Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />4. Embankment materials removed from the existing embankment will be <br />applied, graded and reseeded on local lands. Demolished concrete <br />structures can be recycled and made into riprap for lining the existing <br />channel to prevent erosion. <br />5. There are no foreseen conditions that would render the alternatives <br />infeasible. A better understanding of such conditions will be gained <br />during the design phase. <br /> <br />The probable cost of construction, allowing for 20 percent contingencies, of the <br />proposed alternatives is summarized in Table V-1 below. The cost estimates are <br />presented in Tables V-2 though V-4. <br /> <br />Table V-1 <br />Summary of Probable Construction Costs <br /> <br />Alternatives <br />Alternative 1 (No Action) <br />Alternative 2 (Tunneling) <br />Alternative 3 (Temporary Relocation of Main Track) <br />Alternative 4 (New Bridge) <br /> <br />Cost <br />NA <br />$1,420,155 <br />$1,151 ,443 <br />5775,210 <br /> <br />Impacts with respect to the man-made environment, the natural environment and the <br />existing social structure are equal for all the alternatives. All alternatives, with the <br />exception of the no-action alternative can be constructed with standard construction <br />practices and are technically feasible. The difference is cost. <br /> <br />25 <br />