Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Village of Larchmont Feasibility Study Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water Main Relocation 2/1/2007
{E 'Y'.i+� ��� �,,f�r...r+ :t" �Tdr ,'Y�'S 1Gj �9r" �"r" Ax`Iil.��:.�»I 7s k::�n,e,�r 1l�N!tX� T` 1' f a•r J F .�'t�l� ,tJL�..a r` � y Y Jlr 7;�.� Y�'rfr�„*�F°'r t ti�f�`�r�trti{1f4� t�`F�t l� �r k ✓£fin �1:" fn x., y r*dwy/` n�i �,�` . ��''{, S � • r' ��t�5�'f{v ro'v f �i iys f`. ''..� !�f �'���rs'� Y� a�"'r t t t,'� t d �"� .,' F"��I; f.✓ d,,,rr �.tp ?^ ✓,✓ sii�., s ,� r� c�> r.1 tf'° r� � ,, +a�r r ,+�°�s,Village ���xR��rt' ■-�.' o f Larchmont Feasibility Study Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water in Relocation February 2007 White Plains, NY OVIRKIS, AND L, Woodbury, NY Syracuse, NY South Plainfield, NJ BARTILUCCI TOWN OP MAMARONECK OPPICE OP THE TOWN ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM TO* Marco Gennarelli, David Goessl PROMs Stephen V. Altieri SUBJECT: Feasibility Study —Chatsworth Avenue Water Main Replacement DATES March 6, 2007 Attached is the feasibility study for the replacement for the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge water main. As I mentioned when we met, one of the alternatives under consideration is to tunnel the new water main under the Town's parking lot #3, the New York State Thruway, and Metro North Railroad. There will be a meeting on this project on Monday, March 12, 2007 at 4:00 PM. Since I understand neither of you will be able to attend, please prepare some brief comments as to your reactions to the feasibility study and the impact on the Town. This information will be helpful to me at the meeting. Please remember to return the study to me. Thank you. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT LARCHMONT, NEW YORK - DRAFT - FEASIBILITY STUDY CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION Prepared By DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK FEBRUARY 2007 ♦2622\BB0222702 INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT LARCHMONT, NEW YORK CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1-1 1.1 General Information....................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Scope...............................................................................................1-3 2.0 EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................................2-1 2.1 The Existing Water Main............................................................................2-1 2.2 Subsurface Conditions................................................................................2-2 2.3 Existing Utilities .........................................................................................2-3 3.0 ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Directional Drilling.....................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Design Requirements......................................................................3-4 3.1.2 Cost Estimate..................................................................................3-4 3.2 Utilizing Existing Bridge Sidewalk............................................................3-5 3.2.1 Design Requirements......................................................................3-8 3.2.2 Cost Estimate..................................................................................3-9 3.3 Utilizing the Existing Pedestrian Tunnel....................................................3-9 3.3.1 Design Requirements......................................................................3-9 3.3.2 Cost Estimate..................................................................................3-11 3.4 Lining the Existing Water Main .................................................................3-11 3.4.1 Design Requirements......................................................................3-11 3.4.2 Cost Estimate..................................................................................3-13 3.5 Replace the Water Main in the Same Place................................................3-15 3.5.1 Design Requirements......................................................................3-15 3.5.2 Cost Estimate..................................................................................3-15 3.6 Submissions for Approval...........................................................................3-17 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................4-1 4.1 Cost Estimate Comparison..........................................................................4-1 4.2 General Recommendations.........................................................................4-1 ♦2622\B B0222702 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) { List of Figures f1-1 Site Location Map.......................................................................................1-2 2-1 Plan of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge ......................................................2-4 2-2 South Elevation of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge....................................2-5 2-3 Bridge Sidewalk Sections...........................................................................2-6 3-1 Directional Drilling Pipe Location Detail...................................................3-3 3-2 Division Street Pipe Support Detail............................................................3-7 List of Tables 3-1 Alternative 1 Cost Estimate........................................................................3-6 3-2 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate........................................................................3-10 3-3 Alternative 3 Cost Estimate........................................................................3-12 3-4 Alternative 4 Cost Estimate........................................................................3-14 3-5 Alternative 5 Cost Estimate........................................................................3-16 3-6 Entities Requiring Submission....................................................................3-18 List of Appendices Photos of the Water Main on the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge................................A Letter from the NYSTA dated March 28, 2001......................................................B Ultrasonic Thickness Test dated June 13, 2001......................................................0 Bridge Inspection Report dated August 3, 2005.....................................................D Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Consultation........................E Photos of the Water Main on the Division Street Bridge .......................................F Proposal from the PIM Corp. dated May 1, 2002 ..................................................G ♦2622\BB0222702 11 Section 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In recognition of the need to replace the existing 16-inch water main adjacent to the exterior span of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge, the Incorporated Village of Larchmont (Village), authorized this Feasibility Study for the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water Main Relocation. Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers (D&B) is pleased to present this report. This Feasibility Study has been developed cooperatively between the Village and the engineering staff of D&B to provide a long-term solution for the replacement of the existing 16-inch water main and meet the requirements of the Westchester County Department of Health (WCDH), Metro North Commuter Rail Road (MNRR) and the New York State Thruway Authority(NYSTA). 1.1 General Information The existing 16-inch water main adjacent to the exterior span of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge is owned by the Village. The Village purchases water from the Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW) for their distribution system. The span of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge crosses over I-95 owned by the NYSTA and over the New Haven Line of the MNRR. The bridge structure including the 16-inch water main was constructed in 1956, approximately fifty-years ago. Figure 1-1 shows a site location map of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge and its surroundings. The existing water main is 16-inch diameter steel pipe constructed with leaded hub and mechanical joints. The pipe comes to the surface through a 16-inch Cast Iron elbow at ground level at the Larchmont side of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge. The exposed portion of the water main runs approximately 260 linea: feet at a pressure between 70 psi to 85 psi with an average flow of 1 MGD. The water main consists of 20-foot lengths of pipe connected with mechanical joints. As it runs along the exterior span of the bridge, an inverted U shaped steel plate covers the water main as it sits on a concrete slab that cantilevers from the bridge structure. The pipe is not insulated and does not have a protective coating. It should be noted that there are two customer ♦2622\B B0222703 1-1 Ward Acres 125 Winged Foot vO `, Park 139 X29 �� FFN! > Golf Club m 9 C°R� MppF. 0 C e �o / Swimmi •Pool U o � �•��v • O �1p WardlIt PpPv Bonnie Briar f� I` E m Sch ° +Country Club !! qo o u eb �ro,29 0 0 Park 0 N m I 1 9 P P Leonard Middle School 4 q E C o 14 a SITE x Q O O !O9 I 03 o RD LOCATION = -0 Wykagyl 0 ac o u Ave o Country Club o 0o m Sc 18 a B RD 194 RD d � O n a ° • 9 4� °C Y GRO O 3 3 � 83 Ira v O L� J� n 11 S Q e J v P U s[S v W V,O Y P OIR Q �P P eJ� y `� 25 a 77 74 P Q o CCb PSE � e C 11 II� IR . D to a OVT1 Q C m �/ QD E RD O O `\ � U DtiL ech D �60o t -"` A e e n t Flowers, * * a q F ke V Q °R mon Par . Par- 101 69 Hu eno t k �� \� P lot :o Jo a wero o B `�o�' , o I III DoH �- ona RD 87 liege o O UC U £ pL 1 g 11 t 8� �qQ'°QP o ✓ N, P a 1 AVE R 51 PSE P�6 Oa 67 ti9�Q ��N �> O C7 t�O II 1 yg1 _ 5 to 00k "A QI / L PR �� ♦I g •�\`✓ c �C n ity al OJ . o� n Home C) AVE T°N 68 ( 4° N "OR c e CD r tO 04 ar ry o h Q , t p 16 3 L_/ Dvirka INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT SCALE: NTS and FEASIBILITY STUDY N CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION co Q Bartilucci cliN dCONSULTINGENGINEERS LOCATION MAPco FIGURE OF WILLIAM F.COSULICH ASSOCIATES,P.C. FIGURE NO. �-11 service connections tapped into the existing 16-inch water main, which feed the Larchmont Train Station. One tap is 6-inch diameter located in a vaulted area under the bridge decking. The other tap is a 1-inch diameter corporation connection. The pipe reenters the ground at the Mamaroneck side of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge through a 16-inch Cast Iron elbow. A harnessed coupling anchors the first sections of the water main to the elbows on both sides. Concrete brackets support wooden saddles, which support the pipeline at approximately 9-foot spacing. In August of 2005, the NYSTA completed a Bridge Inspection Report, which concluded that the existing 16-inch water main along the span of the bridge is heavily rusted, including corrosion to its steel straps. The NYSTA has informed D&B that the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge is scheduled in their Capital Plan for rehabilitation or replacement in 2012. The Mayor of Larchmont learned in discussion with the NYSTA that this replacement date is not guaranteed. The surface of the steel pipe is severely pitted. Photos of the existing pipe and surroundings can be found in Appendix A of this study. On August 28, 2006, a water main break occurred on the southwest corner of the bridge. The pipe is in need of immediate rehabilitation or replacement. As this main crosses both the Thruway and a major commuter rail line, it should be repaired as soon as possible. 1.2 Report Scope The Village retained Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers (D&B) to perform a feasibility study to investigate and evaluate the need for a new water main, alternatives for replacement and make recommendations to meet the requirements of the WCDH, the MNRR and the NYSTA. In this study, D&B will evaluate the following alternatives: • Installing a new water main under the I-95 and New Haven Line using Directional Drilling • Install a new main on the existing sidewalk of the bridge • Install a new main in the existing pedestrian tunnel • Place a lining in the existing water main • Remove the existing water main and install a new water main in the same location ♦2622\BB0222703 1-3 Section 2 2.0 EVALUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 The Existing Water Main In January of 2001, a Bridge Inspection Report was completed by the NYSTA, which was followed up by a letter to the Village of Larchmont Village Engineer dated March 28, 2001. This letter can be found in Appendix B of this study. As noted in the letter, the Bridge Inspection Report concluded that the existing 16-inch water main along the span of the bridge exhibited heavy rust scale on the pipe; many failed straps due to corrosion; rotted and split timber saddles; and corrosion holes in the hood. This letter requested the Village to review the condition of the main and make necessary repairs as soon as possible. Immediately following, the Village hired Desman Associates to complete an inspection of the main. In June of 2001, Future Tech Consultants (FTC) completed an Ultrasonic Thickness Test. The results from this test can be found in Appendix C of this study. Two tests completed as part of this Report, one starting from the Larchmont side of the pipe and the other starting from the Mamaroneck side of the pipe. The average results for pipe thickness from both of these tests are as follows: Top North South Bottom 0.310" 0.316" 0.306" 0.193" The average results above show that there is more corrosion on the bottom of the steel pipe. According to the guidelines of AWWA C200 for Steel Water Pipe 6 Inches and Larger, the minimum wall thickness allowed is 7-gauge (0.1793") for pipe 6-inch through 24-inch diameter. The minimum thickness found from the test was 0.125" at the bottom of the existing pipe, which is below the minimum allowable. In August of 2005, the NYSTA completed another Bridge Inspection Report. This Inspection Report can be found in Appendix D of this study. In reference to the water main, the Bridge Inspection Report concluded that the existing 16-inch water main along the span of the bridge is heavily rusted, including corrosion to its steel straps. The report stated that the timber ♦2622\BB0222704 2-1 saddle supports show splitting, and that there was minor leakage from the elbow joint but that could be a result of sweating. The inspection report did not go into detail on the condition of the water main or its supports, nor did it make any conclusions or recommendations for the water main. 2.2 Subsurface Conditions In July of 2003, the MNRR completed a contract for Improvements to the Larchmont Train Station, which included a Report of Subsurface Exploration Information. The subsurface samples taken for this study were drilled approximately 500-feet north of the Chatsworth Bridge. The results from this study may be similar to the findings at the Chatsworth Bridge. It is recommended that if directional drilling is the design replacement method, then separate soil borings be taken along the proposed route in order to obtain more accurate information. The samples used to complete the above referenced report consisted of 4 soil borings ranging from 15.2-feet to 30.5-feet in depth. The results from the southernmost soil boring (B-1A) are as follows: Elevation Identification of Soils/Remarks +41.11' Starting Surface Elevation Firm. Consists of dark brown and tan sands, brown clayey silt and traces +41.11' to +37.11' of fine gravel. Silt. Consists of black sand, silt and brown gravel. Groundwater was +37.11' to +33.11' encountered at+35.11'. +33.11' to +31.11' Sand. Consists of brown sand with traces of silt, gravel and mica. Clayey Sit. Consists of gray clayey silt with little sand and traces of gravel +31.11' to +30.11' and mica. +30.11' to +28.11' Brown Peat. Consists of dark brown peat and little organic silt. +28.11' to +22.11' Brown Sand. Consists of brown sand, traces of silt, little gravel and mica. +22.11' to +19.11' Gray Clayey Silt. Disintegrated Rock. Consists of gray sand, traces of silt with rock +19.11' to +10.61' I fragments. ♦2622\BB0222704 2-2 The Report of Subsurface Exploration Information can be found in Appendix E of this study. 2.3 Existing Utilities Besides the 16-inch water main, electric and gas utility lines cross the span of the bridge. Figure 2-1 shows a plan of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge, its surroundings and utilities in the area. This figure was created from contract drawings provided by the NYSTA. If and when design and construction takes place, an updated markout will be requested. Section 1 on Figure 2-2 shows the south elevation of the Bridge. Section 2 on Figure 2-3 shows a section through the sidewalk on the south side of the bridge showing the location of the existing water, electric and gas utility lines. .2622\BB0222704 2-3 X SOP O G�. p Q O � a Qi a 1.5 STORY a BUILDING Q m m C Z fq Z irO Z O 1 STORY BUILDING 1 STORY BUILDING Lu co v j m N m CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE 2 Z W Q 1 STORY 1 STORY 0 6 STORY k = BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING > LEGEND: 0 °' m w - ELECTRIC Z a GAS M Of � SEWER TELEPHONE WATER N N SOURCE: NYSTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS a 0 3 INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT SCALE: 1" =40' Dvirka FEASIBILITY STUDY N d1b and CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION Bartilucci PLAN OF THE CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGEco FIGURE 2-1 �o 18" HDPE SLEEVE /\/i 30' NYSTA RIGHT OF WAY MNRR RIGHT OF WAY SECTION 1 N O U U m a� n` m Q M N M O O O N N SOURCE: NYSTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS a 0 3 INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT SCALE: 1" = 20' N Dvirka FEASIBILITY STUDY N d1bCONSULTING and CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION CID Bartilucci N ENGINEERS SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE 0pA DIVISION OF WILLIAM F.COSULICH ASSOCIATES,P.C. FIGURE 2'2 m lL D 0 O co GI i C U SECTION 2 a WATER MAIN SUPPORTED BY BRIDGE COLUMN � SCALE:3/4"=1'-0" a co V N f7 O_ O O N a SOURCE: NYSTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS 3 INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT SCALE: AS NOTED Dvirka FEASIBILITY STUDY N and CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION d1 bCONSLILTING Bartilucci N ENGINEERS BRIDGE SIDEWALK SECTIONS 04 A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F.COSULICH ASSOCIATES,P.C. FIGURE 2-3 DO Section 3 3.0 ALTERNATIVES Please note that all of the following alternatives will require plan submission to the WCDH,NYSTA and MNRR. In this section,the following alternatives are evaluated: • Installing a new water main under the I-95 and New Haven Line using Directional Drilling. + • Install a new main on the existing sidewalk of the bridge. • Install a new main in the existing pedestrian tunnel. • Place a lining in the existing water main. r' • Remove the existing water main and install a new water main in the same location. 3.1 Directional Drilling Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is a cost effective trenchless method to install underground utilities/pipes with little or no surface disruption. This alternative is ideal for crossing railroads, busy roadways, or in residential and commercial areas or where it is difficult or impossible to use conventional trenching. Directional Drilling can be done in all types of soil, dirt, sand, clay, gravel, cobble, glacial till, shale and rock. The process is usually more expensive in areas where there is extensive rock. Directionally drilling the new pipe would require that an 18" diameter HDPE sleeve be directionally drilled under the I-95 of the NYSTA and the New Haven Line of the MNRR. The HDPE 16" diameter water pipe would then be installed in the sleeve. Plans and specifications for directionally drilling the water main are required to be submitted to the WCDH, NYSTA and MNRR. Once the water main is installed, tested, chlorinated and ready for connection, the existing water main on the exterior of the span would be cut, capped and abandoned in place. If and when the bridge is rehabilitated or replaced the abandoned water main would be removed. Connections to the existing piping would be made below grade where the existing vault is located on Chatsworth Avenue. ♦2622\BB0222705(R01) 3-1 HDD begins from the surface at an entry angle between 5 and 20 degrees and is tracked along a predetermined path with a locating system. The drill string is accurately directed toward a horizontal target depth and the final exit point. Once the drill string reaches the exit location or surface a back reamer is attached to the drill string and pulled back to the entry point. This process enlarges the borehole for the installation of the utility/pipe. To achieve the appropriate bore size it may be necessary to perform several back reaming operations. The utility/pipe is pulled back once the borehole is enlarged to the appropriate diameter (typically 1 1/2 times the outside diameter of the utility/pipe being installed). It is extremely important that during the drilling process that the pressures remain sufficiently high in order to maintain borehole stability. The drilling mud pressure must be monitored and maintained above the groundwater pressure to prevent collapse of the borehole. The 1-95 is depressed and approximately twenty-feet below the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge. In the event of a leak or failure of the water main, the sleeve would protect the Thruway and the Railroad from damage. This in turn would reduce the risk of liability to the Village. The revised configuration of the piping would require ancillary revisions to the water mains located in the local vicinity. The equipment required for underground drilling would require a large staging area, which is limited. A detail showing where the pipe would be installed and connected as well as staging areas is shown on Figure 3-1. To directionally drill the pipe under the I-95 could require drilling through rock, which would be. costly. It also imposes the additional costs for and/or problems relating to any maintenance or repair work required in the future on the water main especially under the NYSTA and MNRR. If a leak does take place in the future, the water would exist through the sleeve`<to each end of the pipe and repairs would be made in the same manner it is installed. This would relieve the Village of any liability related to the disruption of Thruway and/or Railroad oper�tic�ts. t As discussed in Section 2.2 of this study, subsurface information is available from a location at 500-feet north of the Chatsworth Bridge. It is recommended that a total of eight soil ♦2622\BB0222705(R01) 3-2 4 • %b PROPOSED LOC OF. STAGING AREA ORTH EXIST. 16" WMA 7 n' *41P zx . 44" lift ' ` � " PROPOSED, OCATION ;: . ,� ,'` OF DIRECTIONALLY 1 DRILLE ' 16" �{VM PROPOSED LO ION>OFf r' STAGING AREA cu 1° CID ,` } ` O STAGING AREA---------EXIST. 16" WM o ---------EXIST. WM ---.. -.__--NEW 16" WM 3 INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT SCALE: 1 = 100' FEASIBILITY STUDY N Dvirka CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION CSI and Q Bartilucci DIRECTIONAL DRILLING PIPE LOCATION DETAIL N CONSULTING ENGINEERS FIGURE No. 3-1 A DNISION OF WILLIAM F.COSULICH ASSOCIATES,P.C. LL� borings be taken along the route of the proposed pipe for accuracy in the directional drilling design. It should be noted that if this alternative is chosen, a new water service connection for the 6-inch pipe. 3.1.1 Design Requirements The following would need to be considered for the design of this alternative: • Recommend that a total of eight soil borings be taken along the route of the proposed pipe - Soils boring results are required for NYSTA plan approvals and design. The NYSTA and MNRR would be contacted prior to conducting the soil borings in order to obtain work permit, bore location and depth requirements. • Design 360 linear feet of 18-inch diameter HDPE sleeve for directional drilling • Design 480 linear feet of 16-inch HDPE water main and 16-inch diameter ductile iron water main • Design Ductile Iron connections to the 16-inch HDPE and ductile iron pipe transitions to the existing distribution system • Design Connections to the existing 16-inch water main • Design shoring for the entrance and receiving pits in each staging area • Plan for and design replacement of 6-inch and 1-inch water services presently tapped on the existing 16-inch water main serving the train station. This alternative would require preparation of bid documents including specifications and drawings. The entities requiring submittals for approval and requirements are discussed in Section 3.6 of this study. 3.1.2 Cost Estimate HDD eliminates the cost of excavation and restoration associated with open trenching and installations can be performed in less time. No dewatering is necessary when working above the water table, subsequently reducing costs and construction time. HDD is not affected by ♦2622\BB0222705(RO1) 3-4 seasonal temperature fluctuations since there is no need to backfill and compact soil materials to complete the installation. There is no need to close roads, stop trains or redirect traffic around the construction site, thus maintaining normal traffic patterns and access to businesses and residential property. A cost estimate was prepared using the above listed considerations. The cost estimate for Alternative 1 can be found on Table 3-1. 3.2 Utilizing Existing Bridge Sidewalk Utilizing the existing bridge sidewalk would require that a new 16-inch pipe be installed on the sidewalk of the bridge on the interior span of the bridge. There is a similar design like the one proposed which is located on the Division Street Bridge in New Rochelle. On the Division Street Bridge, a 12-inch water main was installed on the sidewalk and supported by rollers, which rest on a concrete pad. In a visit made by D&B to the Division Street Bridge, pictures were taken and the design was reviewed to help us in completing this feasibility study. It should be noted that while visiting this installation, it was observed that the supports for the water main on the Division Street Bridge were lifted from the concrete pad, the rollers where corroded and the water main was shifted in certain sections leaving the main to rest on the outside edge of the rollers. It should be noted that this installation was completed in 2002. A detail showing how the pipe is supported on the sidewalk of the Division Street Bridge is shown on Figure 3-2. Pictures from this visit are located in Appendix F of this report. For this alternative, the water main would only be able to be installed on the sidewalk located on the south side of the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge because there is an exit and entrance ramp to the train station parking lot on the north side of the bridge. Currently, there is an 8-inch gas main inside a sleeve and several conduits encased in concrete located under the sidewalk, which may make it difficult to install the supports for the water main. D&B has contacted Con-Edison about the gas main and it is required that if the water main is relocated to the sidewalk that the water main be 12-inch vertical separation from the gas main. D&B has taken this separation into consideration this for this alternative. The existing sidewalk is approximately ♦2622\BB0222705(RO 1) 3-5 Dvirka Inc. Village of Larchmont - Feasiblity Study and Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water Main Relocation d[ bCONSULTING Bartilucci Alternative 1 - Directional Drilling ENGINEERS Cost Estimate Table 3-1 Alternative 1 Cost Estimate Est. Unit Price Item Unit Quant. Description Unit Price Ext. 1 Each 1 NYSTA Permitting Fees $2,200.00 $2,200.00 2 Each 1 MNCRR Permitting Fees $1,000.00 $1,000.00 3 Days 20 Cost for MNCRR flag man, line man and inspector $3,000.00 $60,000.00 Cost for 8 soil borings at 15-feet each totally 75 Lf. 4 Each 1 includiing cost for mobilization, demobilization and $5,000.00 $5,000.00 geotechnical report 5 LF 480 Furnishing and Installing 16-inch Diameter Ductile Iron $100.00 $48,000.00 Water Main 6 Pound 3000 Furnishing and Installing Ductile Iron Fittings $1.00 $3,000.00 7 Each 2 Furnishing and Installing 16-inch Gate Valves and Boxes $1,500.00 $3,000.00 8 Each 2 Making Connections to Existing 16-inch Water Main by $10,000.00 $20,000.00 using 16-inch tapping Sleeves and valves 9 Cubic Yard 100 Sand or Select Fill from Off-site Sources $25.00 $2,500.00 10 Square Yard 250 Grass Area Restoration $7.00 $1,750.00 11 LF 30 Saw Cutting Pavement $2.00 $60.00 12 Ton 100 Bituminous Pavement Restoration $250.00 $25,000.00 13 Square Foot 100 Removal and Replacement of Concrete Sidewalk $10.00 $1,000.00 14 LS 1 Excavation R Shoring for Receiving Pit in South Staging $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Area 15 LF 360 Directional Drilling of HDPE sleeve $500.00 $180,000.00 16 Each 1 Mobilization and Demobilization $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Total of all Items $ 417,510 Contingency (20%) $ 83,502 Subtotal $ 501,012 Engineering (15% of Subtotal) $ 75,152 Total (Subtotal + 15% Engineering) $ 576,164 2622- Feasibility Study Cost Estimate-Alternative 1 Table 3-1 POST CL PIPE & ROLLER CONDUIT PIPE I I I CHAIN LINK FENCE I I 12"0 WATER MAIN I I I I BRIDGE SIDEWALK I d 8 a d d U m m 'c m N C7 04 Q ROLLER BASE W/ EPDXY SUPPORTED BY CONCRETE PAD ON TOP OF SIDE WALK _o n 0 0 N 00 N a 0 3 N INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT Dvirka FEASIBILITY STUDY SCALE: NTS N and CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE WATER MAIN RELOCATION Bartilucci N F.0 db CONSULTING CHASSO ASSOCIATES,ENGINEERS DIVISION STREET PIPE SUPPORT DETAIL �� ADIVISION OF WILLIAM F.COSULICH ASSOCIATES,PC. FIGURE NO. 3-2 U_� 9-feet wide. The proposed design would require a 2-foot width on the sidewalk, leaving the NYSTA with a 7-foot width sidewalk. It should be noted that the normal width of a sidewalk is usually 4-feet; therefore the remaining width would be adequate for pedestrian traffic. The NYSTA has informed us that the current thruway policy states that new and replacement utility facilities are to be placed underground. If Alternative 1 is proven to not be feasible, there is a procedure to request that the water main be replaced on the bridge, however approval requires an annual fee. The annual fee for this is $0.4375 per square foot annually. Therefore, a 16-inch pipe that is 260-feet long utilizing a width of approximately 2-feet would cost $230 per year. The annual fee may be waived by the Authority's Real Property Management Committee (RPMC) with the request and justification to do so. The justification must be submitted prior to the design in order to be approved and must include all reasons that it would not be feasible to place the utility below grade. 3.2.1 Design Requirements The following would need to be considered for the design of this alternative: • Design 480 linear feet of 16-inch diameter ductile iron water main • Design connections to the existing 16-inch water main • Design spring cushion hanger and heavy duty cast iron pipe rollers • Design anchoring system • Design security measure This alternative would require preparation of bid documents including specifications and drawings. The entities requiring submittals for approval and requirements are discussed in Section 3.6 of this study. ♦2622\BB0222705(RO l) 3-8 3.2.2 Cost Estimate A cost estimate was prepared using the above listed considerations. The cost estimate for Alternative 2 can be found on Table 3-2. 3.3 Utilizing the Existing Pedestrian Tunnel Utilizing the existing pedestrian tunnel would require installing a new 16-inch water main below grade in the pedestrian tunnel used to connect to the Larchmont Train Station. The design of the water main and supports would be similar to the design proposed in Alternative 2. Half of the tunnel is owned by the MNRR and the Village owns the other half. It should be noted that this alternative is not recommended because of safety concerns related to the water main especially in the event of a water main break which may flow at 700-gallons per minute (gpm) and could fill the tunnel very quickly. If this alternative were chosen, the tunnel would be out of service during the construction. 3.3.1 Design Requirements The following would need to be considered for the design of this alternative: • Design 480 linear feet of 16-inch diameter ductile iron water main • Design connections to the existing 16-inch water main • Grass area and sidewalk restoration • Design security measure for the tunnel to prevent a disaster • Plan for and design service connection for the 6-inch and 1-inch water services currently tapped off the existing 16-inch water main. This alternative would require preparation of bid documents including specifications and drawings. The entities requiring submittals for approval and requirements are discussed in Section 3.6 of this study. ♦2622\BB0222705(R01) 3-9 Dvirka Inc. Village of Larchmont- Feasibility Study and Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water Main Relocation d[ bCONSULTING BartijUCCiAlternative 2- Utilizing Existing Bridge Sidewalk ENGINEERS Cost Estimate Table 3-2 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate Est. Unit Price Item Unit Quant. Description Unit Price Ext. 1 Each 1 NYSTA Permitting Fees $2,200.00 $2,200.00 2 Each 1 MNCRR Permitting Fees $1,000.00 $1,000.00 1 LF 480 Furnishing and Installing 16-inch Diameter Ductile Iron $100.00 $48,000.00 Water Main 2 Pound 3000 Furnishing and Installing Ductile Iron Fittings $1.00 $3,000.00 3 Each 2 Furnishing and Installing 16-inch Gate Valves and Boxes $1,500.00 $3,000.00 4 Each 2 Making Connections to Existing 16-inch Water Main by $10,000.00 $20,000.00 using 16-inch tapping Sleeves and valves 5 Cubic Yard 30 Sand or Select Fill from Off-site Sources $25.00 $750.00 7 LF 30 Saw Cutting Pavement $2.00 $60.00 8 Ton 100 Bituminous Pavement Restoration $250.00 $25,000.00 9 Square Foot 20 Removal and Replacement of Concrete Sidewalk $10.00 $200.00 10 Each 2 Cut and Cap each end of the Existing 16" Pipe and $500.00 $1,000.00 abandon in place 11 Each 2 Remove Existing 16"elbows and replace with new 16" $600.00 $1,200.00 elbows 12 Each 1 Re-tap the Existing 16-inch Water Main for 1" and 6" $3,620.00 $3,620.00 service connections 13 CF 20 Concrete Repairs to Existing Concrete Sidewalk $1,000.00 $20,000.00 14 Each 31 Furnishing and Installing New 16" Spring Cushion Hanger $2,000.00 $62,000.00 and Heavv Duty Cast Iron Pipe Roller 15 Each 31 Furnishing and Installing New 16" Protection Insulation $200.00 $6,200.00 Shield 16 Each 62 Threaded Rods for Adhesive Anchoring System $3.00 $186.00 17 Each 7 Hilti Adhesive Anchoring System (1 tube for 10 holes) $30.00 $210.00 18 LF 260 Furnishing and Installing New Painted Steel Pipe Cover $200.00 $52,000.00 19 LF 260 Furinshing and Installing New Protective Fence $60.00 $15,600.00 20 i Each 1 Mobilization and Demobilization $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal of all Items $ 280,226 Contingency(20%) $ 56,045 Subtotal $ 336,271 Engineering (15% of Subtotal) $ 50,441 Total (Subtotal + 15% Engineering) $ 386,712 2622 - Feasibility Study Cost Estimate-Alternative 2 Table 3-2 3.3.2 Cost Estimate A cost estimate was prepared using the above listed considerations. The cost estimate for Alternative 3 can be found on Table 3-3. 3.4 Lining the Existing Water Main One immediate option the Village has is to have the existing water main tight lined with a High Density Polyethylene pipe (HDPE) and construct necessary repairs to the existing support system of the existing 16-inch pipe. A HDPE liner is a reliable method to protect steel pipelines from deterioration. This is accomplished by inserting a plastic pipe into the existing steel pipe. The metal is the structural element and the plastic protects the steel. This would be a temporary fix, allowing the Village to affect a repair, which would be good until at least 2012. It would also allow the Village to develop plans for a permanent replacement by the time work begins on the bridge and avoid dealing with temporary relocations and/or numerous shutdowns and service interruptions during the rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge. 3.4.1 Design Requirements The type of liner used for pipes, which are normally under pressure, is a tight liner. Tight liners have an outer diameter greater than the inner diameter of the host pipe. As a result no annular space is left between the liner and the steel pipe. This project would include tight lining approximately 260 linear feet of suspended 16-inch steel potable-water water main with approximately 14.75-inch outside diameter (O.D.) SDR 26 HDPE pipe in accordance with AWWA standards. As part of the construction contract, the contractor would supply labor and materials to complete the work. After the HDPE pipe is installed, the contractor would revert the ♦2622\B B0222705(RO 1) 3-11 Dvirka Inc. Village of Larchmont - Feasibility Study and Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water Main Relocation d[ bCONSULTING BartilUCCi Alternative 3 - Utiizing the Exist. Pedestrian Tunnel ENGINEERS Cost Estimate Table 3-3 Alternative 3 Cost Estimate Est. Unit Price Item Unit Quant. Description Unit Price Ext. 1 Each 1 MNCRR Permitting Fees $1,000.00 $1,000.00 2 Days 20 Cost for MNCRR inspector $1,000.00 $20,000.00 3 LF 480 Furnishing and Installing 16-inch Diameter Ductile Iron $100.00 $48,000.00 Water Main 4 Pound 3000 Furnishing and Installing Ductile Iron Fittings $1.00 $3,000.00 5 Each 2 Furnishing and Installing 16-inch Gate Valves and Boxes $1,500.00 $3,000.00 Making Connections to Existing 16-inch Water Main by 6 Each 2 usin 16-inch $10,000.00 $20,000.00 tappingSleeves and valves 7 Cubic Yard 100 Sand or Select Fill from Off-site Sources $25.00 $2,500.00 8 Square Yard 800 Grass Area Restoration $7.00 $5,600.00 9 LF 200 Saw Cutting Pavement $2.00 $400.00 10 Ton 500 Bituminous Pavement Restoration $250.00 $125,000.00 11 Square Foot 350 Removal and Replacement of Concrete Sidewalk $10.00 $3,500.00 Subtotal of all Items $ 232,000 Contingency (20%) $ 46,400 Subtotal $ 278,400 Engineering (15% of Subtotal) $ 41,760 Total (Subtotal + 15% Engineering) $ 320,160 2622 - Feasibility Study Cost Estimate -Alternative 3 Table 3-3 pipe to its original diameter using water pressure and install special 16-inch x 14.7 -inch mechanical to flanged end fittings to allow for the reconnection of the new HDPE liner pipe to the existing steel pipe. Once this is completed, the contractor would perform a hydrostatic pressure test and chlorinate the line. In April of 2002, the Village requested the PIM Corporation to submit a proposal to line the existing water main utilizing the proprietary "SUBUNE" process. This proposal can be found in Appendix G of this study. In the proposal to install such a liner, there was no mention of repairing any of the supports. The following would need to be considered for the design for this alternative: • Design the lining of 260 linear feet of 16-inch diameter water main • Design lining connections to the existing 16-inch water main • Design the removal and replacement of elbows • Design connections for the existing 6-inch and 1-inch water service lines • Design concrete repairs • Design repairs to the existing pipe supports • Design anchoring system This alternative would require preparation of bid documents including specifications and drawings. The entities requiring submittals for approval and requirements are discussed in Section 3.6 of this study. 3.42 Cost Estimate A cost estimate was prepared using the above listed considerations. The cost estimate for Alternative 4 can be found on Table 3-4. ♦2622\BB0222705(RO l) Dvirka Inc. Village of Larchmont- Feasibility Study and Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water Main Relocation Bartilucci Alternative 4- Lining the Existing Water Main CONSULTING ENGINEERS Cost Estimate Table 3-4 Alternative 4 Cost Estimate Est. Unit Price Item Unit Quant. Description Unit Price Ext. 1 Each 1 NYSTA Permitting Fees $2,200.00 $2,200.00 2 Each 1 MNCRR Permitting Fees $1,000.00 $1,000.00 3 Days 20 Cost for MNCRR inspector $1,000.00 $20,000.00 1 LF 260 Lining Existing 16-inch Water Main $320.00 $83,200.00 2 Each 2 Furnishing and Installing 16" Liner Grip Fittings $3,750.00 $7,500.00 3 LF 300 Furnishing and Installing 14.76" HDPE Pipe $50.00 $15,000.00 4 Each 2 Remove Existing 16"elbows and replace with new 16" $600.00 $1,200.00 elbows 5 Each 1 Re-tap the Existing 16-inch Water Main for 1" and 6" $3,620.00 $3,620.00 service connections 6 Each 31 Remove Existing 16"saddle type pipe supports; cut and $100.00 $3,100.00 patch existing anchor supports 7 CF 20 Concrete Repairs to Existing Concrete Slab Pipe Support $1,000.00 $20,000.00 8 Each 31 Furnishing and Installing New 16" Spring Cushion Hanger $2,000.00 $62,000.00 and Heavy Duty Cast Iron Pipe Roller 9 Each 31 Furnishing and Installing New 16" Protection Insulation $200.00 $6,200.00 Shield 10 Each 62 Threaded Rods for Adhesive Anchoring System $3.00 $186.00 11 Each 7 Hilti Adhesive Anchoring System (1 tube for 10 holes) $30.00 $210.00 12 LF 260 Furnishing and Installing New Painted Steel Pipe Cover $200.00 $52,000.00 13 Each 1 Mobilization and Demobilization $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal of all Items $ 292,416 Contingency(20%) $ 58,483 Subtotal $ 350,899 Engineering (15% of Subtotal) $ 52,635 Total (Subtotal + 15% Engineering) $ 403,534 2622- Feasibility Study Cost Estimate-Alternative 4 Table 3-4 3.5 Replace the Water :Main in the Same Place Replacing the 16-inch water main in the same place is the fifth alternative proposed. This would require that the existing pipe and supports be removed and a new 16-inch pipe be installed on the cantilever support on the exterior side of the bridge and construct necessary repairs to the existing concrete on the exterior span and install new supports and anchoring system for the new 16-inch pipe. For this alternative, the water main would be out of service for approximately 2 months. 3.5.1 Design Requirements The following would need to be considered for the design of this alternative: • Design 260 linear feet of 16-inch diameter water main • Design connections to the existing 16-inch water main • Design the removal and replacement of elbows • Design connections for the existing 6-inch and 1-inch water service lines • Design concrete repairs • Design spring cushion hanger and heavy duty cast iron pipe rollers • Design anchoring system • Coordinate with MNRR and NYSTA This alternative would require preparation of bid documents including specifications and drawings..The -entities.,requiring submittals for approval and requirements are discussed in Section 3.6 of this study. 3.5.2 Cost Estimate A cost estimate was prepared using the above listed considerations. The cost estimate for Alternative 5 can be found on Table 3-5. ♦2622\BB0222705(RO l) 3-15 bDvirka Inc. Village of Larchmont- Feasibility Study and Chatsworth Avenue Bridge Water Main Relocation CONSULTING Bartilucci alternative 5- Replacing the WM in the Same Place ENGINEERS Cost Estimate Table 3-5 Alternative 5 Cost Estimate Est. Unit Price Item Unit Quant. Description Unit Price Ext. 1 Each 1 NYSTA Permitting Fees $2,200.00 $2,200.00 2 Each 1 MNCRR Permitting Fees $1,000.00 $1,000.00 3 Days 20 Cost for MNCRR flag man, line man and inspector $3,000.00 $60,000.00 4 LF 260 Furnishing and Installing 16-inch Diameter Ductile Iron $100.00 $26,000.00 Water Main 5 Pound 3000 Furnishing and Installing Ductile Iron Fittings $1.00 $3,000.00 6 Each 1 Re-tap the Existing 16-inch Water Main for 1"and 6" $3,620.00 $3,620.00 service connections 7 Each 31 Remove Existing 16"saddle type pipe supports; cut and $100.00 $3,100.00 patch existing anchor supports 8 CF 20 Concrete Repairs to Existing Concrete Slab Pipe Support $1,000.00 $20,000.00 9 Each 31 Furnishing and Installing New 16"Spring Cushion Hanger $2,000.00 $62,000.00 and Heavy Duty Cast Iron Pipe Roller 10 Each 31 Furnishing and Installing New 16" Protection Insulation $200.00 $6,200.00 Shield 11 Each 62 Threaded Rods for Adhesive Anchoring System $3.00 $186.00 12 Each 7 Hilti Adhesive Anchoring System (1 tube for 10 holes) $30.00 $210.00 13 LF 260 Furnishing and Installing New Painted Steel Pipe Cover $200.00 $52,000.00 14 Each 1 Mobilization and Demobilization $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal of all Items $ 254,516 Contingency(20%) $ 50,903 Subtotal $ 305,419 Engineering (15% of Subtotal) $ 45,813 Total (Subtotal + 15% Engineering) _ $ 351,232 Total does not include permits and railroad flagmen 2622 - Feasibility Study Cost Estimate-Alternative 5 Table 3-5 3.6 Submissions for Approval Each alternative would require preparation of bid documents including specifications and drawings. Entities which require submission include the WCDH, MMRR and NYSTA. Table 3- 6 compares each alternative and the entities which require submittals for approval. ♦2622\BB0222705(RO I) 3-17 Table 3-6 Entities Requiring Submission Requirements V V U 0 M C Cz E fil N Q M Application for approval for improvements to water x supply Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 A detailed set of plans for the proposed project is required Application for approval for work affecting the MNRR A detailed set of plans for the proposed project is Yes Yes Yes required Yes (5) Yes (2) The following fees shall be addressed in the cost (2) estimate for this alternative $1,000 - Administration fee for Work Permits TA 41337-Occupancy Permit (OP) Application referencing "Utility Repair/Upgrade I-95 MP 7.6" TA 41338-Work Permit (WP) Application referencing "Utility Repair/Upgrade I-95 MP 7.6" TA 51343-9—Supplemental Insurance Certificate including an ACORD 25 form. • The General Liability Limits are $2,000,000, Automobile $1,000,000, Workers Comp (as Please note that the Village can apply for Yes required). g pp y (4) Yes No Yes Yes an Insurance Undertaking with the NYSTA, and then the NYSTA would not require the other insurance forms. A detailed set of plans for the proposed project is required The following fees shall be attached to the Permit<<�: • $250 - Administration fee for Work Permits j, • $750 - Administration fee for Occupancy Permits z • $TBD (3) (1) Historical data from the NYSTA shows the fees to range from $750 to $3675 depending on the geographic location and time of activities. An average of the range was used to determine the cost for this alternative. If the Village decides to use a contractor for traffic control on I-95 the NYSTA Traffic Safety group will need to meet with them prior to any lane closures. State Police will only perform traffic Stops in any one direction in coordination with the NYSTA Traffic Safety group. .2622\sB0222705(Ro i) 3-18 (2) Add the following costs to Alternative 1 and Alternative 5: • $1,000/day—Cost for flag man for approx. 20 days • $1,000/day—Cost for line man for approx. 20 days • $1,000/day—Cost for inspector for approx. 20 days (3) Traffic review and support fee (Traffic review and support fees will be determined after the Traffic Safety Group of the NYSTA reviews the project. These fees are based upon the review of the proposed utility replacement schedule and/or requirements of Thruway support personnel. Other fees may apply for the installation inspection during the Work Permit duration.) (4) Add the following permit to Alternative 1: • TA - Longitudinal Occupancy Permit (LOP) Application referencing "Utility Repair /Upgrade I-95 MP 7.6" A request for a Longitudinal Occupancy Permit is required by the NYSTA. The NYSTA Occupancy and Work Permit Accommodation Policy state that tunneling will only be permitted under exceptional circumstances and then only when the borehole excess voids can be filled under pressure with a cement grout. It is required that pressure grouting from the ground surface shall be performed for encasement sleeves less than 36-inches in diameter. Alternate industry approved methods other than pressure grouting may be utilized if approved by the NYSTA. Encasement pipes shall be sealed at the ends to prevent flowing water and debris from entering the annular space between the casing and carrier pipes. Encasement pipes shall be properly vented and drained. The required depth of burial for all underground longitudinal installations is 3-feet minimum below the design- finished grade. The NYSTA requires that the main be encased in a larger pipe sleeve so that repairs or replacements may be made with minimal disturbance to the traffic lanes. The encasement pipe shall be made of steel, concrete or other durable material properly protected from chemical and electrical deterioration in accordance with the applicable safety codes. HDPE pipe would be ideal for this situation. (5) Add the following costs to Alternative 3: • $1,000/day—Cost for inspector for approx. 20 days ♦2622\BB0222705(RO l) 3-19 Section 4 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Cost Estimate Comparison Shown below is a table comparing the cost all the alternatives: Alternative Description Cost Solution 1 Directional Drilling $576,164 Long Term 2 Utilizing the Existing Sidewalk $386,712 Short Term 3 Utilizing the Existing Tunnel $320,160 Long Term 4 Lining the Existing Water Main $403,534 Short Term 5 Replace Main in the Same Place $351,232 Short Term 4.2 General Recommendations D&B made initial contact with the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) on August 31, 2006. The NYSTA has informed D&B that the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge is scheduled in their Capital Plan for rehabilitation or replacement in 2012. Although the bridge is scheduled for rehabilitation or replacement in 2012, it is not definite. If and when the bridge is updated, it may require that the utility be removed. As discussed in Section 2 of this study, the water main is in need of immediate repair or replacement, therefore, the Village should not wait for any future improvements to the bridge in order to make the water line safe or risk having the water main shut down for an extended period of time. • Alternative 1 - Directional Drilling Directionally drilling the pipe would imposes the additional costs for installation but would relieve the Village of any repairs needed in the future or interruptions to the NYSTA and MNRR. The revised configuration of the piping could require expensive ancillary revisions to the water supply system. The equipment required for underground drilling would require a large stagi-,ig area, which is limited. Although costly, directionally drilling the pipe would be the best long-term solution. ♦2622\13B0222706(RO1) 4-1 • Alternative 2 - Utilizing Existing Bridge Sidewalk Utilizing the Existing Bridge Sidewalk to replace the main appears to be a long-term solution, however, if and when the bridge is updated, it may require that the utility be removed making this option a short-term solution. Currently, there is an 8-inch gas main in a sleeve located in the sidewalk of the bridge. This may make it difficult when designing the supports for the pipe. • Alternative 3 - Utilizing the Existing Pedestrian Tunnel Utilizing the Existing Pedestrian Tunnel to replace the main appears to be a long-term solution. It should be noted that this alternative is not recommended because of safety concerns related to the water main in the event of a service water main break which could flow as much as 700-gallons per minute (gpm) and could fill the tunnel very quickly. If this alternative were chosen, the tunnel would be out of service during the construction. • Alternative 4 - Lining the Existing Water Main: Lining the water main appears to be the quickest way to repair the water main, however, there are concerns that the deterioration of the existing pipe and supports will cause safety problems making this option a short term solution. • Alternative 5 - Replace the Water Main in the Same Place Replacing the water main in the same place appears to be a short-term. Ultimately, the design would be removed and redone when the bridge is scheduled for repair. Shown below is a rating system developed by D&B to determine the most effective alternative. Issues of concern include cost, need of replacement when the Chatsworth Avenue Bridge is rehabilitated, safety issues related to construction and service, service interruptions, need of future repairs, likelihood of leaks and if the alternative requires additional changes to distribution system. Each issue was rated o,a a. system from 1 to 5 with 1 being a low probability and 5 being a high probability or outcome. ♦2622\BB0222706(RO1) 4-2 Issue aj Z3 QQ Q Cost 5 3 1 4 2 Need of Replacement when Bridge is Rehabilitated 1 5 1 5 5 Safety issues related to Construction and Service 1 3 5 5 5 Service Interruptions 1 1 1 1 5 MNeed of Future Repairs 1 4 4 4 4 Likelihood of leaks 1 4 4 4 4 rRequires additional changes to distribution system 4 3 5 1 1 Total Rating 14 23 21 24 26 Based on the results from above, the most effective, safe and long-term method of ' replacement would be Alternative 1, to directionally drill the water main for the estimated cost of $576,164. While Alternative 3 rated better than Alternative 2, D&B considers the potential liability from a major leak in the tunnel to outweigh the above rating and believes the second best alternative to be Alternative 2, utilizing the existing sidewalk. I ♦2622\BB0222706(RO 1) 4-3 d xipuaddd APPENDIX A PHOTOS OF THE WATER MAIN ON THE CHATSWORTH AVENUE BRIDGE ♦2622\BB0222702 Y � 551460t' BridgeChatsworth Avenue Bridge NYSTA ID#.IPG Chatsworth Aveue • , I I Facing Chatsworth Ave Bridge from Corner of Parking Lot.JPG Facing Chatsworth Ave Intersection from Parking Lot.JPG t ! 1 r�t Facing Chatsworth Avenue Bridge South Profile.]PG Facing South Profile Water Main Shield.JPG It+��� 17 a 6 Pipe facing North.JPG Service Pipe to Train Station 2.]PG r ire.. Service Pipe to Train Station.JPG View of Water Main Cover South Side of Chatsworth Avenue Bridge.JPG MASS . .49 IMPIR '+ a 'r Water Main Cover over MNRR at South Side of Bridge A.JPG Water Main Cover over MNRR at South Side of Bridge B.JPG W 4 tALI ... iii Water Main Cover over MNRR at South Side of Bridge C.JPG Water Main Entering Ground at South Side of Bridge A.JPG r.. L. �n Water Main Entering Ground at South Side of Bridge B.JPG Water Main Entering Ground at South Side of Bridge C.JPG \ i ,; •( % ' t s°.`iis'si r.4is �`ssQ}~`�.i�� w� + I I I i 61 I Water Main Entering Ground at South Side of Bridge D.JPG Water Main Exiting Ground at North Side of Bridge A.JPG 16�. Water Main Exiting Ground at North Side of Bridge B.JPG Water Main Exiting Ground at North Side of Bridge C.JPG :r Ji ,'r f �r Water Main Exiting Ground at North Side of Bridge D.JPG Water Main Repair A.JPG fi [� 'f 'A Jr U { NOW Water Main Repair B.JPG Appendix B APPENDIX B LETTER FROM THE NYSTA DATED MARCH 28, 2001 .262r,BB0222702 i Louis R. Tomson John T. Brizzell, P.E. Chairman p�.,� Deputy Executive qr AUS Director/Chief Engineer Nancy E. Carey Board Member Ramesh Mehta, P.E. New York State Thruway Authority Division Director John R. Riedman Board Member New York Division Phone (914) 524 0290 3Fax 1914) 332 8509 33 South Broadway John R. Platt Tarrytown, New York 10591-5697 Executive Director March 28, 2001 Mr. R. Joseph Morgan, P.E. Village Engineer - Larchmont Village Hall 8 120 Larchmont Avenue WR 2 Larchmont, New York 10538 Re: Bridge Inspection Report. Dear Mr. Morgan; The New York State Thruway Authority has received the most recent bridge inspection report for the I-95, Chatsworth Avenue Bridge over the New England Thruway and Metro North R. R. , at MP 607.64, BIN k 5514600. A recent office review and subsequent field review trip to the bridge revealed certain deficiencies that should be corrected. Specifically the ` existing 16" water main along all spans exhibits heavy rust scale on the pipe; many straps severed due to corrosion; rotted and split timber saddles; and corrosion holes in the hood. See attached copy of sheet 7 of 7 Item 45, and a copy of photo 7 of the same inspection report. You are requested to review the condition and have any necessary repairs completed, as soon as possible to assure safety at the bridge. A permit will be required for this work and should be coordinated with Mr. Jack Hohman, permit engineer at (914) 524-0293. I would appreciate written notification upon completion of the work. Should you have ,any question on this matter please call me at (914) 524- 0206. Very Truly Yours • Stephen G. Grabowski, P.E. Division Bridge Engineer Cc: Mr. R. Mehta Mr. K. K. Huang Mr. I. S. Saba Mr. A. Scarpulla Daybook 60764.1 New York State Canal Corporation Appendix C APPENDIX C ULTRASONIC THICKNESS TEST DATED JUNE 13, 2001 . 2622vss0222702 MGM Report of Ultrasonic Thickness Examination of Pipe (Field) CLIENT: Desman Associates DATE: 06/13/01 49 West 370 Street, 5`" Floor New York, NY 10018 FTC No. DES 0201 Attn: Mr. Jack Caliendo REPORT No.: 1 PROJECT: Village of Larchmont PAGE: 1 of 1 Main Water Line Investigation INSPECTOR: R. Vatcher, Level II LOCATION: Chatsworth Avenue over Route 95 D. Johnson Pipe Size: 16" Diameter Material Thickness: Material: Carbon Steel Welding Process: N/A Quality Requirements: Section No.: ASME Section V Reference Drawings: N/A Ultrasonic Thickness Readings Mamaroneck Side 16" Freshwater Supply Pipe to Larchmont at the Chatsworth Overpass Location To North South East West Bottom +2" .371" .357" .349" 2' � .3_05" i .328" 305" I 4' _I .310 .335" .289" 6' .319" .299" .294" .170/.140" 7' 312" .295" .287" .160"/.130" 9' .130" 11' _ 150" 1 15' i � .145„ 17' .125" 19, .130" .129" t -- —r 37' .137" 39'' .125" /er cc: File Submitted to FTC Accounting 6/18/01 L.11ll'.. i _.:fl l� "1.[I! .'.11l• '; w.. i r��, i!'... MGM Report of Ultrasonic Thickness Examination of Pipe (Field) CLIENT: Desman Associates DATE: 06/13/01 49 West 37`h Street, 51h Floor New York, NY 10018 FTC No. DES 0201 Attn: Mr. Jack Caliendo REPORT No.: 2 PROJECT: Village of Larchmont PAGE: 1 of 1 Main Water Line Investigation INSPECTOR: R. Vatcher, LeAel II LOCATION: Chatsworth Avenue over Route 95 D. Johnson Pipe Size: 16" Diameter Material Thickness: Material: Carbon Steel Welding Process: N/A Quality Requirements: Section No.: ASME Section V Reference Drawings: N/A Ultrasonic Thickness Readings Larchmont Side 16" Freshwater Supply Pipe to Larchmont at the Chatsworth Overpass Location Top North South East West Bottom +2" .302" .320" 300" I .294" 2' .291" —�--320" .304" 317" 4' .303" I .319" .311' .311" 6' 296" .308" .309" .305" 8' 303" .293" _ ' .316" 10' 300" 306" 308" 14' .292" 16' 287" /er cc: F;ie Submittea,o F7C Accounting 6118/01 Appendix D APPENDIX D BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT DATED AUGUST 3, 2005 ♦2622\BB0222702 B.I.N. 5514600 M.P. 607.64 Region 8 County 7 WESTCHESTER Feature Carried CHATSWORTH AVENUE Feature Crossed 951X MNRR NH LINE General Recommendation 5 Inspection Date: 8/3/2005 -AORK sT7 r� F New York State Thruway Authority - Bridge Inspection Report 2005 INSPECTION FLAGS: ❑ RED ❑ YELLOW ❑ SAFETY Evol NONE PIA ❑ PIA REMOVE !INACTIVE DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE OVERHEAD REVIEWED Y Ohilip Wald el T 1°r'L Qu��./z�^t= �us�I E—vq.nc�r, PE# 065601 a 96 Morton Street, New York, NY 10014-3309 Phone 212462-8500 Fax 212-929-5359 BD218a Harbor wowyi ry. isiana CuurxryCkAi Pink 010s J3 Bayberry Park40 Q• ��lr Y- BIN: 5514590 TWY MP: 607.64 CARRIES: CHATSWORTH AVE. CROSSES: 95 IX dm0'� Beectmort Woods a�{cl`D dIQ 4' Orkefta Fluit Parkfx HOW Rachame r�®Q landd EWt 17 y �' v -r� bc ae4e ��� w ,rr bets Lornnzu 3. t$ to ��gxat3 NIP Sin Haven �• Park Huguenot Park v� Poe Exitalb Rd p m r�$ SC Rd 5 Utr•stcn•st•r GuuruyHomestead J Mc soh Corp.DIIri £rti3erilci�? _ Park 0- NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY BRIDGE LOCATION PLAN NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 FLAG REMOVAL/INACTIVATION REPORT REGION: 8 COUNTY: 87 (WESTCHESTER) FLAG NUMBER 03-014 BIN 55 14600 ❑ RED FLAG` CARRIED CHATSWORTH AVENUE ❑ YELLOW FLAGCROSSED 951X MNRR NH LINE SAFETY FLAG" FLAG IS TO BE: REMOVED ❑ INACTIVATED CERTIFICATION BY Kevin Milligan ' ACTION TAKEN: ;The doors to the electrical junction box at the begin/left side of Pier 2(inside utility room)are closed and secured. Wires are no longer exposed. In addition,the deteriorated access door to the utility room has been removed and replaced with a plywood panel. I REPORT PREPARED BY: Kevin Milligan DATE 8/2/2005 BD 244 NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 DIN: 5514600 DATE- 8/3/2.005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT .� SHEET OF Z 607.64-FLG-99-00-051077_1. PHOTO#: Location: Ipg Right side of Span 2,looking left Description: Deteriorated access door has been replaced with a plywood covering. Reference: FLAG#: 03-014 PHOTO#: Location: 607.64-FLG-99-00-053 069_1.jpg Pier 2,begin side,looking ahead. its Description: Electrical junction box doors are closed. k I Reference: FLAG#: 03-014 3 J eo 219 NYS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RC - BIN 18 7 —15 15 11 P p p MP: 607.64 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT TEAM LEADER: Keril*1ian SHEET f OF 10 Signature _ MO DAY YEAR P.E. NUMBER 081890 STATE NY DATE 0 LJ 05' 13 14 15 18 1718 ASST TEAM LEADER Sahadeo Bhagwandin RAMP BRIDGE ATTACHED TO SPAN: 0 BIN INSPECTION AGENCY E3 TYPE OF INSPECTION [E 1•BIENNIAL 3-IN DEPTH 5-SPECIAL 2-INTERIM 4-NONE(UNDER CONTRACT) 19 20 21 STATE HWY. NO 000000 MILEPOINT: POLIT. UNIT: Larchmont FEATURE(S) CARRIED: CHATSWORTH AVENUE FEATURE(S) CROSSED: 951X MNRR NH LINE TOTAL SPANS: 4 BRIDGE ORIENTED: Northwest YEAR BUILT: 1956 BRIDGE TYPE: Steel Stringer/Multi-Beam or Girder AADT/YR 15279 / 1995 VERTICAL CLEARANCE ON: NOT POSTED UNDER: LOADING:NOT POSTED NONE 062 AND LOAD POSTINGS �� mIN. mFT.=IN. m TONS e 19 21 23 25 27 ABUTMENTS: WINGWALLS: APPROACHES: begin end begin end Joint with deck !6J i 6 Walls ❑5 �� Drainage 6 22 23 1 40 41 53 Bearings, anchors bolts, pads � 5 Footings 42 � Embankment 54 Bridge seat and pedestals 51 If Erosion or scour 27 ] U Settlement 5 Backwall 28 � Piles ® ® Erosion 1 Stem (breastwall) �1 15 J STREAM CHANNEL: Pavement 6 30 3157 Erosion or scour Z 61 �Stream Alignment ® Guide Railing e Footings 7 1'_9 Erosion And Scour 78 g 34 35 49 1 Piles ® � Waterway Opening ® GENERAL 37 50 RECOMMEND L5J © Bank Protection 8 60 Recommendation 38 39 51 _ ACCESS CATEGORY: BRIEF REASON Extension Ladder Walking FLAG ISSUED? NONE: u Lane Close Shad 87 Lift Small (—30 RED STRUCTURAL: ft.) 62 YELLOW STRUCTURAL: 7 Railroad Electric 6 Railroad Flag SAFETY: 7 64 Vulnerability Reassessment Review REVIEWED BY Recommended? Philip Wal gel HYD OVL STL COL CON SMC '=YES 2=No P.E. NUMBER 065601 �L 0 70 X=NOT USED DATE: Z OS 85 70 THIS CYCLE TP-350g MID: 607.64 RC - BIN 8 7 —15 15 11 4 60 0 NYS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET -y OF 10 TEAM LEADER: Kevin Milligan Mo DAY YEAR ASST.TEAM LEADER: Sahadeo Bhagwandin DATE 08 03 05 13 14 15 18 17 18 OTHERS: Campbell Corp. MPT, NYSTA provide lift truck, Will Cox ATL FEATURES CARRIED: CHATSWORTH AVENUE FEATURES CROSSED: 951X MNRR NH LINE DECK ELEMENTS SUPERSTRUCTURE PIER UTILITIES N C C 7 ,? m N _ `t 7 E -0 O a. E U) m O ° °� aci v v y `m_ E a°i c Z (n (n _ U 2 2 m E E o > > m Z 3 `°M o o Y m o o ai o u ) V Cm ° E �' 8 m C V! cn aT ID o aUi E E .� o rn o mcu a� $ ° c - c`�i C� o a a tY a in U a u- w` a min 10 11 12 19 20121 22 231241251 26 27 28 29 30131 32 33 341 35136, 371 38 139 1 40 41 42 43 441451 0 0 1 6 6 5 6 8 8 8 8 4 6 7 6 4 5 5 6 5 5 8 8 9 7 8 5 8 6 3 0 0 2 6 5 5 6 8 8 8 8 4 5 8 8 6 5 6 6 5 5 8 8 9 7 8 6 5 6 5 00 3 6 6 5 6 8 8 8 8 4 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 9 7 8 6 4 6 3 0 0 4 6 5 5 6 8 8 8 8 4 5 6 6 8 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 6 3 DIVING INSPECTION REQUIRED? [7 u If yes, indicate year of last diving inspection. YES NO SPECIAL EMPHASIS INSPECTION REQUIRED: a If yes,indicate type below YES NO NON-REDUNDANT/FRACTURE CRITICAL PIN AND HANGERS FATIGUE-PRONE WELDS(AASHTO D,E,OR E-) NON-CATEGORIZED FATIGUE-PRONE DETAILS OTHERS(SPECIFY) a RECOMMEND FURTHER 1 =NO REMARKS INVESTIGATION F17 �— 1 2=YES 19 20 Field Notes DATE TIME OF TINE OF TEMP(C) WEATHER CONDfIIONS/ACCESS EQUIPMEW ARRIVAL DEPARTURE .06/20/2005 8:30:00 AM 1:30 PM 29 Sunny/30'lift,lane closure with shadow vehicle 06/21/2005 7:30:00 AM 1:30 PM 28 Sunny/30'lift,lane closure with shadow vehicle 108/01/2005 9:30:00 PM 2:40 AM 27 Clear/Extension ladder 08/02/2005 11:00:00 PM 3:45 AM 28 Clear/Extension ladder FEDERAL RATING FORM NYS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MP: 607.64 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT RC - BIN F-8T7 -1 51 51 11 4[1[:U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TEAM LEADER: Kevin Milligan SHEET 3 OF ASST TEAM LEADER: Sahadeo Bhagwandin MO DAY YEAR DATE 08 03 05 13 14 15 16 1718 FEATURE CARRIED CHATSWORTH AVENUE FEATURE CROSSED 951X MNRR NH LINE Description DeckSuperstructure Substructure Channel Culvert Fed. item # 58 59 60 61 62 Rating 5 7 8 N N 19 20 21 22 23 Notes: 1) See attached explanations for Federal Item Nos. a) 58- Deck, 59- Superstructure, 60-Substructure; b) 61- Channel and Channel Protection; c) 62-Culverts. 2) Item Nos. 58, 59, and 60 shall be coded N for all culverts. 3)A rating or an N must be entered for all Federal Items. Blanks are not acceptable. NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 SHEET: y OF (� BRIDGE INSPECTION BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 INSPECTED BY: Kevin Milligan TITLE: Team Leader FEATURE CARRIED: CHATSWORTH AVENUE FEATURE CROSSED: 951X MNRR NH LINE BRIDGE INSPECTION AND CONDITION REPORT SUPPLEMENTARY INSPECTION ACTIVITIES BIN PLATE LOCATION/ (i) Satisfactory CC Missing C, Damaged/Defaced ❑ End Abutment :/01 Begin Abutment CONDITION Left wingwall FLOOD ELEVATION (: N/A O Satisfactory O Missing O Damaged/illegible(decribed below) MARKINGS ELECTRICAL SURVEY Class A(Caution) (--) Class B(Warning) (Do Class C(Danger) jRR catenary wires SPECIAL EMPHASIS (J. Not Required O A 100%Hands-On Inspection Was Given To: C) No Defects Found O Defects Described Below UPGRADES REPORT '-D None C`Minor(see below) O Major Rehab(see below) (Contract#: ) The following work was completed (explain to the right of any item checked: repaired, replaced, begin, end, left, right, etc. Use space below to explain complex or unusual situations or other work): Superstructure ❑ Curb, Sidewalk, Fascia Deck ❑ Bridge Rail Wearing Surface ❑ Approach Rail Appr. Pavement El Signage -! Substructure ❑ Other(explain below) GENERAL COMMENTS{UNUSUAL CONDITIONS: ❑ Unusual Conditions (explain below) Fence between 1-95 NB and SB at Pier 3 is detached at column 2 (between columns 2 & 3). Temporary wiring and a bungee cord are holding it in place, hov,!ever this should be permanently repaired. NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 SHEET: OF 10 BRIDGE INSPECTION BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 INSPECTED BY: Kevin Milligan TITLE: Team Leader FEATURE CARRIED: CHATSWORTH AVENUE FEATURE CROSSED: 951X MNRR NH LINE BRIDGE INSPECTION MPT REQUIREMENTS Instructions: Circle Thruway direction then check yes or no for each lane/shoulder closure. Comment on reason for each closure; example cover plates, impact damage, etc. NORTH BOUND LANE CLOSURE Driving lane shoulder 1�1 Yes No Comments: Access Pier 2-Span 3, Measure Vertical Clearance Driving lane W Yes No Comments: Access Pier 2-Span 3, Measure Vertical Clearance Center lane - Yes No Comments: Mall lane �' Yes J No Comments: Access Pier 3-Span 3, Measure Vertical Clearance Mall lane shoulder Yes No Comments: Ramp lane J Yes ] No Comments: N/A SOUTH BOUND LANE CLOSURE Driving lane shoulder Yes '] No Comments: Access abutment, span 4 and measure VC. Driving lane ] Yes No Comments: Access abutment, span 4 and measure VC. Center lane Yes No Comments: Mall lane Yes –' No Comments: Access Pier 3-Span 4, Measure Vertical Clearance Mall lane shoulder Yes a No Comments: Access Pier 3-Span 4, Measure Vertical Clearance Ramp lane —' Yes No Comments: N/A NOTES: NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: _ 607.64 SHEET: 6 _ OF to BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 RATING FORM:TP-349IRATINGS ITEM TITLE REMARKS: NEW j PRE i PHOTO# 24 Bearings,Anchor Bolts, Pads (Begin) Both anchor bolt nuts at G1 are not fully tightened. Several other bearings 5 6 1 exhibit a small gap between the nut and the top of the masonry plate. 28 Backwall (Begin) The backwall exhibits up to a 4" (100 mm)gap at the top in bays 8-12 due to 4 5 2 spalling. NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 SHEET: OF BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 RATING FORM:TP-350 REMARKS: RATINGS ITEM TITLE SP.# NEW ! PRE PHOTO# 20 Curbs Span 4: The right curb spall at the end joint has been repaired. The 4 5 4 4 remainder of the curb and left curb are in fair condition. 21 Sidewalks& Fascias Span 2: Spalling on the left sidewalk adjacent to the joint at Pier 1, has been 2 5 4 3 repaired. There are two full length cracks in the left sidewalk 1/16" (2 mm) wide, however this is considered minor. The right sidewalk is in fair condition. 27 Deck Structural Span 1: The underside of deck exhibits fine transverse cracks and 1 4 4 8 maperacking with light efflorescence in several bays. In addition, 50% of the the total area is water stained or damp. See deck sketch for further details. Span 2: The underside of deck has random cracks with light to moderate 2 4 4 7 efflorescence. In addition, 50% of the the total area is water stained or has efflorescence. See deck sketch for further details. Spans 3 &4: The underside of deck exhibits widespread light scaling, 3 4 4 5,6 isolated cracks and maperacking. In addition there are isolated spalls with and without exposed rebars, and spalling along the longitudinal joint with the adjacent bridge on the right-See deck sketch for further details. 4 4 4 31 Joints Pier 1: The joint at the left sidewalk has been sealed over with concrete with 1 4 4 9 the repair of the left sidewalk. The left side is missing a sealer for 45" (1.14 m) long and there is efflorescence below deck in bays 1 & 2. 43 Lighting Standards and Fixtures Span 2: The doors to the electrical junction box at the begin/left side of Pier 2 5 3 15 2 (inside utility room)are closed and secured. Wires are no longer exposed. Lighting on the begin face of Pier 2 is in good condition. There are no top of deck lighting standards and fixtures. Span 3: The lighting fixture on the end face of Pier 2 and on the begin face 3 4 6 6 of Pier 3 are non-functional. 50% of the underdeck lights were non- functional at the time of inspection. The lighting standard at the top of deck left sidewalk is in good condition. Span 4: Two lighting fixtures at the end face of Pier 3, and one at the end 4 4 4 10 abutment are non-functional. The remaining four underdeck lighting fixtures are operational. The lighting standard at the top of deck left sidewalk is in good condition. 44 Sign Structure Spans 1, 2, &4: Traffic control signs at the right sidewalk of Spans 1 & 2, 1 6 8 11 and the left sidewalk of Span 4, should be rated under this itern. They are in good condition. 2 6 8 4 6 8 NYS YHRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 SHEET: g OF /O BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 RATING FORM:TP-350 RATINGS ITEM TITLE REMARKS: P.# NEW PRE I PHOTO# 45 Utilitites and Utility Supports Span 1: The 16" (400 mm)dia. water main at the left fascia(visible only 1 3 3 from the begin approach) is heavily rusted, including corrosion to its steel straps. The timber saddle supports show splitting, but are functioning. There is minor leakage from the 135 degree elbow joint located near the end of the begin/left wingwall. Span 2: The deteriorated access door to Span 2 (utility room) at the right 2 5 4 16 side has been removed and replaced with a plywood panel. Safety flag #03-015 is removed. Utility conduits in bay 8 and other utilities inside the room appear to be in good condition. Span 3: 8 of 12 steel conduits located in bay 9 are heavily corroded with 3 3 3 12 section loss at the interface with Pier 2. One pipe has 100% section loss. The remaining four are wrapped with fiberglass at this location. The timber saddle supports show splitting, but are functioning. Span 4: The 16" (400 mm)dia. water main at the left fascia(visible only 4 3 3 13,14 from the end approach)is heavily rusted, including severe section loss to its steel straps. A steel strap for the thrust restraint at the end approach has 100% section loss. The timber saddle supports show splitting, but are functioning. The 12 steel conduits located in bay 9 are rusted and the timber saddle supports show splitting, but are functioning. � /U NYS THRUVVAYAUTHOR�Y KAP: 607.64 SHEET � / OF BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT BIN: 5514600 DATE: 80/2005 TEAM ASST, TEAM LEADER: -Kevin MilliganLEADER: VViUarnCux Feature Carried: Chatsworth Ave. Feature Crossed: 951X Metro North Railroad Underdeck Sketch Span 1 PIE W. ....... .... .......... .......... .......... ........... I...... ...z...... ... ...... - . � * ' ` � ' � ` � � ' NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 SHEET: . U OF /u BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT B|0: 5514000 DATE: 03/2005 TEAM ASST. TEAM LEADER: Kevin Milligan LEADER: Wiliam Cox Feature Carried: -Chatsworth Ave. Feature Crossed: yma Metro North Railroad Underdeck Sketch Spans 2-4 to �OAJ + NN t_.T*'._._`.. ...... .. .. .... .. . ........ ........ ....W. *Pl` , ' ' ' . ' ' ' PHOTOGRAPHS ' BID D NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 SHEET: 1 OF q_ BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 TEAM ASST. TEAM LEADER: Kevin Milligan LEADER: Willam Cox Feature Carried: Chatsworth Ave. Feature Crossed: 951X Metro North Railroad n d ,Abu{w�t� �3 NORTH (O — 12 I _ Pier I>o tJ rG � O Photo Above Deck F_�Photo Below Deck PHOTO LOCATION PLAN NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MID: 607.64 BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: 607.64-349-24-00-051097_1.jpg PHOTO# Location: Begin abutment at Girder 1, looking back Description: •Left anchor bolt nut is not fully tightened. Right is similar. a i Reference: ` Fom,TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.) Rate: t z 349 24 Bearings,Anchor Bolts, 5 r Pads(Begin) Location: 607.64-349-28-00-051102_1.jpg PHOTO# Begin abutment at bay 12,looking back/left Description: •4'000 mm)gap at the top of the backwall. tet_ f � A n 7 o Reference: Forth TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.) Rate: 349 28 Backwall (Begin) 4 a 3 NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: OF 7 Location: 607.64-350-21-00-05_785_1.jp9 PHOTO#: Span 2,left sidewalk at Pier 1, looking ahead Description: £ r•-e- •Sidewalk spalls have been repaired. a Reference: '£ �x Forrn TPnem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Spank Rate: 350 21 Sidewalks& 2 5 s + Fascias Location: 607.64-350-21-00-05_787_1.jpg PHOTO#: d Span 4 right curb at end joint, T looking ahead Description: •Curb spall has been repaired. ' t Reference: Fovn TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Spank Rate: 350 20 Curbs 4 5 NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: OFl 607.64-350-27-00-05_686_2.jpg PHOTO#: Location: Span 3,right overhang, looking back Description: 4XI: , . •Spalling at the underside of the overhang,adjacent to the longitudinal joint. Similar in Span 4. ..mss. i ; ti J Reference: Porro TP Item: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span# Rae. 350 27 Deck Structural 3 4 607.64-350-27-00-05_798_l.jpg PHOTO#: Location: Span 3 underdeck bays 1-3, looking back. Description: •Maperacking and light scaling on the underside of deck. Similar in Span 4. •Some underdeck lights are non- functional. .q "A"Y Reference: Fo TP tem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span# Rae: 350 27 Deck Structural 3 V 4 350 43 Lighting 3 4 Standards and Fixtures NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: 607.64-350-27-00-051071_i.jpg PHOTO#: Location: Span 2,bays 1 &2,looking back &up Description: :F a •Cracking and efflorescence at theQ- underside of deck. IL �s t Reference: Farm TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Spank Rata: 350 27 Deck Structural 2 4 Location; 607.64350-27-00-051085_1.jpg PHOTO#: R Span 1,bays 3-5,looking back 7 Description: •Maperacking at the underside of deck. w f i _k jz Reference: F-m TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span 8 Rate: 350 27 Deck Structural 1 4 NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: OF _ Location: 607.64-350-31-00-051079_1.jpg PHOTO#: Q Pier 1 at left side of G1,looking ahead Description: k x •Efflorescence on Pier 1 backwall due to joint leakage. 3 �1 - o Reference: I Form TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Spank Rate: - _ Ila 350 31 Joints 1 4 it Location: 607.64-350-43-00-05_803_1.jpg PHOTO#: Span 4 at end face of Pier 3, 0 looking back Description: •Lighting fixture is non-functional. Reference: � f Form TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev,)/Spank Rate: °i 350 43 Lighting 4 4 Standards and Fixtures ' r'{ NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: -7 OF 607.64-350-44-00-05_790_1.jpg PHOTO#: Location: Spans 1 and 2 at right sidwalk, 11 looking ahead/right. Description: •Signs are in good condition. Similar at Span 4. Reference: Form TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span M Rate: 350 44 Sign Structure 1 6 Location: 607.64-350-45-00-05_791_1.jpg PHOTO#: Span 3, bay 9 at Pier 2,looking 12 back Description: ,' € t •Steel conduits are heavily 3 A corroded at the interface with Pier 2. tt , Reference: 1 Fwm TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span N Rale: 350 45 Utilitites and Utility 3 3 Supports NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP: 607.64 BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: s Location: 607.64-350-45-00-05_800_1.jpg PHOTO#: End approach left side,looking 13 ahead. Description: Xs ' •Water main is heavily corroded. Steel strap for thrust restraint exhibits 100%section loss. .' ¢ S i Reference: Form TP Item: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span+r PLM.: 350 45 Utilitites and Utility 4 3 " Supports Location: 607.64-350-45-00-05_801_1.jpg PHOTO#: Span 4 at left fascia, looking back 14 s, z Description: •Water main is heavily corroded. Steel strap exhibits section loss. Similar at Span 1. Reference: F—TP nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span M P.r.: j 350 45 Utilitites and Utility / 1 Supports ' i NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY INP: 507.64 FAN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET: ior 607.64-FLG-99-00-051069_1.jpg PHOTO#: Location: 15 Pier 2,begin side,looking ahead. Description: •Electrical junction box doors are {_ closed. Reference: Form Ta nem: Item Name(Abbrev.)/Span# Rale. 350 43 Lighting 2 5 Standards and Fixtures Location: 607.64-FLG-99-00-051077_1.jpg PHOTO#: Right side of Span 2,looking left 16 Description: •Deteriorated access door has been replaced with a plywood covering. Reference: Fom,TP uem' stem Name(Abbrev.)/Span T=- 350 45 Utilitites and Utility 2 5 Supports _ 2 •as. -, =5 s'• '�' .fie dy ♦ $ 3 st �ce� .tr.t .+t-�ai+.r < 3�y if. • M. { }.roei a -f a+ Y rd3 �" i L nmy 4k� � R3C Y +' � ��c l C 4F,_ �r, x4 a,.ta � `�" •' ' i+7 ez �+CY;"r :. � It i r a y y'.•�`y f ` . r ; � #„ t :. , �- '' t.ri3v Ms�l;8'# eTV - .14+ .. o-" • fes' .,.;mit . Ap� r . - 32, �e,,�., '65 {"mr`• '� _s-r_�-�.,its,...��'n# i•r } t. ft F We ;fie"- `+.3y,.'+,r _ wa ern ',, y�2' �•^iy',�,*f ,i'F s'-a i,CE`'- e,� 3-427 �. _ t;+w q s r 'R�,.- In -,tja ^3i" .v'•R"'i �s � '!r -:_ ,} 9v.. .•r � mss- > �`t r "^n ay � '� t �. .....- � Y `e�`n."�^s,� :1'>. fi• +y0. i ^sem. y- # -' rTyA_.;_ -' #rx -ON ^t� - F. �x a$ � '� Yr,:`? ¢ F bit,�► raG'� y u7 a e i" iz WEI Sir q�.}'3� z j" $..t•' 1��' 14 ,i�- t�'� _ �1�. 7 + ra '�Mf' t �4� •1 � ! Y'�—tel 1 N ^��� �F n tS -3y- } '�s.a T• .. -kms bsi O�i,'� �'�g,�.l ., �`'��'�, -_ ``�" • '�b��'�S� ». '; F y�-•.y.:_ a .r- ,. R �n{�`� .h,��yp.�_+ -� .rf r i_. t'.—_, i*41 '4i v.. s'y *w, rT ,lit 4 .. n, a �'r•,� _ ��i�.'+-�'' �i ,l�i� ,alt .,��- 'r'a't',, ��1�F�' 4.�-. - �-Y� �" � ��^i�. '�`��`.F '��.i .. 'S-' t �'� X:�s S.''y`JA•-� 't"� a.�•i�_ � ' t F�T.. .z dt-,Jay iIP 2,..'•S�$f' zL*t".�y � .T * F '�f- � �_T.�t --��° 9'�tt�e s mb" ���-S r •. i a •m. BD 199a(12190) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Contract No. STRUCTURES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION z ❑ Preliminary Original BRIDGE DATA SYSTEMS Latunp Dale REQUIRED ❑ Preliminary Copy Lu BRIDGE IDENT. BRIDGE INVENTORY FORM RECORD CODES 13-F3 & F4 a a Final Original Opening D1►►4► Lu 8 NUMBER t 2 3 9 Prepared By Date r j ALWAYS ENTER cc ❑ New � TX CODE, COL. 120: uta ❑ Replacement 2=Update, 3=Create r w ❑ Rehabilitation fleviewdfd Willy Date Lt zUpdate1, II ,Gvr $��10` _ I FEATURE INTERSECTED TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION OR ;4849 154 STATE � � Ago FUNC � NO 0 o FEAT MILEPOINT FUTURE ADT FLIT CLS ' LNS LL CODE ROUTE REFERENCE MARKER HWY. NO. SYS 73 14 15 t7 18 21 22 34 35 41 42 47 59 60 81 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 3 101() 0000o REQUIRED MAX.VERT. HORIZ. CLEARANCE MIN. V.C. NAVIGATION 2 BANK VEL. � BYP � � CONT REC Tx CLEARANCE MIN. V(..I AADT YEAH °° PROT OF DET. CODE CPRE CD FT IN (LIFT) a AADT TOTAL LT.MIN. RT MIN. FT IN CN V. CLR. H.CLR. ut CURR. u. LTH. Be 71 73 75 76 77 82 83 85 87 a8 110 91 93 94 96 98 99 101 102 105 106 107 109 111 112 114 115 116 it8 120 13 FEATURE INTERSECTED TRANSACTION � DESCRIPTION OR YR STATE � � FED FUNC � NO z o FEAT MILEPOINT FUTURE ADT FUT ADT AID CLS o LNS o CODE ROUTE REFERENCE MARKER HWY. NO. ix SYS 13 14 15 17 16 21 22 ��1435 41 42 47 46 49 54 59 60 61 62 63 61 65 66 67 68 4 I 4 I I I ; I I I LLJ rRQUIRED Max.VERT. ^^ YEAR HURIZ. CLEARANCE MIN. V.C. NAVIGATION B�NK BYPz REG TX CLEARANCE MIN. ' IJ IAADT � C° PFTIL:V i a I AADT TOTAL LT. MIN. RT MIN. FT IN CN V. CLR. H. CLR. cnLLTH.DET CODE D 69 171 73 7S 78 77 Y82 83 85 61 88 9U 91 93 91 9fl' 98 99 101 102 105 106 107 109 111 112 114 115116 120 it it ' BD 199a — GOLD BD 196a (12/90) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Contract No, STRUCTURES DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Z Lj Preliminary Original _ REQUIRED BRIDGE DATA SYSTEMS j Letting Date � BRIDGE IDENT. 0Q Preliminary Copy Cr 00 NUMBER BRIDGE INVENTORY FORM RECORD CODE 15 a (A Final Original Opening Date 1 2 3 9 ALWAYS ENTERO New Prepared By Date } Lo+C �I�l5 P TX CODE, COL. 120: Wa cc 0 0 Replacement 2=Update, 3=Create w 0 Rehabilitation Reviewed By Date YVt 19 z C4 Update K���I+ �'^ (Z'1 � U5 SPAN INVENTORY TRANSACTION REQ REQUIRED SPAN STRUCTURALWEARING TYPE DETAILS PIER RAILING BEARINGS SURFACE BEGIN END PRES. CC W W J W Q W ¢ Cr ¢ o w c9-- w w a ma M -j 0 3- J F z J W -, CL W Z N d y Cr H F- Q O W a t7 m = V W z a Z ¢ SPAN +-w LL a W a U~ Z z rn a w °[ ¢ rL z 0 z a xw C r z g g rw Ow O SPAN +W a z rnWa O¢ O Z ¢ W Z LENGTH a (JLL �p w w0 ZWLL a ri = a a Qo a t7 o a a wz 00 w0 O NO a f r- (FEET) w z O x W p m W r7 x x w ar Cr w a U U U ole- 'u- LL m ? L) x� LL a (D -�� o ac mo us O O UU ¢U 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22123 24 25 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 116 118 120 010113 � 15Z X21 5 15 1115 11511 15 15 L 15 � 15 15 15 15 BD 196a — YELLDW B0192 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MP 607.64 BRIDGE INVENTORY AND INSPECTION SYSTEM SHEET OF ACCESS CATEGORY CODING FORM ' REG 12 CO 1 3 BRIDGE ID NO. DATE: 8/3/2005 8 7 5514600 PREPARED BY: Kevin Milligan U .�C 3= �`+ m 0 r° x c c 0 u o °' > m «� o o m x to W 140 J V M A � Co O x W N J � O - = U U � F- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 !23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30pttfA 116 118 120 B R I x x x x x x 32 17 2 1 X I X I I I X X _ 32 17 2 2 X X _ 32 17 2 3 X X X 32 17 2 4 X X X 32 17 2 ate, INSTRUCTIONS:-Only a single BIN will be addressed on any single sheet- a)Complete the date,preparer and shee:number headings. b)Enter the region,county and BIN number. c)In the first line of the form, having a span number of"BRI",place an"X"in each access category necessary for a proper inspection of the entire bridge and enter the contractor code. d)In all subsequent rows,WITH ONE SPAN PER LINE AND USING AS MANY LINES AS THERE ARE SPANS FOR THE ENTIRE BRIDGE STRUCTURE, enter the span number being addressed(columns 10-12,right justified and zero filled)place an"X"in each access category necessary for a proper inspection of that span(and the two substructure faces facing that span)and enter the contractor code. e)IF DIVING ACCESS IS REQUIRED(as directed by Inspection TA 87-012)FOR EITHER OF THE TWO SUBSTRUCTURE FACES FACING THE SPAN BEING CODED, INDICATE SO WITH AN "X". THIS MUST BE DONE EVEN IF A DIVING INSPECTION IS NOT REQUIRED DURING THE CURRENT INSPECTION SEASON. NOTE that some NYSDOT documents refer to bridges requiring diving inspection as having an"I"ACCESS CATEGORY. f)Recode the entire bridge if ANY UPDATING of the Access Category is necessary. g)Use col.28 for situations requiring lane closure WITHOUT a shadow vehicle and col.29 for lane closure WITH a shadow vehicle. NYS THRUWAY AUTHORITY MP Goo A- SHEET OF 3-RIDGE INSPECTION REPORT BIN 5514600 -�— RAILROAD VERTICAL CLEARANCE 2 6 ORTH o . �3 .. ►.�. '....:_ G..... ......_... . ..... .. .......... .. .. ABUT -............. ,............;.. ...................... ...... ...._ .. _ .. . . ;.....:... ;.. ..:..... ...... .....:.. .. .... ..... ...... ......:...... ............ ........... .......... .......)......:......J......i..... .......i......v...... ..5.. ..:.....r..... ............(. y ..:....8 ...:..... . ..:.....:.. Z 1(0 ............ .......................3 _ .. _ .. . . _ . W ... .,... 5 ...... ...... ..... ...... ..Z......................... ............ .-- 1. ............. ............ .............. ..............._. .............. ............ ............_...... ._.... PLAN (NTS Vertical clearance readings taken from top of RR rail to : $o�i A Jly✓A,r of fjl SC►A'-� nn READINGS (feet-inches) Round down to nearest whole inch. Ref.:Inv.TA 86.001 . .Sc�j,V1�4-Wav�........- -'L C. hy ............ .n............./....3... . ........ ..... . n12-1 SZ'dO ...................... .... ...K.. ,.. ..... P ..... STATMN PEI OGZ3PE N OIR ......... ........................... ................. . .. D72gOs ....................... . . ......: .rl��.. .Q IJ :z39'+ Db 61,3Dale ........................ O) Date n �6 O Dab �'✓�l�ros 2 l8,35 /g - ►/Z a /7• 6' 3 18-057 1871 � 3 /7. 7/' 17 ,-9 /,. 4 16.11 /P, - / , 73' 17. 75, l�; � /, 5 r8.co ��� ,, , 7 17. 75 l7'-- 7 7 t7•$8 17-10 3/y /7. 6 ' 11 1-g'' 8 17.91 17- /1 /I 7 ' 17. 7' i7 ,-v 9 17.67 7' /0 1/y „ l7. 66" 17'-7 10 17. 58 7" �� �oy„ l ' /7. 6/ r 17'-7�I 11 17.60 � 7- iojz ,� � , /7, 67• /7 ,_7,l 12 : . 17.90 / 7-`to 11q 'I. 63 � /7• d6' t7'- 7 1318.1Z /g '_ /y ,, 17A 7 /`�• g ' Ig`-0a 14 16.13 ,� �o �� 17•� i8'' 1(0 V11 �7* f g'-o 11 T4i-i 199 . MINIMUM BRIDGE UNDERCLEARANCE MP: 607.64 SHEET OF I RAILROAD BRIDGES BIN: 5514600 DATE: 8/3/2005 � j NEW YORK NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY Bridge Orientation: Northwest Station: Readings: (Feet) Readings Taken To: 1 18 G1 10 17.58 G1 11 17.58 G15 12 17.58 G15 13 18 G1 14 18 G1 15 18 G15 16 18 G15 2 18 G1 3 17.75 G15 4 17.75 G15 5 17.75 G1 6 17.75 G1 7 17.67 G15 8 17.67 G15 9 17.58 G1 LOAD RATING WED BY REVIEWED p Philip Wald4gel Quality Control Engineer, PE 065601 BD 221 TITLE- /V° 5514600 s n° 5514600 SPANS 0 0 4 5514600 DATE 12/78 11/94 10/96 01/98 06/99 10/01 06/03 8/0$ 5514600 BRIDGE 1 1 0 0 GIRDER 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 5514600 BRIDGE 2 2 0 0 T-BEAM S 1 0 0 0 0 0 N � 5514600 BRIDGE 3 3 4 4 GIRDER S 2 0 0 0 0 0 5514600 LOCATION 1 0 0 87 0 2,5�TH 5514600 YEARS 1956 0 0 0 0 -)-2- 5514600 )v5514600 STRESSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5514600 COMMENTS TWY MILEPOST 607.64 5514600 COMMENTS UPDATED BY /4�''� .4Ni✓�G��//1�'�y 5514600 COMMENTS BRIDGE NOT POSTED FOR LOAD. 5514600 COMMENTS THE FASCIA GIRDER OVERHANG HAS BEEN AVERAGED. 5514600 COMMENTS CONTRACT NUMBER IS UNKNOWN. 5514600 WEARING SURFACE 4.000 ASPHALT 5514600 PAVEMENT 50.00 0 5514600 LEFT SIDEWALK 13.000 12.000 CONCRETE STEEL 0 0 5514600 RIGHT SIDEWALK 10.000 12.000 CONCRETE STEEL 0 0 5514600 CONCRETE DECK 4.700 6.250 FLAT 0 0 0 0 5514600 UTILITIES WATER 1 16.000 STEEL 0 SLAB 0 0 5514600 MAIN MEMBER MULTI GIRDER WELDED FASCIA 0 0 18.300 Y 15 3.600 5514600 ROLLED 1 55.00 0 0 24.000 W130 0 16.000 0.875 Y 0 5514600 MAIN MEMBER MULTI GIRDER WELDED INTERIOR 0 0 18.230 Y 15 3.600 5514600 ROLLED 1 7.000 0 0 24.000 W100 0 0 0 Y 0 5514600 ROLLED 1 48.000 0 0 24.000 W100 0 15.000 0.625 Y 0 5514600 ROLLED 1 55.00 0 0 24.000 W100 0 0 0 Y 0 5514600 RATING MAIN H520 38T 67T H2O 31T 54T 3-3 64T 111T 5514600 LOCATION 2 0 0 87 0 4� TH 5514600 YEARS 1956 0 0 0 0 5514600 STRESSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5514600 COMMENTS SEE SPAN 1. 5514600 WEARING SURFACE 4.000 ASPHALT 5514600 PAVEMENT 50.00 0 5514600 LEFT SIDEWALK 13.000 12.000 CONCRETE STEEL 0 0 5514600 RIGHT SIDEWALK 10.000 12.000 CONCRETE STEEL 0 0 5514600 CONCRETE DECK 8.000 7.000 FLAT 0 0 0 0 5514600 UTILITIES FLUID 1 16.000 STEEL 0 SLAB 0 0 5514600 UTILITIES CABLE 12 3. 500 STEEL 0 SLAB 0 0 5514600 MAIN MEMBER REINFORCED CONCRETE T-BEAM 0 5514600 REINFORCED T-BEAM 2 17.000 20.000 18.000 4 2 18.000 5514600 REBARS 4.000 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5514600 RATING MAIN HS20 36T 58T H2O 20T 32T 3-3 59T 96T 5514600 LOCATION 3 0 0 87 0 :� TH 5514600 YEARS 1956 0 0 0 0 _3"11- 5514600 STRESSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5514600 COMMENTS SEE SPAN 1. 5514600 WEARING SURFACE 4.000 ASPHALT 5514600 PAVEMENT 50.00 0 5514600 LEFT SIDEWALK 13.000 12.000 CONCRETE STEEL 0 0 5514600 RIGHT SIDEWALK 10.000 12.000 CONCRETE STEEL 0 0 5514600 CONCRETE DECK 7.420 6.250 FLAT 0 0 0 0 5514600 UTILITIES FLUID 1 16.000 STEEL 0 SLAB 0 0 5514600 UTILITIES CABLE 12 3.500 STEEL 0 FASCIA GIRDER 3.000 4.420 5514600 MAIN MEMBER MULTI GIRDER WELDED INTERIOR 0 0 18.300 Y 10 3.130 5514600 ROLLED 3 7. 500 0 0 36.000 W160 0 0 0 Y 0 5514600 ROLLED 3 47. 500 0 0 36.000 w160 0 14.000 1.000 Y 0 5514600 ROLLED 3 55.00 0 0 36.000 w160 0 0 0 Y 0 5514600 MAIN MEMBER MULTI GIRDER WELDED FASCIA 0 0 18.300 Y 10 3.130 5514600 ROLLED 3 10.000 0 0 36.000 W150 0 0 0 Y 0 - 5514600 ROLLED 3 45.000 0 0 36.000 w150 0 14.000 0.625 Y 0 5514600 ROLLED 3 55.00 0 0 36.000 W150 0 0 0 Y 0 5514600 RATING MAIN HS20 67T 106T H2O 54T 85T 3-3 112T 176T Page 1 Appendix E APPENDIX E REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION a ♦2622\BB0222702 Metro-North Railroad A Public Benefit Corporation of THE STATE OF NEW YORK CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONTRACT NO. 9552 FOR LARCHMONT STATION HAPROVEMENTS APPENDIX A—Repwir i of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Consultation TECI-TiCA-PROVISIONS JULY 11,2003 CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 124 N.MISSISSIPPI AVENUE•ATLANTIC CITY,N.J.08401 (609)345-2727 • FAX(609)345-1329 ■ REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION PROPOSED MNRR LARCHMONT STATION IMPROVEMENTS LARCHMONT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY,NEW YORK MNRR NO. 9438 A05022 SUBMITTED TO: CTE ENGINEERS 317 Madison Avenue Suite 1010 New York, New York 10017 SUBMTTT'ED BY: EGS ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul F_chaniz, P.E. � Principal June 13, 2002 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING i SOIL AND ROCK MECHANICS■CONSraUCT:ON CONSULTATION■GPOUND WATER MONITORING■GEOPHYSICS■ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION NEW YORK, N.Y. (212) 979-7984 CATSKILL,N.Y. (518)943-9680 CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS ASSOCIATES, INC. 124 N.MISSISSIPPI AVENUE•ATLANTIC CITY,N.J.08401 (bog)345-2727 ■ FAX(609)345-1329 ■ June 13, 2002 CTE Engineers 317 Madison Avenue Suite 1010 New York, New York 10017 Attn: Mr. Joe Pizur ro Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration And Geotechnical Consultation Proposed MNRR Larchmont Station Improvements Larchmont, Westchester County, New York MNRR No. 9438 A05022 EGS No. EG01042.R1 Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorization, we are pleased to present our "Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Consultation" for the above referenced project. It is our opinion that the site is suited for the proposed construction and that it can be efficiently developed following the implementation of the recommendations contained herein. We thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to being of continued service in the future. Should you have any questions, or require add tional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, FC1S ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul Echaniz, P.E. PE/el Principal FOUNDATION ENG-INEERING■SOIL AND RCCK MECHANICS■CONSTRUCTION CONSULTATION•GROUND WATER MONRORING\GEOPHYSICS■ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION NEW YORK,N.Y. (212)979-7984 CATSKILL, N.Y. (518)943-9680 J� v NVl Er+Gw=ef1 GEfKOCx`7S TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, Page No. EXECUTTVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION General 1 Project Location and Description Purpose and Scope of Services SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM 3 General Supplementary Project Data Project Field Exploration Program Soil Mechanics Laboratory Testing SITE CONDITIONS Topographic Conditions 4 Geology and Seismicity Generalized Subsurface Conditions Groundwater DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 General SUGGESTED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS & DESIGN 7 DRILLED PIER FOUNDATION ALTERNATE 10 Drilled Pier Installation Drilled Piers Bearing in Competent Glacial Till/Disinte�rated Rock Soils Related Criteria for Computation of Lateral Load and Overturning Resistance SPREAD FOOTING SUPPORTED ON GRANULAR FILLS/ CLAYEY SILTS 1.? LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND SLIDING RESISTANT-. 12 Lateral Earth Pressures Foundations and Foundation Walls PROJECT PIPING 12 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PAVEMENTS 13 Subgrade Preparation Recommended Flexible Pavement Design Criteria Rigid Pavements, and SIabs-on-Grade ASSCCA Mr GE �o*AcAL OLOGATS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the geotechnical foundation study for the Metro-North Railroad proposed improvements to be constructed in the Larchmont Station, Westchester County, New York. The improvements will consist of a new pedestrian overpass with stairs and elevators. The study included the review of a total of 4 test borings on the site to depths ranging from 15.2 feet to 30.5 feet below the grade at the time of the borings_ Engineering analyses were performed in order to evaluate foundation systems to support proposed structures and to develop recommendations for foundation design and installation, utility support, and earthwork. An inferred subsurface section based on the borings is presented following the text. A description of site conditions and our evaluation is presented in the text. The principal conclusions are described below: 1. An inferred subsurface profile is shown on attached Drawing No. 2. The exploration has indicated that the site is covered by a mantle of uncontrolled fill underlain by medium soft to hard clayey silts, medium compact sands, till and disinte-rated rock. Bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 11 to 23 feet in two of the borings. Groundwater was encountered at elevations ranging from X34 to =37 feet. 2. Due to site constraints and overhead restrictions, the use of driven piles does not appear practical. 3. This study recommends the use of drilled piers/micropiles for support of the pedestrian overpass and elevators. A bearing capacity of 8 tsf is recommended at the glacial till/disintearated rock strata. Pier len!aths are anticipated to ranggm from approximately 20 to 27 feet. 4. The use of drilled micropiles extending to bedrock could also be considered for support. 5. Lightly loaded shallow foundations could be used to support the stairs provided that bearing pressures do not exceed 2000 psf. j� AssoaAn s.nuc 1��LJ co+xus� FnCre+EFPS uq INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the station improvements proposed for the Metro-North Railroad, New Haven Line, Larchmont Station in Larchmont, Westchester County, New York. The Metro-North Railroad Contract Number is No. 9438 A05022. Our work was performed at the request of CTE Engineers on behalf of Metro-North Railroad. Project Location and Description Project Location The project location is shown on Drawing No. 1, Regional Location Plan. The station is located on the north side of Railroad Way between Chatsworth Avenue and Depot Way East. The New England Thruway (U.S. Highway Route I-95) and overhead parking deck run parallel to the tracks on the North side of the station. Proposed Construction The proposed layout of the site is shown on Drawing No. GT-1, Boring Location Plan. There are presently 4 tracks including local tracks on the inbound and outbound sides and two express tracks. An existing pedestrian overpass lies at approximately 800 feet to the east of Chatsworth Avenue. Design information provided to us indicates that the station improvements will include the following principal elements: 1. New Pedestrian Overpass: The new pedestrian overpass is to be located approximately 80 feet to the west of the existing pedestrian overpass. Based on information provided by CTE Engineers, the 12 feetwide truss bridge will span approximately 70 feet and will be supported at each end with four columns. The front overpass column loads are anticipated to be approximately 110 kips. The clearance between the tracks and the bottom of the bridge will be approximately 19 feet. 2. Overpass Stairs: The new stairs will extend approximately 45 feet to the west of the new pedestrian overpass. The stairs will be approximately 7' 4" in width and the area under the stairs would be suitable for elevator mechanical rooms. 3. Elevators: The elevator at the- outbound platform will consist of a 3-stop/two sided elevator to serve the overpass level, platform level and the parking lot level. The inbound elevator will be a 3-stop/two sided elevator to serve the overpass level, the parking deck level, and the platform level. It is anticipated that both elevators will be piston hydraulic types. It is expected that each elevator will require four support piers/piles providing a bearing capacity of 20 tons each. 1 wssoann s,we L�J co«u�•�;xohoaac�; Er+C �A:NG ccaocZT_� SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM General This section of our report describes the development and performance of the soil exploration program for the project, including the review of supplementary project data provided' for our use. The locations of the explorations are shown on Drawing No. GTA, following the text. The logs of the project borings are presented in Appendix A_ Supplementary project borings reviewed for the study are presented in Appendix B. The summary of Iaboratory test results is presented in Appendix C. Supplementary Project Data General Supplementary data was obtained on behalf of. Metro-North Railroad from the State of New York Department of Public Works. The supplementary logs were reviewed and correlated with the geologic data in our files for the area of the project. The data appeared generally to conform to anticipated conditions in the project vicinity. The logs reviewed for this study are presented in Appendix B. No warranty is made as to the accuracy of the borings reviewed. Conditions between the borings may vary. In addition, conditions at the boring locations (such as surface grade and Groundwater levels) may vary with time. Project Field Exploration Program General The project field exploration program was performed in two series. The first phase consisted of two test borings performed using a skid rig on the inbound platform level. The work was performed during the weekend on a 24-hour basis. The skid rig was transported utilizing Metro-North Railroad flatbed rail equipment. The second series consisted of truck borings performed during regular working hours at the street grade adjacent to the outbound platform. The borings were located in the field by representatives of EGS Associates using topographic features on the project base plan as reference. Our representative maintained logs of the explorations as the work proceeded. Soils taken from the borings were classified in accordance with the Burmister Soil Classification system as described on the individual Iogs. Platform Level Borings The skid rig borings consisted of two (2) test borings numbered B-IA and B-2. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 28 feet to 30.5 feet_ Soil samples were taken continuously to a depth of 12 feet and at approximately 5 feet intervals using the Standard Penetration Test Procedure. MC .. CASSOGATET-LGEOT-LC»+CA. ENC,WE.R5 AC GcOLOG675 The area was glaciated in the most recent glacial age (approximately 40,000 years ago). Granular glacial tills overlie, the ridges and fill the lower valleys_ Glacial outwash and interglacial alluvium were deposited above the tills. Lakes formed as the glacier retreated in the valley of the Hudson and its tributaries and filled with inorganic silts, silty clays and fine sands. Seismicity Our review if geologic publications in our files indicate that the southern New York area is likely to be an area of low to moderate seismic risk. The historic record indicates that earthquakes of maximum magnitude in the range of 4 or 5 have occurred in the area. The state Geologic Bureau recommends that an earthquake of magnitude 6 should be considered as likely anywhere in New York State_ Criteria developed for ASCE 7-98 indicate peak bedrock acceleration (Aa) of 0.IS and peak velocity related acceleration (Av) of 0.I2 for the area of Westchester County. The seismic site characteristics are based on average blow counts in the upper 100 feet of the profile. In our opinion, conditions at the proposed pedestrian bridge subsurface profile indicate that site characteristics correspond to site class D, stiff soil conditions, with average N value between 15 and 50 blows per foot. Generalized Subsurface Conditions This subsection covers the development of the generalized subsurface stratification for the project. The stratification is based on interpretation of the project boring data, and the supplementary boring data provided to us as described in Section 2 of the report, in comparison to the anticipated historic geology reviewed above. An inferred subsurface profile based on the data provided is presented on Drawing No. 2. The generalized strata are described below in order of increasing depth.- Stratum epth:Stratum F- Fill: Fills were encountered in all the borings to depths ranging from ; to 9 feet below present grade at the borings. The fills generally consisted of sands with varying proportions of silt, gravel and cindericoal fra`=ments. The grade level fills were in a generally loose to medium dense state based on the Standard Penetration Test data. ASSOCLATES,nuc R3—Intact Rock: For the purpose of this report, the intact rock has been described as beds of parent rock with Standard Penetration Test resistances exceeding 100 blows for 2 inches penetration. The rock was encountered as high as elevation +31 feet at Boring B-3 and at elevation+17 feet at B- 4. At borings B-1A and B-2 intact rock was not encountered to the depths explored and could occur at elevations below+13 feet. Groundwater Water levels in the borings appeared to occur in the range between elevations +34 and +37 feet. The groundwater elevations will vary with seasonal effects and rainfall patterns. Variable seepage rates should be anticipated in the disintegrated rock and intact rock. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The test borings indicate that the loose granular fills extending to depths of 4 to 9 feet, the medium soft to hard clayey silt/silty clays, and the underlying medium compact to compact sands are not suitable bearing soils for the anticipated pedestrian bridge column loads. Our evaluation of subsurface conditions at the site, in relation to the proposed construction, indicates that the pedestrian bridge structure and elevators should be supported on deep foundations extending to the underlying glacial till/disintegrated rock strata. Preliminary review with the design team indicated that due to site constraints and overhead restrictions, the use of conventional pile driving equipment does not appear practical. Therefore, drilled piers or drilled micropiles would be most suitable for support of the pedestrian bridge and elevators. SUGGESTED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS & DESIGN Soil properties for engineering evaluation have been developed based onvisual soil classification, laboratory testing, penetration test data, and our experience with similar formations in the area of the project. The suggested soil properties are provided in Tables Nos. I and IA_ These properties have been used to develop the evaluation and recommendations contained in this report. 7 TABLE NO. 1 SUGGESTED SOIL PR OPCR 1 ICS FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN DENSITIES STRENGTH PARAMETERS SOIL STRATUM 'I'O'I'AL SUBMERGED DRAINED STRENGTH UNDRAINED STRENG c 4 c (pCn (I)CO (pso (degrees) (pso (degrees)" Ballast & Stone Bedding 130 70 0 42 0 42Fly Imported Granular fills 125 65 0 34 0 34 F— Existing Tills 110 50 0 29 0 29 Stratum O 110 50 0 24 0.4 x po 0 Peat/Organic Silt Stratum SC/C 115 55 500 28 500 28 Clayey Silts-Silty Clays Stratum S — Sands 120 60 0 34 0 34 Ancient Alluvium Stratum GT'Glacial'fill 125 65 300 36 300 36 Dcnsc Silty Sands R Sande Silt &Clays(SM, MI) lt2 Disintegrated Itock — N>60 blows/11. 150 90 N.A. Intermediate N.A. 113 — Bedrock — Gneiss 180 120 Very high strength rock Very high strength rock j� nssoaArEs.nVc. M�aXTW,N-' �K*+'_ EE'.i srC DRILLED PIER FOUNDATION ALTERNATE Drilled Pier Installation • It is recommended that the drilled shafts be constructed in accordance with American Concrete Institute Specification 336 for the Construction of End Bearing Drilled Piers. Groundwater and soils with low cohesion will surround the shaft. The use of temporary or permanent casing is recommended for the piers. A drilling fluid or slurry may be used to assist in maintaining the excavation as the casing is withdrawn. Supplementary down-hole drills or churn drills could be required to penetrate rubble or boulder obstructions and should be anticipated in the planning for construction. Drilled piers should extend to the underlying glacial till/disintegrated rock. The bearing stratum should be evaluated by a specialist familiar with the anticipated conditions, and the basis of the design. The consistency should be assessed using supplementary probes where it is necessary to confirm the consistency of the stratum. Where temporary casing is removed during concreting, it should be performed in accordance with the recommended guideline specification. Supplementary injection grouting around the casing is recommended where permanent casings are left in place in order to provide firm contact with the soils surrounding the shaft. Drilled Piers Bearing in Competent Glacial THUD is integrated Rock Drilled piers may be designed for medium bearing capacities for piers bearing in the competent glacial till on disintegrated rock. The allowable bearing capacity for piers bearing on glacial till/disintegrated rock is 8 tsf. Soils Related Criteria for Computation of Lateral Load and Overturning Resistance The soil properties listed in Tables I and l A are recommended for use in computing the required depth and diameter to resist the design overturning moments. These values are based on the AREA design guidelines for design of pole foundations and may be adjusted for alternate design procedures it necessary. The values include the following parameters: 1. Basic soil density and strength parameters are provided in Table 1. 2. :' base'frict on Mu (uhirtiate) on Table 2 may be used to compute base friction coinporvent of iateral resisting forces where the design method includes this resistance - 10 ►sso° �e►hs„� 4GO19ns-AD SOLO= SPREAD FOOTING SUPPORTED ON GRANULAR FILLS/CLAYEY SILTS Lightly loaded spreadfootings and mat foundations bearing on granular fills placed and compacted as specified in the recommendations for earthwork section of the report, should bear at a minimum depth of 3.5 feet. The recommendations consider that excavations for installation of spread footing foundations will be performed in accordance with OSHA and Railroad Agency requirements having jurisdiction regarding safety and bracing/maintenance of slopes. The footing bottoms should be maintained dry by dewatering to at least the base of the excavation. Loose and soft or disturbed soils should be removed and replaced with compacted gravel, or lean concrete. Stair foundations prepared in accordance with these recommendations may be proportioned to impose maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND SLIDING RESISTANCE Lateral Earth Pressures Foundations and Foundation Walls We recommend that foundations and foundation walls be backfilled with clean granular fill from the excavations or imported granular fill conforming to the recommendations for Type G fill as presented in appendix D. Backfill of walls and foundations should be compacted to 92 percent of their maximum density where passive restraint and/or limitation of grade settlement is necessary. We recommend that structural walls such as elevator pits and below Grade walls be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure equal to 45 psf per foot of depth. An active earth pressure increase of at least 5 psf per foot equivalent fluid earth pressure is recommended for seismic stability analyses. Lateral load surcharge live load surcharges from trains, highway truck loadings, and construction loads should be considered in the wall designs. Walls designed to be supported by the floor at the top will require temporary bracing if backfill is placed prior to floor construction. . PROJECT PIPING In General we reco:Tirim d thh. eddii, start;; conform to ASTM C-33 Standard Size 57 coarse aggregate (3/4 inch -lean, sioile . Backfill should consist of granular soils free of debris, boulders and rubbie froni the excava tons or imported granular fills conforming to the gradation for Type G fills (Appendix D of the report). Earth loads on the grade supported piping may be computed using a k-mu factor of 0.165 and a backfill density of 120 pef Surcharge loads for Railroad loadings should be added to the earth loads, where required. 12 wssoaArOn ow` rYi Urps WD ctu�sR required to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Excess materials, and unsuitable materials should be removed from the site and disposed of in accordance with the technical specifications. 4. Excavation Support Considerations: We recommend that all principal excavation configurations including unbraced slopes and excavation support systems be designed by a qualified professional engineer, registered in the State of New York. Suggested soil properties for preliminary analysis and design are provided in Tables Nos. 1 and IA. All excavations should be performed in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Construction Industry Standards for Excavation, Trenching and Shoring and Railroad Construction Manuals. Final establishment of soil classes should be performed by the Contractor's Engineer. In addition, excavations performed within the live load influence zone of the tracks will need to be braced as required by the railroad. We understand that the live load influence zone would be defined by a line projected on a slope of 1.5 horizontal downward from the level of the top of ties at a point beginning at a distance of 10 feet from the center of the adjacent track. Railroad surcharge loads should be included in the analysis based on the project specified engine loading. The recommended Boussinesque live load distribution for an equivalent uniform strip load is presented in Appendix E, Figure No. 1. The excavation support systems should be required where: excavation occurs within the live load influence line defined by the Railroad,procedures; wherever the maximum stable slope passes below existing utilities, existing structure foundations, and the edges of traveled roadways, walkways to be maintained in service; and wherever required to minimize the area of disturbance due to the construction. 5. Dewatering: The groundwater table was encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet below existing surface grade. We recommend that dewatering systems, if required, be designed to depress the groundwater level to a minimum of 1 foot below the base of concrete. Suggested soil properties for araiysis of dewatering requirements are presented in Table No. I A. Design of dewatering should be performed by the qualified contractor and/or his dewatering specialist: - 6. Foundation Subgrades: Excavations should be completed to the design depth of the base of the bedding laver, in con'unci on;,: lit! dewater'tie as described above. The subgrades should be evaluated by an eriginee farailiar with the design considerations, and anticipated conditions. Cbmpacno i-should be considered., prodded that groundwater conditions permit compaction. Disturbers or otherwise unsuitable organic soil or uncontrolled fill material should be removed and replaced with bedding stone, lean concrete, or compacted structural fill where conditions permit_ Gravel bedding should be l4 wssw,GEC �c , EaaX �crc -WusAIC G01 CQS 3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS General The piers will be essentially end bearing concrete pier foundations bearing below the uncontrolled fills. The drilled piers will be installed using large diameter augers and other tools required to penetrate rubble and boulders in the fills and penetrate to the required bearing depth. A base layer of gravel is recommended to reduce softening due to-seepage. However, tremie concreting alternates may be required if the volume of inflow cannot be stemmed by pumping. Withdrawal of casing, if performed during concrete placement, should be performed in accordance with the ACI guideline specifications. Injection of sand-cement grout between the casing and the surrounding earth should be performed where permanent casings are used Installation Considerations 1. Reference Specifications:Reference is made herein to American Concrete Institute Specifications ACI 336 Standard Specification for the Construction of End Bearing Drilled Piers. 2. Drilling Equipment: The drilling equipment should be capable to access the area of the work and be secured in such a manner that track fouling periods are minimized. The drilling rig should have adequate power to reach the required depth at the design diameter. The tools should consist of adequate augers, or down hole rock drills as required by the bearing stratum. In addition pneumatic air drills or churn drills may be required to break through boulders or rubble in non-bearing strata. Cleaning bucket augers should be provided to remove mud and drilling refuse prior to placement of concrete. 3. Casings: Temporary or permanent steel casings should be used and maintained until concrete is in place in accordance with the approved installation procedure, whether slurries are used or not, due to the proximity of the active tracks. Casings should conform to ASTM A25.2 grade 2 steel pipe,ASTM A36 steel plate, or ASTM A444 Corrugated Steel Pipe. The casir k, stre t zth should be adequate to resist earth, hydrostatic and railroad late al sj.x,A,Frge loads. 4. Dewatering: The drilled piers will be instaMec iii areas of high groundwater levels. Provisions should be made to dewater the piers and protect against collapse and inflow of mud. 16 ASSOCIATES.wG 2. A program of preconstruction and post-construction condition surveys should be planned and implemented to map existing distress, and establish monitoring points and criteria for protection of the buildings; 3. A series of settlement monitoring points should be established to monitor the structures for settlement both due to deflection of excavation supports or construction vibration. 4. Vibration monitoring should be performed at selected points on the structures in order to assess the effects of sheet and soldier pile driving and rock excavation. 5. A response plan should be developed as part of the monitoring program to maintain the progress of the work. The following tentative action thresholds should be considered as part of the plan. Settlement Threshold: Proceed with caution if settlement of 0.01 foot is measured. Stop and implement action plan if two consecutive positive readings are noted. Vibration Threshold: Proceed with caution when readings of 0.5 inch per second peak particle velocity are recorded. Stop and implement corrective measures when velocity exceeds 1.0 inch per second. At this time corrective measures would include i'rcreasin pre-excavation of obstructions, and reduction of hammer energy or excavating equipment energy, underpinning, reinforcement of shoring and bracing of excavations, and preloading of struts. 18 f 0 .► -Lrr O o r w�l ) � o tOE �I 1iL F r � ♦ I� l .0 6 1 i E�r �tE `Sa ♦ hoz = 125 ,,�,,,• t a PROJECT SITE a:'•.., ` • Qa 7 � O 1 1 V Iii �e / ` � � - r �' \`► -�► / /f�T�fT [T ±• F I OWN h Sa f~O. ae� C10 a� a i - `` `1 t• O p �� ♦IS•1 t Y f G. ;� ��• TORIC .rlAsr� � +'o v � �• � ,Y1t-��Ei- e ♦ 4 o�a� � _ c 94 it - ,r a_���-_ NOslSlMi T � a a �♦�F� �� _ , IK �S�•r\rte \\J�� o� �'(• µt ♦� a. + it Z �9y � i. • ♦ !"SC t'cES* 10 � t St a ♦d� ! , HC � � t u t s T� d '`a S T �� _ O (. Av Ke Ir e i�� � O. ►y~ I � -.oma �� • Sf Y':i• Lc �� � :t'`�. - 1/ •0 = -a\�!`v � (± ♦ C0` Qt'" Z(.� tom'"O�,e��\^\ 1 J 4: 711,;G L-,FCTECHmr.AL a♦ o c 4 �_ P` ao =� °.�J \✓ ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS A—S-SOGIAT IN- s St `rSa �`" �o ^�1: Vim. ' b•'' _ri ._ 4`i.- '✓io�'J: .ro�� ~n.. t`��• � �a�y� AittS':'?V" C!17, el.J 4R•:L-; .e` J\\^\\f\O �t s // IS'► / ��� �°� �'�1��1 (609) 345--2727 P • LARCHMCNi STATION IMPROVEMENTS !►baa o ~ ` L-! WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK QI wood- " h_ a REGIONAL LOCATION PLAN -"S NAP IS ADAPT'S FRCU HAGS OU 11AP -F 'w^WER Wf_S'CHES-R C-'UNT". NEW `rORK, ',A7--7:-: APRIL 2002 SCAii: NTS JOB NC: EGC1042 DWG NC)._i 0 q� 1 4 11 o H _ 5 DH I- 9 0Al 0 r o %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV Room Bench cling Co 011 1 P o T o 0 Sign r= Timber Edge `—�-' PLATFORM SUPPORTS (TYP) Timber Edge Ln I Signs R BInclin TQ v 1 Recy I i Sin Concret 21 ilu Sidew Bi Paved 8 . v ° mC nC. ^ p m 01111111 onc. Curb77 rl<iMer C typ e 1MNRR Permit — wo Id I'll mlel prkindg Sla on . sIp , ..... Q Tel on i_onr,. Hose Tr,:)v. 13 Gulder/iil GUARD PAIL 0.4t FEET CLEAR E < — L4 wJ Ide Int ST Rim ; ._?i - Ili sooces anw � FININIMnOtq nxwM11 AWPM fWM aslo.9*-0-01 r!VV* r10P0o soma torGnd" PRVVM ev Cn V#Waft o+li0 0/11111M. «.ro °M ' e43e-roe-02: 4 Melro•Nor1h I1dIroa0 (�.,�� ENGINEERS VKHMONT STATION IMPR MENTS �1/,•.to ,111AACH.7001 AY. �C Jul✓M!►•/.wwr IGn1d11 Ip011(IO IWrOCIM IMOMII!! Mrr rlrr,N v,Ip0/l OM � r.c r �R •.. oa r.r y q.l!•..MC r BONINO LOCATION PLAN GT-1 �ae� AssoaAa,eic GMLOGC7 APPENDIX A TEST BORING LOGS ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR RESIDUAL SOIL F(MMMCKS AND ROCK I . RESIDUAL SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (1) STANDARD PENETRATION TEST CLASSIFICATION "N" VALUES (ASTM D158 6) 0 TO 60 BLOWS/FOOT RESIDUAL SOIL-CLASSIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENGINEERING SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 60 BLOWS/FOOT TO DISINTEGRATED ROCK - 50 BLOWS/INCH PARENT FORMATION GREATER THAN 50 BLOWS/INCH ROCK - FORMATION II . DESCRIPTION OF ROCK STRENGTH (2) ROCK RAINGE OF UNCONFINED REACTION OF HAND-HELD STRENGTH COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SPECIMEN TO IMPACT FROM CLASS POUNDS/SQUARE INCH 1 LB. BALL PEEN HAMMER A GREATER THAN 15, 000 ELASTIC REBOUND B 8 , 000 TO 15, 000 PITS C 3, 000 TO 8, 000 DENTS -� D 1, 000 TO 3, 000 CRATERS OR SHEARS E LESS THAN 1, 000 MOLDABLE - FRIABLE III . DESCRIP'T'IVE TERMINOLOGY FOR JOINT SPACING ( 3) DESCRIPTIVE 7ERM SPACING OF JOINTS VERY CLOSE LESS THAN 2 INCHES CLOSE 2 INCHES TO 1 FOOT MODERATELY CLOSE FOOT TO 3 FEET WIDE 3 FEET TO 10 FE ET VERY WIDE GREATER THAN 10 ,FEET AUCCLUM rewnpkr 2 ircfi 3*goon Shen 1 ag 1 „ o HammedFst 140 bs/30 inefi Boling No.: B-1A Rip Type: Thick Location PlarL See Plan Project A NRR Larofunont Station Dr&V Method: DrA9 ComPaw- We ,New York Wed Casing Warren George Project;: EGO1042 Ground Elevation: -+41.11' Driinp Inspector. Pard Echar>Q P E. art Date: 4!20102 Depth To Water. 6.0' Dafefrime: Sats Engateer: Paul Ethan,P.E. End Date: 4/21102 Ground Water EJer_ -35-11' 4/21102 3-00pm Depth Blows Sample Below Cang Sampler per ID Depth Identification of SoiwRemarks StrabWaPM Surface(ft) per tL 6 Inches TO 1 46 531 25 18 2 S-1 0-2 S-1 Dic Brown&Tan cmf SAND,We Sat, F 3 12 221 38 401 trace f Gravel (Fit) 4 1S-2 2-4 513-2 Top: Brown Clayey SILT. 4.0' 5 25 23 21 15 Bot Black of SAND,trace Sat,bite f Gravel 6 S-3 wlcinders(Fig) Sat 7 7 17 7 4 S3 Brown m'f GRAVEL,some'cmf Sand,little SiL SC 8 S-4 6-8 S-4 Brown SILT,some ct Sand,We d Gravel. 8-0r 9 13 101 16 22 d Sand 10 1SS 8-10 S-5 Brown d SAND,trae Sit,trace f Gravel, S 10.0' 11 61 9 14 23 trace mica. Clayey SWI i 12 S6 10-12 S-6 Top: Gray Clayey SILT,itae-mf Sand, Brown Peat 13 trace f Gravel,trace mica- O 13.0' 14 Bot Dk-Brown PEAT,little Organic Sat 15 S 16 46 31 49 47 Br-d Sand 17 S-7 15-17 S-7 Brown d SAND,trace Sat,lade-mf Gravel, 18 trace mica. i i 19 1 19.0' i 20GT 21 251 19 27 55 22 Gr Cly Sat S 8 20-22 S-8 Gray Clayey SILT. 220' 23 1001 24 3' SA 23-232 -1-9 Gray d SAND,trace Sat w/rock fragments- 25 Run 11 Rec= 13.3% RQD=6.70% 26 Drilled from 23.5'to 28.5' i 27 60 32 66 100 (Disintegrated Rock) R:? 28 S-10 28.5- S-10 Gray SILT,and f Sand,trace mica. 29 30.5' (disintegrated rock) 30 30.5" 31 32 End of Test Boring(ds 30-5' 33 3.4 �v 35 37 v 38 39 40 VISUAL INDENTFICATION TERMS USED Relative Dei> (Dr)Of Clayey Sacs @ Bad Moist Granular Soils Consistency of Clayey Soils Proportions Used TM SILT shgM PL Thread 114" Very Loose 0-15% soft (S) 0-1-0.5 tsf trace 1-10% �jLT&CLAY low PL Thread 1B' Loose 15-35% firm (F) 0.5-1.0 tsf little 10-20% CLAY&SILT med PL Thread 1/16" Medium 35-65% med hard(MH) 1.0-2.0 tsf some 20-35% Silty CLAY high PL Thread 1/32' Dense 65-85% hard (H) 20-4-0 tsf and CLAY very high PL Thread 1/64- lVery Dense 85-100%Ivery hard(VH) over 4.0 tsf -- - Sartrpler: Z rydt spit tpoan loll AWOCLUM HG K t tamrtertFalt 140 bdW roti Boring No.: 8-2 Rig Type: Truck Location Plain See Plan Flm*t MNRR Lardvnont Stamm DnikV Method: Dry Compary Westchester,New York Washed Casing Warren George "•oject#: EG01042 Grand Elevation: -41.11' Dr&V Inspector: Pati Er wkLz,P.E. rt Date: 420102 Depth To Water. 7.0' DeteiTime: Soil Eroneer Paul Echanm-P.E End Date: 4J20102 Grand Wats Ek-.r- -34.11' 420J0210:35am Depth Blows Sample Below Casing Sam per ID Depth Identification of SoddRemarks StratigraPhY Surface(ft) per tt 6 kxhes (ft) 1 83 15 7 8 Ballast I.0' 2 S-1 0-2 S-1 Top: Dk-Gray c mf GRAVEL,Lade d Sand, 3 5 6 29 5.41 trace Sit.. 4 1 S-2 2-4 Bot Brown d SAND,ittje-Sit.some-mf Gravel. F 5 36 61 57 161 Blade&Brown d SAND,trace+Sdt,We d GraveL 5.0' 6 F NS-3 4-6 S-3 Top:Same as S-2- 7 19 34 19 ill got grown Clayey SILT,trace mf Sand_ gr CIV Sit 8 S-4 6-8 S-4 Brown Clayey SILT,trace f Sand. SC 9 7 11 16 14 trace mf Gravel(wet) 9.0. 10 SS 8-10 S-5 Top:Same as S4. Sy Clay C 11 16 101 11 8 gar Gray Sdty CLAY. 12 S-6 10-12 S-6 Brownist ray c mf SAND,Ilitfe Sit,ittie-f Gravel. 13 cf Sand, 14 We Sift 15 16 12 19 23 27 17 S-7 15-17 S-7 Stone Fragments S 18 19 19.0' 20 21 73 53 91 64 22 S-8 20-22 S-8 Gray c mf GRAVEL,some cm*f Sand,little Sat_ 23 Till 24 Drilled from 23 to 26.5 25 REC=8.3% ROD=0 GT 26 klisc.Rods FragmerZ(pass-boulder) 27 11551 27.0' 28 4- ----9 27.7-28 S-9 Gray Clayey SILT- dszntegrated bedrock Dis Rock 28' 29 End of Test 8onng 28-0- 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 - 38 .�.� r 39 4l7 VISUAL INDENTIRCATION TERMS USED Relative Density(Dr)Of Clayey Sods Q Ban Moist Granular Sons ConsstPncy of Clayey Soils Proportions Used ey SILT slight PL Ttweed 114- Very Loose 0-15% soft (S) 0.1-0.5 tsf trace 1-10% —LT&CLAY law PL Thread 118' Loose 15-35% firm (F) 0-5-1.0 tsf frttle 10-20% CLAY&SILT med PL Thread 1116" Me<i= 35-65% med hard(MFi) 1.0-2-0 tsf some 20-5% Silty CLAY high PL Thread 1132' Dense 65-85% hard (I) 2.0.4.0 tsf and 3550% CLAY very Nqh PL Thread 1164- Very Dense 85-100% Ivery hard(VH) over 4.0 tsf W L r�dt�t spoon Suet 1 of 1 Hammer/Fat 140 ba130 inch Bonng Noy a.4 Ftp Type_ Truck Location Plam See Plan Project MNRR Larctnnont Station Dying Method Drg v CompaW Westdxster,New York Mud Roomy Warren George Proms EGO 1042 Ground Elevation: —+41.t' DaN trSPecto PaLd Echaniz,P.E rt Date_ 4120102 Depth To Water 30 DateiTene: Sats Engineer Pain Echaniz,P.E. cnd Date: 4r2= Ground Water Elev: —37.4' 4r20/02 3:11 pm Depth Blows Sample Below Cog Sampler per ID Depth kkiddication of SodwRemarks Stratigraphy Surface tft) Pa R 6 kx hes 00 t 1 10'Asphalt 2 21 9 5 4 3 S-1 13 S-1 Top: Gray cf SAND,trace Sul;some c mf Gravel. 4 3 5 18 13 got Black d SAND,trace Sat,some mf Gravel 51 S-2 3-5 vrdanders. F 6 1 1 1 1 S-2 No Recovery 7 S3 5-7 S3 No Recovery 8 4 1 2 2 9 S-4 7A S4 Gray d SAND,trace Sat w/trace cinderl 9.0 10 3 31 3 4 brick 11 S3 9-11 S-5 Gray Cram SILT wfstone fragments_ 12 2 2 3 81 SC E 13 S-6 11-13 S-6 Gray Clayey SILT. Cy Sat 14 7 S nm 16 12 12 24 21 16.0 17_ S-7 15-17 S-7 LL Gray Clayey SILT C 18 19 Silty CLAY bottom Sy Clay 19.0' 20 21 12 7 7 13 d S.t5-Sat 22 S-8 20-22 S-8 Brown-Tan d SAND,trace Sk trace'mf Gravel- 22.0• 23 Oizated rock @ bottom Dis Rock 23' 24 R.Ger bd 6-to refusal 25 Rtm#1 Drilled from 23'to 28' Gray Gnem 26 REC=83.3% RQD=73.3% 27 R3 28 29 28.0' 3d End of Test Boring @ 28.0 31 32 33 34 35 Y I 36 37 e 38 — 4d VISUAL INDENT1FICATION TERMS USED Retative Density(Dr)Of Clayey Sods Q Baa most Granuiar Soils Consistency of Clayey Sods Proportions Used 'Y SILT slight PL Thread 1/4" Very Loose 0-15% soft (S) 0.1-0.5 tsf trace 1.100,0 f b CLAY low PL Thread 1/8' I-Dose 15-05% inn (F) 0.5-1.0 tsf fiWe 10-20% CLAY 8 SILT med PL Thread 1/16" Medium 35-65% med hard(MH) 1.0-2.0 Isf some 20-35% Silty CLAY high PL Thread 1r32- Dense 65-85% hard (H) 2.0-4-0 tsf and 35- /, CLAY very high PL Thread 1164" I Very Dense 85-100% very hard(VH) over 4.0 tsf V V E 'C� GEOLOGM APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTARY BORING LOGS DISTRICT NO. STATE OF NEW YOWL CmwTY b�r1161 11 C.4- °. DEPARWM- OF PUBUC WORKS L B.S.M. PROD. Na SUBSURFACE INFORMATIONLINE 13STA-4�oca OFFSi NAMI=LXs TAqt,.,,f4vs'clf mac. QUAD. LOCATION DATE, START �: 1 -s'3 PED. CLASS. v GND. ELEV. Ui• 1 y DATE, FINISH - CASING OG.W.ELEV.?T• 2 �i D. �� �— l-D +aL=_ WEIGHT OF HAMMER 3•a HAMMER FALL SAMPLER O.D.-JL— ID. INSIDE LENGTH OF SAMPLER 0 �P " ING1sSAlypLER/�' .`c T = BLOWS ONI+ PAS WSAMP e s IAECt1. ANALYSIS LER = § . PASSIM sce� No_ FIELD IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL ' 9 f ° ' 4 so 40 a REMARKS I I � I _-L7-_ I iJ L �Zo oo „ P� 6 SQ•,d3417 L7 20 = 2 t 9A - fc c.Cs !env r tJii7 iivt JJ ' 3 3 4-7 - 1 f Lei DRILLING INSPECTOR •ILSS'T. SOILS ENGINEER —BUDD SAMPLES SHOULD BE TAKEN AT APPROXIMATELY y FT. INTERVALS AND WlWrC-#tEyVR 7HERE 13 AN INo, 710N Of ►osswLE CHARGE OF �A STRATA. CLEAN TO ENA OF CASINO AND TAXE ALL SAMPLES -CRY' WITH SAMPLER arrow END OF OA11NS. 00-NOT ppiyE THE -`+-^LER FARTHER THAN INSIDE LENGTH WITHOUT CLEANING- LOCATION OF LAYER SOUNOARIES MUST BE ZNOtM IM CROS; SECTION' COLUMN. SAMPLES SHOULD K VISUALLY IDENTIFIED ACCORDING TO D.L_tR INSTRUCTIONS. I1orSTURE CONTENT SHOULD BE INDICATED IN "MOISTURE- COLUMN AS W.WIET. M.NDIST. OR D•ORT. ANY LOSS OF AASH WATER OR UPWARD FLOW OF WATER APD MATERIAL INTO CASIIIG SHOULD SE EMPHA3¢ED (AIDER -REMARRE-. FORM SM t2A R/ - - 1-IOLF No ,S� 1J v E csaocs_ \l APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ASSOdATt3,INC. 1:,1.,4,.1'.4:.1:•4;11l.::. V:.(.1111'1••:;, SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project: LARCHMONT STATION WESTCHESTER COUNTY NEW JERSEY E 01042Date:___MAY 2002 Boring Atterberg Limits Unconfined & Depth Compression a Sample Classification No. c Liquid Stress Strainm � ° N = o U D Plastic TSF /o a F' B-I A 4-6' Brown m f CRAVEI., somLlmit L(mlte S-3 cmf Sand, little Silt. X B-I A 10- Dk. Brown PEAT, little S-6 B 12' Organic Silt 204.1 B-1 A 20- Gray Clayey SILT: S-8 22' _ _ 21.8 B-2 10- Brown Gray C-Inrg;07 5., �ittlev S-6 12' Silt little- f Gravel. X B-2 20- Gray nRA.VEv!,, some S-8 22' cm+f Sand life Silt. X 13-3 3-5' Brown c mf GRAVEL, trace S-2 cmf Sand, trace` Silt. X B-4 9-1 I' Gray Clayey/ SH-,T w/stone S-5 fragments, 24.6 B-4 11- Gray Clayey S!LT. S-6 13' 36.6 42.1 40.5 B-4 15- Gray Clayey S31LT w/Silty —~ S-7 17' Clav_@ bottoin. 23.0 See Test Curves " 1 -100 0 00. 60 l0. _. .. _ . 60. _. — --- - _ 50 0 • 40. 20 i f I !I� I • Iii C� l O.o - LL --._... -._. _ .� 1 f_E._t_1..._ 1000000 100.000 10.000 1.000OIWN49=INMILLOO M 0.100 0.010 0.001 OPOI IN fv.N• R!/•^VOLE OlI4NO rIL.T ON OLAV C m t • /n 7! uawlle ra 76.2 M4 9.552 2.0 O. 9 Q20 /> Illlll�l�rs lCL#78 lCAT� 31n. IIn. 0/O In. NO•. 10 JO 60 em •1•r•• MNRR LARCHMONT STATION WESTCHESTER COUNTY NEW YORK B-1A S-3 4-6' EGO1042 Brown m+f GRAVEL., some+cmf Send little SIR. AISOCI- 'M""' GRADATION CURVE COW FEM 0[OIICNNICAI LNJI loto Ga ANO olaoaon AgK>CW s,tNc coNsurr�G G.Eo Eu»acti E�G�4ER5 GECYOG M APPENDIX D GRADATIONAL ENVELOPES i Allowable Gradational Envelope Type "G" Fill Granular Fill U.S Standard Sieve Size Percent Finer By Weight 100 1" 80-100 3/8" 70-100 No. 10 50-100 No. 30 30-8 No. 60 155-,6 5 No. 200 5-15 Allowable Gradational Envelope Type "S"Fill STRUCTURAL FILL U.S.Standard Sieve Size Percent Finer By Weisht 1" 100 318" 65-100 No. 10 40-85 No.30 20-65 No. 60 10-45 No. 200 5-12 t Allowable Gradational Envelope NEW JERSEY DEPARTAM*rr OF TRANSPORTATION Coarse Aggregate Size No. 57 U.S Standard Sieve Size Percent Finer By Weight 100 1" 9 -100 No. 4 0-10 No. 3 0-; ASSOCLAIM BIC �Go+��,� , rp OIE GEOLOGC: APPENDIX E BOUSSINESQUE LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION LATERAL PRESSURE DIAGRAM _ 8 . 5 ' ( 2 - 6 m) - q LB/FT2 ( kPa ) // SHEET PILE WALL , , �/2 Ph Ph = ( 2q/7,- ) (,P, - SIN )2 COS 2 a ) Ph = PRESSURE AT ANY GIVEN POINT q = STP, IP LOAD SURCHARGE a = ANGLE IN DEEP,EES = ANGLE IN RADIANS LATE RAL PRESSURE DUE TO STR i P LOAD OFF ICE OF CH i EF ENG I NEER - D 8 C FEB 1 , 1995 DWG . NO. : SK -2 Appendix F APPENDIX F PHOTOS OF THE WATER MAIN ON THE DIVISION STREET BRIDGE a ♦2622\BB0222702 r F� I f f f r �Ilfh t' Division 001.jpg Division 002.jpg '1141�1�1�1�1�t11�1��•n1���f�� • t Eg i;'»��»1rr�rswt,N d .}� 4 >• MWA ' ako,OVA k�++���♦��i�!44 ♦eV� ��, .♦~tom�` „�,�4s� ♦1 r/ lf� Ns- '-. ., .p Orrrri+ 1�l� !!a,�♦�1 e� �� s a� �►�3�� � `'���I�A t�+ rrr�Ms1 �. ► � � ' 'tea... ii !, . ♦a��� 1.�- ��+►+�'�s�. , . s\.�F F.fi ++r r rte` !1�1 � ♦� ♦ �4�'�R�+1�! •!♦S ! ♦ a � : ��,;,:�j�jjj r - +r+r+rr++��10�11 '��t`1'�1 1 1�i'i♦a♦ 3!a +rr++r+r'i+1�1?t41� '��♦ ♦ r �1w�,�♦ ♦ ! ♦ i +Mj♦ -WE jj �►�I .��j1�js ,� • �_• a.• . • gr�i W- 1; : o 4 •-�e��•��1��,� ��� s. v ` � w�, Srs�i��sssej� Division 003.jpg Division 004.jpg Division11 .• Division 11' •• i�. n 1 Division 009.jpg Division O10.jpg �+ e��.,�'��''�-�''"! � �� +`O 00000 4l��i++E�l�.!!!!!S� !� ♦� ���,. �" SAO i,. t�� ♦y�0OO101O 1+t�! ! !! ! !l�l��♦ '�jt/� N� 6s�,.++��+�,+�.+�+�l�s���:�i�ea! .. .,.. .. ..�. a.� ';!E�1 �1►��,e�►*+++i'��E++++e++i+mss+tea++�+ei!'!il�l�� Division 011.jpg Division 012.jpg ♦N ♦ +♦ + ♦� w �!�! ♦� 11111111 AWN �I�I�♦N �� ����� �i «S!`! !111111 ♦NOW,VAW ♦ r ► �l�1 {{!!mss`♦-�► 11�11/N♦ ♦'r 1♦ ♦♦♦♦ isJ��.,`.i, °���,����t�1' s�lt� i!s{s{11♦S.II�IIj�j1��j1 s;♦� •ir�♦ Orli t�. ` ``,J+`r f� se�l���s!♦��!ll������s��ase !{�{�{{sjlj® ��11♦11.1��� A � ♦♦ ♦ ♦♦I ♦ ♦ ♦� �♦♦ � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦,111 ♦ �i1., °1 ! X1111♦ '�w1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �,�.�i�as��°G °,°1°,,,�, ���s��'�s��l��.�!'�� �.�q��,#�'* �f♦1 1��e ra 3't11111,♦11�1�,�!` `♦1♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦1I�♦I♦I!yIt�.��,��j��°��i�°f °1J+�F1f ���l�Q���1��. .;s��4�+ge+lls li♦�11111�sp►; s� i ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ t. � �a°� :°.�l. , -�i 1♦ 1,ss1s1s1♦1♦1�1 �i♦III U �g♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦It,��Ittt� rfllf� °°� . ,mss+♦ t♦tt♦ ' i►'I1 �ai►♦_I♦i1I`♦��I�I:�1�♦,•Mit.�i !lfl,� !'°'� °,`��` ►`iO4�� 1���1'���ei1:1��1:1�*��.�1�11l1�i�s+sl4j lf��`S�t*tt:♦i�i�s�i� ,1 ♦ ♦ ♦ I ♦: t♦ ♦� rf�� Division 013.jpg Division 014.jpg SIM <. c ,.:��r��♦N♦♦♦♦.1�♦��♦14♦j♦1♦j♦IN .. W,F41frqW 1 -4 '�� �♦♦1�♦1♦���j♦i�titt�i��i�� l ; , 14W ri1��~ ♦j111♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�'♦♦i1♦t1♦O♦♦t♦♦i♦tit �'�i�1J,i ° i�♦�1�♦1♦♦1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1♦4tttit♦ti�ti���.i�i�+�B°q ' S♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦1♦♦1♦IIiI�♦�♦�♦I�� ��A�``t �i�♦ice♦♦�♦♦%��..��;♦�♦;�.♦♦♦�♦���i e ? r � ♦ n Division 015.jpg Division 016.jpg • +�aeiilikc Division 017.j•• Division 1 : p• I Division 019.jpg Division 020.jpg A xt > � /r J ✓ ///�fl �hl# .yif" 'q"� its a15 4 req 1 t ■. :vt ZT4. 141-A k ■■ d a R a • r■ ■■ S J B!Rdl Fn3 F � l r tri e Division 025.jpg Division 026.jpg si r Division 027.jpg Appendix G APPENDIX G PROPOSAL FROM THE PIM CORP. DATED MAY 1, 2002 ♦2622\BB0222702 F! k Tel: (732) 469-6224 Fax: (732 469-8959 r ) Corporation E-Mnil; pimCorp4acl.com 201 Crr..e Urivg Nu. Suite 106 PrSCUlaway,Nrw Jersey 0885 -Ww.pimcorp.Com S ubirelarchrrmt May 1, 2002 Mr. Joe Morgan Village of Larchmont Water Department Fax #: (914) 833-2170 120 Larchmont Avenue Sent via Fax 8, Regular Mail Larchmont, NY 10538 No. of Pages: Three Re: Scope & Price Quote For The Rehabilitation Of A 16" Steel Potable Water Suspended Main Utilizing the Proprietary "SUBLINE" Process: Dear Mr. Morgan, As per your request PIM Corporation is pleased to submit the following price quotation for its SUBLINE system & services: Location: Highway Overpass Located at: Chatsworth Avenue in Larchmont, NY Project Scone: Tight line approximately 260 I.f. of suspended 16" steel potable water pipeline at the above referenced location, with 14.750" O.D., SDR 26, HDPE pipe. Pipe will be installed from launch and reception points, either pipe cut cuts or excavations carried out and maintained by PIM Corporation. PIM will also be responsible for maintaining traffic control and overall project site safety. Should the Village of Larchmont require police officers for traffic control the pipeline owner would reimburse PIM Corporation for any related expenses. The village of Larchmont further agrees to provide PIM Corp. with secure yard space to store materials and equipment for the duration of the project. PIM Corp. will be responsible for the internal cleaning of the pipeline (*), and any debris disposal, which might be required, PIM Corporation will suppiy the 14.750", SDR 21, HDPE pipe, butt fuse, Subline form, and install the pipe. After the new plastic main has been installed, PIM will revert the pipe to its original diameter using water pressure and install special 16.00" X 14,750" ,kik=ng Johnson, Uner Grip mechanical to flanged end fittings to allow for the reconnect 6r: oflht e,-+rti�ewlFIDPL liner pipe back to the existing steel water distribution ayctCir. . �tl'�:Cr:�p rd c r avM perform a hydrostatic pressure test after reversion t:,11'16- Villar,--1 of Larchmont`s specifications. PIM Corp_ in conjunctit ri'with the Village of Larchmont Water Dept, will then sanitize the new liner and complete the final water main system restoration work utilizing butt fusion, electro fusion and/or mechanical fittings and standard O.D., ductile iron pipe. PIM Corp. will also reconnect one existing 2" water service to the new HDPE liner located in a vaulted area under the bridge decking. Page # 2 May 1, 2002 Village of Larchmonl NY Sublinc price Quote Mr. Joe Morgan PRICING DETAILS PIM Engineering, Materials, Supervision, Labor & Equipment: Scope: Provide 14.750" HDPE pipe, butt fuse, "SUBLINE" fold, install and hydrostatically revert and pressure test the new 14.750", HDPE, SDR 26, NSF certified pipe and reinstate one service and tie-in at both ends of bridge to existing system. • Approximately 260 I.f. @ $249.50 / I.f. _ $64,870 2 - 16" Linergrip Fittings @ $2,950 / each = 5,900 • Mobilization & Demobilization / Project Site = 11,600 • Supply of 300 I.f, of 14.750" HDPE pipe = 11,550 • (Including Freight & Special Fusion Machine) • Reinstatement of 1- 2" service connection 2,650 Tota( Lump Sum Price: $96,770 (Y) Special Note; Cleaning refers to standard drag scraping of the existing welded and/or mechanically jointed pipe to remove scale and/or debris and assumes that there are no harmful substances in the existing pipeline. Should any additional or special cleaning and/or decontamination of the pipeline be required it shall be the sole responsibility of the pipeline owner to clean /decontaminate the pipeline or pay PIM Corporation an extra to do so. Optional Items: o Slip-line the exiting 6" steel water service with 2" HDPE and tie into new HDPE main and existing 1" service to the train station, 75 Lf. of 2" HDPE installation @ $25.75/ I.f. _ $1,931,25 Other Notes: o Payment of invoices is Net 60 Da,'s. Prices are based Orr worir dUrlrlc daylight hours. during a regular five day work week and do no'. include wookend, night or holiday work. • Prices will remain in effect trn. 19_oa days The Village of Larchrrtont v ill be; responsible fri securing all necessary permits for this project, which may include local permits; New England Thruway and/or Amtrak railroad permits, • Pricing does not include any bypassing of the existing system nor any permits or surety bonds. Page 4 3 May 1,2002 V i I Iage of Larchmont, N Y Subline price Quote Mr. Joe Morgan Pipeline Owners Responsibilities: PIM Corp, in conjunction with the pipeline owner will stop off the flow of water, dewater and remove the sections of the water main at each end of the bridge in preparation for the SUBLINE process, and then reconnect the new HDPE main to the existing steel system and restore the flow of water to the system. In the event PIM Corporation cannot successfully replace all of the entire section or sections of pipe proposed; or any portion thereof because of any unforeseen circumstances, it is agreed that PIM Corporation shall not be held liable for any resulting damages. PIM Corporation will supply insurance coverage for its employees and representatives prior to the start of work on the project naming the Village of Larchmont as additional insured. Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully Submitted, Robert J. Tari Ili PIM Corpora Ion PIM CORPORATION INFORMATION REQUEST FORM - ROLLDOWN, SUBLINE 8, EPDXY LINING inlc cne�tn I e'-� / / Company Address: �jZO Contact: o / e-mail: Q Phone: Fax' Material (host pipe): i Length ft.): O Wall Thickness (in.): s Diameter (in.) - External: Internal: Existing lining (if any) - Material: zt,"'o IVI-IT Thickness: i Joint Types: ` /,►D/�'Q Conveyed Fluid: �7 7--�/L Operating Temperature CF) - Min: S Max: w Max Continuous Operating Pressure (psi): jt- 'pJ Desi n Surge Pressures (psi) - Min: Max, Frequency: Vacuum(in.)/Sub Atmospheric Pressure - Min: Frequency: Location ( above/below ground/subsea) hWo il�� o v,1'/U o,r/ 66:.� Depth of Cover (tt.) - Min: Max: Depth of ground water above springline host pipe (ft.): - Eranch Connections (number/sizes): Inline Offsets and/or Valves (number/type): Cuslomer Service Connections (number/sizes): — - C v -Layout map required): Pipeline Profile (drawing required): External Corrosion - Max hole dia no !n ,- Max hole dia at end of design life: Internal Corrosion - Max hole dia w:� (�jCw w,y Max hole dia at end of design life: Circumferential Breaks (yes/no): O If yes. max gap width (in.): Longitudinal splits (yes/no): /YD If yes, max gap width (in.): Lining Condition (structurally sound/breaking up/corroded): /w� Z-/,1//,4-'6 Leaking Joints (yes/no): /1�0 Separated Joints (yes/no) Max gap width (in.): CCN survey performed (yes/no): lltl'-o Available for review (yes/no)• 111 pipeline require cleaning prior to lining: lJ1✓/�j�/U h� ,c/ Prepared by �j/�j✓ ����j��,('h6 Date: Company: �i � o �it ✓�/f' / Please return completed form plus any additional information to: PIM Corporation Phone: (732) 469-6224 201 Circle Drive North, Suite 106 Fax: (732) 469-8959 Piscataway, NJ 08854 e' i