A4

APPENDIX B – PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST

Item Description Number Unit Unit Price Total

201 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

203 Excavation 60 CY $20.00 $1,200.00

203 Embankment 1255 CY $10.00 $12,550.00

204 Subgrade Compaction 675 SY $2.50 $1,687.50

204 Proof Rolling 1 HR $125.00 $125.00

304 6" Aggregate Base 115 CY $65.00 $7,475.00

448 2" Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Course Type 1 35 CY $145.00 $5,075.00

503 Unclassified Excavation 800 CY $30.00 $24,000.00

509 Reinforcing Steel - Retaining Walls 120000 LB $1.00 $120,000.00

510 Dowel holes, non-shrink non-metallic grout 160 EACH $19.00 $3,040.00

511 Class QC1 Concrete - Retaining Walls 275 CY $630.00 $173,250.00

512 Sealing of concrete surfaces - Epoxy Urethane 395 SY $19.00 $7,505.00

524 Reinforced concrete piles - 30" diameter, 25' long 400 LF $160.00 $64,000.00

614 Maintaining Traffic 1 LUMP $5,000.00 $5,000.00

623 Construction Layout Stakes and Surveing 1 LUMP $2,000.00 $2,000.00

624 Mobilization 1 LUMP $5,000.00 $5,000.00

659 Topsoil 85 CY $40.00 $3,400.00

659 Seeding and mulching 740 SY $3.00 $2,220.00

659 Commercial Fertilizer 0.1 TON $500.00 $50.00

659 Lime 0.15 ACRE $200.00 $30.00

659 Water 4 MGAL $3.00 $12.00

Special PermaTrak Approach Path 1991 SQ FT $80.00 $159,154.00

Special PermaTrak Free Span 1 EACH $80,000.00 $80,000.00

Special Timber handrail 950 LF $40.00 $38,000.00

Utility Utility Investigation 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00

Utility Relocate telephone/power pole and lines 1 EACH $15,000.00 $15,000.00

Utility Relocate fire hydrants 2 EACH $3,000.00 $6,000.00

Utility Raise water valves to grade 3 EACH $500.00 $1,500.00

Utility Raise gas valve to grade 1 EACH $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Utility Relocate gas vent 4 EACH $1,500.00 $6,000.00

General General Conditions 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00

General Design Allowance 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00

General Construction Contingency 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00

A1S1 Total $996,274.00

Estimate of Probable Cost - Approach Alternate 1, Structure Alternate 1

A1S1 Total $996,274.00* Estimate of probable cost does not include acquisition of Right-of-way.

B1



203 Excavation 60 CY $20.00 $1,200.00

203 Embankment 1255 CY $10.00 $12,550.00

204 Subgrade Compaction 675 SY $2.50 $1,687.50

204 Proof Rolling 1 HR $126.00 $126.00



503 Unclassified Excavation 800 CY $30.00 $24,000.00


510 Dowel holes, non-shrink non-metallic grout 160 EACH $19.00 $3,040.00







659 Topsoil 85 CY $40.00 $3,400.00



659 Lime 0.15 ACRE $200.00 $30.00

659 Water 4 MGAL $3.00 $12.00


Special Wickcraft Approach Boardwalk 177 LF $150.00 $26,550.00

Special Wickcraft Free Span Boardwalk 35 LF $264.00 $9,240.00




Utility Raise water valves to grade 3 EACH $500.00 $1,500.00

Utility Raise gas valve to grade 1 EACH $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Utility Relocate gas vent 4 EACH $1,500.00 $6,000.00




A1S2 Total $792,911.00



B2



203 Excavation 115 CY $18.00 $2,070.00

203 Embankment 410 CY $13.00 $5,330.00

204 Subgrade Compaction 265 SY $3.00 $795.00

204 Proof Rolling 1 HR $127.00 $127.00




510 Dowel holes, non-shrink non-metallic grout 5 EACH $26.00 $130.00







659 Topsoil 35 CY $50.00 $1,750.00



659 Lime 0.06 ACRE $400.00 $24.00

659 Water 1.5 MGAL $3.33 $5.00

Special PermaTrak Approach Path 5794 SQ FT $80.00 $461,345.00

Special PermaTrak Free Span 1 EACH $80,000.00 $80,000.00





Utility Raise water valves to grade 1 EACH $500.00 $500.00

Utility Allowance for utility line relocation (water, sewer, gas) 1 LS $210,000.00 $210,000.00




A2S1 Total $1,316,791.00


* Estimate of probable cost does not include acquisition of Right-of-way.

B3



203 Excavation 115 CY $18.00 $2,070.00

203 Embankment 410 CY $13.00 $5,330.00

204 Subgrade Compaction 265 SY $3.00 $795.00

204 Proof Rolling 1 HR $128.00 $128.00




510 Dowel holes, non-shrink non-metallic grout 10 EACH $26.00 $260.00







659 Topsoil 35 CY $50.00 $1,750.00



659 Lime 0.06 ACRE $400.00 $24.00

659 Water 1.5 MGAL $3.33 $5.00


Special Wickcraft Approach Boardwalk 515 LF $150.00 $77,250.00

Special Wickcraft Free Span Boardwalk 35 LF $264.00 $9,240.00




Utility Raise water valves to grade 1 EACH $500.00 $500.00

Utility Allowance for utility line relocation (water, sewer, gas) 1 LS $210,000.00 $210,000.00






B4

APPENDIX C – APPROACH RENDERING

C1

Documents

Cleveland Metroparks Hauser Way Bike Path Feasibility Study