Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters
PART 277—WATER RESOURCES POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES: NAVIGATION POLICY: COST APPORTIONMENT OF BRIDGE ALTERATIONS
Browse Previous
Appendix B to Part 277—Hypothetical Example of Cost Apportionment
Following is the interpretation of the principles as applied to the alteration of a hypothetical highway—railroad bridge across Blank River between City A and City B.
Reference table 1. Total estimated cost of alteration $10,917,300 A project.
|
The existing double deck swing span will be replaced with a new double deck lift span affording a horizontal navigation opening of 250 feet clear width between piers normal to the navigation channel and a vertical clearance of 125 feet above mean high water in the raised position.
|
2. Salvage............................ $77,300
|
This value is deducted from the original cost to determine the actual capital cost (Table VII). It is also deducted from the Total Estimated Cost of Alteration Project to determine the cost to be apportioned.
|
3. Direct and special benefits: a. Removing old bridge (owner's $165,489 I share). b. Fixed charges (owner's share).... 284,460 II
|
A fixed charge such as engineering, design and inspection costs, realtor's and counsel's fees, and bridge owner's administrative expenses is an undistributed cost shared in the ratio that each party shares the cost of construction less fixed charges. In computing the bridge owner's share of the fixed charges, all other financial liabilities assigned to the bridge owner shall be included in the computation. (Table II).
|
c. Contribution by third party...... $432,000
|
Section 6 of the Act provides that in the event the alteration or relocation of any bridge may be desirable for the reason that the bridge unreasonably obstructs navigation, but also for some other reason, the Secretary may require equitable contribution from any interested person, firm, association, corporation, municipality, county, or State desiring such alteration or relocation for such other reason, as a condition precedent to the making of an order for such alteration or relocation. In the instant case, testimony at the hearing developed that the bridge would require alteration because of the navigation project but also City A desires to relieve traffic on a nearby secondary road by providing access to the new bridge. It is considered that as an equitable contribution, City A should contribute an amount equal to one half of the expectable road user benefit accruing over the next 10 years. Other methods for determining the third party's contribution are acceptable depending on the circumstances.
|
d. Betterments...................... $18,360 III4. Expectable savings in repair or ............ IV maintenance costs. Repair.............................. $100,000 Maintenance......................... 16,288
|
The new bridge is designed for increased loading and width greater than that of the old bridge. Therefore, the estimated annual maintenance cost was based on a hypothetical bridge designed, but not constructed, for the same loading and width as the old bridge but with increased clearances as required to meet the needs of waterborne navigation, and not on the estimated annual maintenance cost of the new bridge. The savings in repair costs represents a savings to the bridge owner who will not have to restore the bridge that was recently damaged since it is being altered as a part of a proposed navigation improvement.
|
5. Costs attributable to requirements $1,534,000 V of railway and highway traffic.
|
The old bridge carries a highway deck on the upper level consisting of a roadway 18 feet wide (no sidewalks) and a railway deck on the lower level with 110-lb. rails. The new bridge will carry a highway deck on the upper level consisting of one 28-foot roadway and two 5-foot sidewalks, and the railway deck will have new 130-lb. rails. In addition, the railway deck will be paved to carry highway traffic. Thus, the bridge may be kept in an intermediate raised position when not being used by railway traffic to pass small-boat traffic without delaying highway traffic. City A also desires to provide additional highway approaches and right-of-way to connect a nearby secondary road with the new bridge.
|
6. Expenditure for increased carrying $2,330,000 VI capacity.
|
The highway deck of the old bridge was designed for a live loading equivalent to AASHO H15–44 and the railway deck for live loading of Cooper E 45. The highway deck of the new bridge will be designed for live loading AASHO HS20–44, and the railway deck will be designed for live loading of Cooper E 60. Accordingly, the bridge owner will pay the additional cost for the increased carrying capacity of the new bridge.
|
7. Expired service life of old bridge. $511,300 VII
|
The structure of the old bridge was completed in 1908 and the superstructure completed in 1909. For this hypothetical example it was assumed the bridge would be replaced in 1970.
8. The following is an explanation of the procedure for determining the tabulation of proportionate shares of costs to be borne by the United States and the bridge owner presented in Table B.
(1) Cost of alteration to be apportioned is the total estimated cost of the project (excluding contingencies) less salvage value (§277.8(b)), less contribution by third party, if applicable (§277.8c(3)).
(2) Share to be borne by the bridge owner is the sum of the direct and special benefits (§277.8(c)) expectable savings in repair or maintenane costs (paragraph 8d), costs attributable to requirements of railway and highway traffic (§277.8(e)), expenditure for increased carrying capacity (§277.8(f)) and expired service life of old bridge (§277.8(g))
(3) Share to be borne by the United States is the difference between the cost of alteration to be apportioned and the share to be borne by the bridge owner.
(4) The exact amount of costs to be borne by the bridge owner will be determined upon completion of the project.
(5) Contingencies may be included in the total shares to be borne by both the United States and the bridge owner.
Tables
A. Summary of Estimated Project Costs.
B. Tabulation of Proportionate Shares of Cost To Be Borne by the United States and the Bridge Owner.
I. Bridge Owner's Share of Removing Old Bridge.
II. Fixed Charges To Be Paid by Bridge Owner.
III. Betterments.
IV. Expectable Savings in Repair or Maintenance Costs.
V. Costs Attributable to Requirements of Railway and Highway Traffic.
VI. Expenditure for Increased Carrying Capacity.
VII. Value of Expired Service Life of Old Bridge.
|
Table A_Summary of Estimated Project Costs------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fixed No. and item Cost charges Total------------------------------------------------------------------------1 New bridge..................... $8,104,052 $570,000 $8,674,0522 Removal of old bridge.......... 521,908 500 522,4083 Approaches..................... 50,000 5,000 55,0004 Additional highway approaches.. 1,530,000 15,000 1,545,0005 Railroad force account work.... 41,800 3,500 45,3006 Additional signaling........... 27,000 2,400 29,4007 Right-of-way................... 13,240 900 14,1408 Additional right-of-way........ 30,900 1,100 32,000 -------------------------------------- Total........................... 10,318,900 598,400 10,917,300 ====================================== Total estimated cost of project. ........... ........... 10,917,300 ====================================== Less salvage................... ........... ........... -77,300 Less contribution by third ........... ........... -432,000 party......................... -------------------------------------- Total cost of alteration to be ........... ........... 10,408,000 apportioned.....................Less right-of-way (Items 7 and 8) ........... ........... -46.140 -------------------------------------- Total Cost of construction...... ........... ........... 10,361,860------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B_Tabulation of Proportionate Shares of Costs To Be Borne by the United States and the Bridge Owner Total estimated cost of project (excluding contingencies) $10,917,300 (table A)................................................. Less salvage................................ 77,300 Less contribution by third party............ 432,000 -------------- Total cost of alteration to be apportioned... 10,408,000 ==============Share to be borne by the bridge owner: Direct and special benefits: Removing old bridge....................... $165,489 Fixed charges............................. 284,460 Betterments............................... 18,360 Expectable savings in repair or maintenance costs: a. Repair................................. 100,000 b. Maintenance............................ 16,288 Costs attributable to requirements of 1,534,000 railway and highway traffic................ Expenditure for increased carrying capacity. 2,330,000 Expired service life of old bridge.......... 511,300 ------------- Total..................................................... 4,959,897 ==============Share to be borne by the United States........ 5,449,103 Contingencies 15 pct........................ 817,365 -------------- Total........................................ 6,266,468 ==============Share to be borne by the bridge owner......... 4,959,897 Contingencies 15 pct........................ 743,985 -------------- Total........................................ 5,703,882 Note: The exact amount to be borne by the bridge owner will be determined after completion of the project.
Table I_Bridge Owner's Share of Removing Old Bridge-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Age at time Owner's Owner's Present Owner's Item to be removed of removal share Removal share of Years worth present (years)_(1) percent_(2) cost_(3) removal_(4) remaining_(5) factor_(6) liability_(7)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Substructure................................................ 62 62 $241,935 $150,000 38 .1639 $24,585Protection Works............................................ 37 67 60,000 40,200 18 .4245 17,065Superstructure.............................................. 61 87 206,896 180,000 9 .6516 117,288Signaling................................................... 61 100 440 440 0 1.0 440Ties and Timber............................................. 20 67 6,000 4,000 10 .6213 2,485Rail and Accessories: Rail, 110 lb.............................................. 33 100 1,000 1,000 0 1.0 1,000 Rail, 110 lb.............................................. 13 65 5,637 3,664 ............. .......... 2,626 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total...................................................... ........... ........... 521,908 368,104 ............. .......... 165,489--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Present Worth Factor based on 4\7/8\%, FY 1970, as established by Water Resources Council. The actual factor to be used shall be that current at the time of alteration.
Table II_Fixed Charges To Be Paid by Bridge Owner Cost of construction...................................... $10,361,860Less fixed charges........................................ 598,400 ------------- Total.................................................... 9,763,460 =============Owner's share less fixed charges: Removing old bridge..................................... 165,489 Betterments............................................. 18,360 Expectable savings in repair or maintenance costs: a. Repair............................................. 100,000 b. Maintenance........................................ 16,288 Costs attributable to requirements of railway and 1,503,100 highway traffic (less right-of-way).................... Expenditure for increased carrying capacity............. 2,330,000 Expired service life of old bridge...................... 511,300 ------------- Total.................................................... 4,644,537 =============Fixed charges by owner.................................... 284,460 4,644,537x598,400=284,460__________9,763,460
Table III_Betterments New furniture and water cooler in control house............ $1,050Increased cost of elevators over stairways................. 13,360Increased cost of galvanized steel grating walkways over 3,950 timber walkways........................................... ------------ Total..................................................... 18,360
Table IV_Expectable Savings in Repair or Maintenance Costs Repair CostCost in 1970 to repair damaged bridge...................... $100,000 ------------Savings in repair costs.................................... 100,000 ============ Maintenance CostAverage annual maintenance cost for old bridge............. 16,875Estimated annual maintenance cost for new bridge........... 16,000 ------------ Total decrease in annual maintenance costs................ 875 ============Annual savings capitalized (50 years) @ 4\7/ 16,288 8\%:875÷0.05372...................................... Present worth factor based on 4\7/8\ pct., F.Y. 1970, as established by Water Resources Council. The actual factor to be used shall be that current at the time of the study.
Table V_Costs Attributable to Requirements of Railway and Highway Traffic Heavier running rail (130 lb in lieu of 110 lb)............ $11,200Paving, lower deck......................................... 34,900Additional signaling....................................... 27,000Additional highway approaches.............................. 1,430,000 ------------ Subtotal.................................................. 1,503,100Additional right-of-way.................................... 30,900 ------------ Total..................................................... 1,534,000
Table VI_Expenditure for Increased Carrying Capacity Cost of new bridge designed for Cooper E 60 and AASHO HS20- $8,609,592 44 loading \1\............................................Cost of replacement-in-kind (hypothetical) bridge designed 6,279,592 for Cooper E 45 and AASHO H15-44 loading \1\.............. ------------ Total..................................................... 2,330,000 \1\ Excludes all items in Table III and first two items in Table V.
Table VII_Value of Expired Service Life of Old Bridge [Replacement year_1970]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Expired service life Value of Actual Estimated -------------------- expired Item to be removed Year Original Salvage capital service Percent service built_(1) cost_(2) value_(3) cost (2)- life_(5) Years of total life (3)_(4) 1970- (6) (4)x(7)_(8) (1)_(6) (5)_(7)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Substructure: Pivot Pier...................................................... 1908 $34,500 $0 $34,500 100 62 62 $21,390 Right End Pier.................................................. 1908 18,580 0 18,580 100 62 62 11,520 Left End Pier................................................... 1908 21,410 0 21,410 100 62 62 13,274 Right Abutment.................................................. 1908 8,600 0 8,600 100 62 62 5,332 Left Abutment................................................... 1908 11,410 0 11,410 100 62 62 7,074Protection Works: Pivot Pier...................................................... 1909 5,800 0 5,800 37 61 \1\ 50 2,900 Right End Pier.................................................. 1942 3,200 0 3,200 37 28 \1\ 50 1,600Superstructure: Swing Span...................................................... 1909 168,920 19,400 149,520 70 61 87 130,082 Electrification................................................. 1957 5,000 500 4,500 22 13 59 2,655 Left Approach Spans............................................. 1909 142,017 16,300 125,717 70 61 87 109,374 Right Approach Spans............................................ 1909 156,692 19,300 137,392 70 61 87 119,531Signaling......................................................... 1909 15,000 1,000 14,000 35 61 100 14,000 Ties and Timber................................................. 1909 8,120 0 8,120 20 61 \1\ 50 4,060Rail and Accessories: Rail, 110 lb.................................................... 1937 6,600 2,200 4,400 20 33 100 4,400 Rail, 110 lb.................................................... 1957 43,679 18,600 25,079 20 13 65 16,301Roadway Approaches: \2\ Pavement........................................................ 1908 17,841 0 17,841 20 62 \1\ 50 8,921 New Lane........................................................ 1961 43,609 0 43,609 20 9 45 19,624 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal......................................................... ......... ........ 77,300 633,678 ......... ........ ........ 492,038Engineering....................................................... ......... 24,695 0 24,695 ......... ........ \3\ 78 19,262 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................................ ......... ........ 77,300 ........ ......... ........ ........ 511.300--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\ Held at 50% if maintained in good condition.\2\ Roadway approaches to be abandoned.\3\ Weighted average 100 x492, 038/633, 678=78%.Explanation of Columns for Table VII: Column (1): Year Built is the original date that an item to be removed became a part of the bridge or the last known date that it was replaced. The items to be removed should be broken down to show as much detail as possible, particularly where there is a variation in the year built and/or the estimated service life. Column (2): Original cost shall be supported by records furnished by bridge owner. Engineering cost should be estimated if unknown. Column (3): Salvage_refer to § 277.8(b). Column (4): Actual capital cost is the original cost of the item to be removed minus the salvage value. Column (5): Estimated Service Life_refer to § 277.8(g). Column (6) & (7): Expired Service Life_refer to § 277.8(g). Column (8): Value of expired service life is the actual capital cost of the item to be removed multiplied by the percent of expired service life.
