technical memorandum 2: passing siding alternativeweb.mta.info/mta/planning/pjlstudy/pdf/appendix...

Appendix C: Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements

Analysis

Technical Memorandum 2: Passing

Siding Alternative

January 2018

Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 2: Passing Sidings Alternative Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

2. Passing Sidings: Locations and Components ..................................................... 1

3. Study Approach ...................................................................................................... 2

4. Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 2

4.1 Base Mapping ............................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Structure Inventory ........................................................................................................................ 3

4.3 Environmental Resources ............................................................................................................. 4

5. Project Work Components ..................................................................................... 4

5.1 Passing Siding Track Alignment Guidelines ................................................................................. 4

5.2 Undergrade Bridges ...................................................................................................................... 6

5.3 Assessment and Findings ........................................................................................................... 10

6. Train Control System ........................................................................................... 12

7. Impact Assessment .............................................................................................. 12

7.1 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 12

7.2 Right-of-Way ............................................................................................................................... 13

7.3 Permit Requirements .................................................................................................................. 13

8. Cost ........................................................................................................................ 14

8.1 Cost Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 14

8.2 Cost Estimates of Proposed Sidings ........................................................................................... 14

TABLES

Table 1: Passing Siding Locations for Each of the Three Yard Zones ........................................ 1

Table 2: Condition Summary Ratings of Bridge Girder Structures and Recommendations ........11

Table 3: Condition Summary Ratings of Culvert Structures and Recommendations .................11

Table 4: Estimated Wetland Impacts .........................................................................................13

FIGURES

Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 2: Passing Sidings Alternative Page ii

Figure 1: Port Jervis Line with Proposed Passing Siding and MPY Locations ................................. 2

Figure 2: Methodology for Determining the Appropriate Typical Section .......................................... 6

Figure 3: Part 2 – Structural Capacity Assessment Process ............................................................... 9

Figure 4: Part 1 - Structural Configuration Assessment Process ....................................................... 9

Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 2: Passing Sidings Alternative Page 1

Introduction

This technical memorandum describes the analyses conducted for the Passing Siding Alternative for Metro-

North Railroad’s (Metro-North) Port Jervis Line (PJL) Capacity Improvements. It identifies the locations of

the proposed passing sidings, the major work components, the potential impacts, and the order-of-

magnitude construction cost estimates of the required improvements. The analysis conducted in the

Passing Siding Alternative was based on the approach developed for the Double Track Alternative

described in Appendix C, Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative.

Passing Sidings: Locations and Components

The passing sidings locations were determined by an analysis performed by Metro-North’s Operations

Planning Department to allow for an increase in off peak service and introduce reverse peak service. The

analysis determined that up to three passing sidings would be required, with the actual number of passing

sidings to be constructed dependent upon the final location of the MPY.

Several potential MPY locations along the PJL were evaluated. As discussed in Appendix B: Mid-Point

Yard Analysis, those locations were grouped into three geographical zones - Harriman, Salisbury Mills, and

Campbell Hall.1 It was assumed that MPY sites located in close proximity within each zone would exhibit

comparable operational requirements and yield similar operational benefits. Table 1 identifies the passing

siding locations that would be required for each of the three yard zones.

Table 1: Passing Siding Locations for Each of the Three Yard Zones

In all cases the passing sidings would be located along the same alignment as the former Track 1. Although

some infrastructure work would be required to accommodate the passing sidings, it is assumed that most,

if not all of the work would occur within the existing right-of-way (ROW). A map of proposed locations of the

new passing sidings and the three MPY zones is presented in Figure 1.

1 The Mid-Point Yard sites that advanced to Step 2 Screening were organized into three geographical zones: the Harriman Zone,

the Salisbury Mills Zone and the Campbell Hall Zone. The basis for each zone cluster was the nearby station from which an “inner zone” revenue service could be operated. For more detailed information on the MPY locations and zones see Appendix B: Mid-Point Yard Analysis.

Location of Yard Locations and Limits of Passing Sidings

Harriman Zone or Salisbury Mills Zone 2 Locations: - “Tuxedo” and “Middletown”

Campbell Hall Zone 3 Locations: - “Tuxedo”, “East of Moodna” Viaduct, and “Middletown”


Figure 1: Port Jervis Line with Proposed Passing Siding and MPY Locations

Study Approach

The PJL Capacity Improvements Study consisted of four key steps, each of which is discussed further in

subsequent sections:

Data Collection – identify existing conditions and develop base mapping

Project Work Components – identify and quantify infrastructure improvements required to

construct the passing sidings

Impact Assessments – identify possible impacts to environmental resources and property

Cost Estimate – develop order-of-magnitude construction costs based on the estimated quantities

and unit costs of the project work components

Data Collection

Data was collected in order to:

Create base mapping and identify the location and elevation of the existing PJL track.

Identify and locate the existing overhead and undergrade bridges, culverts, and viaduct structures.

Identify and locate the major environmental resources (wetlands, bodies of water, large habitats,

and threatened and endangered species).


4.1 Base Mapping

Base mapping was developed to determine the existing track alignment and to create plan and profile

drawings. Data for the base mapping was compiled from the following three sources:

PJL Restoration Work Survey (Sloatsburg to Harriman): Information was obtained from the field

survey conducted for the PJL Restoration Work2 efforts from south of Sloatsburg Station to north

of Harriman Station (approximately MP 34.4 to MP 44.8). The survey information included locations

and elevations of the main features along the PJL and the location and elevation of the existing

track.

Metro-North PJL Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) Survey: LIDAR technology was used in

Metro-North’s Positive Train Control (PTC) project to provide the location and elevation of the

existing PJL track as well as the existing features (including existing ground elevations, tree lines,

major bodies of water, roads, buildings, and bridge structures). This information was utilized to

create base mapping that would cover the proposed locations of the passing sidings.

Right-Of-Way Valuation Maps: ROW data was added to the mapping to define the approximate

parcel property limits of the PJL. This information was based on the most recent available ROW

Valuation Maps3 provided by Metro-North Railroad.

4.2 Structure Inventory

The Structure Inventory was compiled using aerial photographs and Metro-North’s track charts. The

inventory included only the undergrade bridge and culvert structures that exist within the affected limits of

each passing siding. The overhead bridges within these limits were identified but not included in the

inventory as these bridge structures already span over the entire trackbed width which includes the former

Track 1. It was therefore assumed that these bridges met the required horizontal and vertical clearances to

accommodate restoration of Track 1, and their structural integrity is maintained by others.

A total of eight structures were identified, including:

Three Deck Girder – (Open Deck bridge)

One Concrete Double Arch bridge

One Concrete Deck bridge

Three Concrete Culverts

The undergrade bridge structures varied in their type and configuration. Some are single contiguous bridge

structures carrying both tracks, while others are comprised of independent structures with one track on

each bridge.

The culverts identified within the limits of the passing siding locations were concrete arch with various

lengths. However, all culverts were found to be as long as originally constructed to support a two-track

railroad. This data was compiled from Metro-North’s bridge inspection reports and is also summarized

in and Table 3 in Section 5.3.

2 The PJL Restoration Work refers to the restoration efforts completed in November 2011 after the PJL sustained severe damage to

14 miles of track after Hurricane Irene in August 2011. Restorations included restored track with new ballast, debris removal, new culverts, scour repairs, riprap replacement, embankment repairs, and slope protection. 3 ROW and Track Map, Erie Railroad Company, 1960.


4.3 Environmental Resources

Major ecological resources (e.g., wetlands, bodies of water, streams, etc.) that exist adjacent to the PJL

ROW within the limits of each passing siding were identified and made part of the data inventory. The

following describes the type and source of information collected. For this study, the environmental

resources data collection and analysis focused only on the north (east) side of the PJL – where most of the

impacts are expected.

Bodies of Water and Wetlands: Mapping and classifications (Class I-IV) were obtained from the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). In addition, mapping of

all federal wetlands (identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) was also obtained

using the National Wetlands Inventory mapping program.

Large Habitats: Information on natural large habitats utilized by a variety of fauna and flora was

obtained from the NYSDEC EnviroMapper4.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Information on threatened and endangered species was

obtained from the NYSDEC EnviroMapper. However, since the NYSDEC EnviroMapper only

identified the general locations of the rare plants and species, the New York State Natural Heritage

Program would need to be contacted for more accurate data in future design phases.

Historic Resources (Section 106): Data from the National Register of Historic Places (National

Register) was obtained to determine if the construction of the passing sidings would have a direct

or indirect effect on any cultural resources listed in, or eligible for, listing in the National Register in

accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Project Work Components

The identified and quantified infrastructure improvements required to construct the passing sidings would

include:

Restoring a minimum of one mile of the second track (Track 1) along with embankment

improvements and turnouts

Upgrading the undergrade bridges and culverts

Expanding the train control signaling system

5.1 Passing Siding Track Alignment Guidelines

The following guidelines were used to locate the proposed passing siding track alignment, based on both

industry and Metro-North Standards:5

The alignment of the passing track would be parallel to the alignment of existing Track 2

The center of the passing track would be located 14-6” feet from the center of existing Track 2

The minimum length for the passing siding track would be one mile

No. 20 Turnouts would be used which can handle speeds of up to 45 MPH

The siding connection to the mainline would be at a tangent point

4 EnviroMapper is a Web-based interactive mapping tool for viewing and querying environmental information. 5 The design criteria is based upon Metro-North’s MW4 Part III Standards, Metro-North Station Standards, and the American

Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering.


Additional design criteria used for conceptual design of the PJL Capacity Improvements can be found in

the Commuter Rail Design Criteria Memo, dated May 23, 2012.

5.1.1 Proposed Alignment of the Passing Siding Track

To define the alignment of the proposed passing siding track (Track 1), it was essential to establish the

alignment of the existing Track 2. The Track 2 alignment was based on data obtained from the LIDAR

survey performed in 2010 and Metro-North Track Charts (2012). These sources were used to define the

existing track in the base map by location points along the track curvature and to create a “best fit” alignment

using computer design and analysis software. While Metro-North track charts provide the degree of

curvature for all tracks based on historic data, it is often the case that the curvature determined by the “best-

fit” method may differ slightly from the track charts due to shifts in lining caused by the heavy equipment

operating on the tracks over the period since publication of the track charts. The base mapping also

included the existing elevation contours and corridor features (such as tree line, bridge structures, water

bodies, roads, buildings, and fences).

In accordance with the established track design criteria, the new proposed Track 1 alignment was

positioned with an offset of 14’-6” from the established existing best-fit track alignment. The vertical profile

for the passing siding track was created by matching the elevations from the existing mainline track. The

vertical profile was then used to calculate a cut depth and fill height based on typical sections.

The passing siding track work would involve construction of new ballasted track at the following locations:

“Tuxedo” siding

“East of Moodna” siding

“Middletown” siding

These locations would allow the turnouts to connect at tangent sections of the PJL mainline track. For plan,

profile and track alignment details of the three siding locations, see the Passing Sidings Preliminary Design,

dated September 2014 drawings set.

5.1.2 Embankment - Typical Sections

The embankment and track bed which formally supported Track 1 would need to be restored to support

restoration of sections of that track. Standard typical sections were developed using Metro-North Track

Design Criteria for the proposed siding tracks (Track 1) with the following key assumptions:

Use a 2:1 (2 Horizontal: 1 Vertical) side slope as the preferred typical section

Remove four inches of existing embankment (fouled material)

Provide minimum ballast depth below tie of 12 inches and minimum sub-ballast depth of eight

inches

Provide a three foot wide shoulder for MOW access

Based on discussions with Metro-North, a prime consideration was to minimize impacts on environmental

resources and encroachment outside the ROW. Five typical sections most likely to meet existing terrain

conditions at all of the passing siding locations were developed. They were selected to address the varying

terrain conditions of both the existing and proposed siding track and were used to evaluate earthwork and

infrastructure requirements and potential ROW and environmental impacts, and to support development of

a conceptual cost estimate. These five typical sections were as follow:

1. Meet existing terrain (No cut or fill)

2. 2:1 slope in fill

3. 2:1 slope in cut


4. 1.5:1 slope in fill

5. 1.5:1 slope in cut

Details of these typical sections are included in drawings TS 001 through TS 004 in the complete design

drawing set titled West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study – Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements

– Double Track MP 34.5 to 54.7 dated February 27, 2013.

5.1.3 Methodology for determining appropriate Typical Section

The selection of a typical section type for a given segment of siding track was based on the segment’s

terrain and the required earthwork to minimize environmental impacts or encroachment outside the ROW.

The approach to determine the appropriate typical section to be used is illustrated in Figure 2 and as follows:

Figure 2: Methodology for Determining the Appropriate Typical Section

A 2:1 slope was preferred and considered first. If the application of the 2:1 slope would result in either

potential impacts to a significant environmental resource or an encroachment beyond the ROW limits, a

steeper 1.5:1 stabilized slope was considered. If using the steeper 1.5:1 stabilized slope still resulted in

similar impacts, then a retaining wall would be applied. However, no retaining walls were considered in any

of the passing siding locations, since the use of the steeper 1.5:1 stabilized slope would bring all

construction work within the ROW with no projected impacts to significant environmental resources.

5.2 Undergrade Bridges

A key element in the assesment process is to determine the required structural bridge improvements was

the understanding of the current condition of each structure and its ability to carry the additional track load.

The exisitng bridge conditions were compiled from bridge inspection reports provided by Metro-North. Most

of the inspection reports focused on the portion of the structure that supports the current active Track 2.

The condition of the structure or portion thereof that previously carried Track 1 was not fully documented in

the inspection reports.

5.2.1 Bridge Assessment Methodology – Rehabilitation vs. Replacement

The approach to bridge improvement included the development of a methodology to assess the condition

of each structure and determine if rehabilitation, upgrade, or replacement would be required to

accommodate the proposed passing siding. This approach was based on the guidelines that were

developed to make well informed decisions regarding required structural upgrades and to provide the

technical assessment needed to support a conceptual cost estimate.

The following steps were used to assess the suitability of existing structures to accommodate future double

tracking and to determine the order-of-magnitude work required to bring the structures up to a state of good

repair:

1. Review bridge inspection reports

2. Review load ratings and fatigue analysis (where available)

2:1 Side SlopeUse 1.5:1

Stabilized Side Slope

UseRetaining Wall

If Slope Extends outside of ROW

If Slope Extends outside of ROW


3. Determine the level of repair and upgrade required to bring the typical bridge into conformance with

the established capacity and fatigue criteria

4. If the rehabilitation cost would be greater than 80% of the total replacement cost for a given bridge,

total replacement would be recommended

5.2.1.1 Capacity and Fatigue Criteria

The following capacity and fatigue criteria were provided by Metro-North:

The acceptable condition rating criteria is “5” or higher (maintenance required but functioning as

designed). Bridges with condition rating of “4” or less require significant component repair or full

superstructure replacement.

The desired bridge capacity must meet the Cooper E806 load rating. Any bridges currently not

meeting the Cooper E80 rating are assumed to require significant component strengthening or full

superstructure replacement.

The standard remaining fatigue life will be 20 years. Any bridges currently not meeting 20-year

fatigue life are assumed to require either significant repair/strengthening or full superstructure

replacement.

5.2.1.2 Key Assumptions

In addition to the established criteria, the following assumptions were considered in the bridge assessment

process:

As the condition of the structure or portion thereof used to carry Track 1 was not fully documented

in the inspection reports, the condition of the structure that would accommodate the second track

(Track 1) was assumed to be similar to the reported portion that supports the current active track

(Track 2) and no site-specific bridge analysis was performed as part of this analysis.

The vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed second track will parallel the existing track.

For locations which require major upgrade or complete bridge replacement, all new bridge

superstructures will be closed-deck, pre-stressed concrete girder bridges with ballast.

No site-specific designs for repairs or new structures to be developed. Cost configuration would

be based on prototypical bridge configurations and details.

All new or rehabilitated structures to satisfy Cooper E80 load rating and 286 kips wheel loads.

5.2.2 Assessment Process

As indicated by the inspection reports, the bridge structures consisted of different bridge configurations. In

some cases, the bridges consisted of a single superstructure while in other cases the bridges consisted of

two separate superstructures with room for one track on each structure. In each case, a consideration was

given to the geometric features of both the superstructure and the supporting substructure of the bridge.

A two-part assessment process was developed to evaluate the bridge structures:

6 Cooper E80 is the current train load rating standard established by the American Railway Engineering Association for rail bridges. It

defines the design level for bridges to safely withstand 80,000 lbs/per driving axle loads exerted by a train on a bridge.


Part 1- Structural Configuration Assessment, considered if a new superstructure or sub-structure

is required based on the geometric configuration of a particular bridge.

Part 2 - Structural Capacity Assessment process, determined whether repair, upgrading, or

replacement of the superstructure and substructure is required.

5.2.2.1 Part 1 - Structural Configuration Assessment process

The Structural Configuration Assessment process as illustrated in Figure 3 was used to determine whether

an existing structure is geometrically configured to accommodate the proposed second track (i.e. the

existing bridge superstructure is wide enough to support two tracks or if the bridge consists of two

superstructures – one for each track). If it is configured to accommodate the proposed track, then both the

existing superstructure and the substructure were considered for capacity assessment in Part 2.

If the existing bridge had a superstructure not wide enough to support a second track but included a

substructure that is wide enough for both tracks, a new superstructure would need to be constructed to

support the proposed Track 1. In such case, the substructure would enter into the Structural Capacity

Assessment process in Part 2.

If the existing substructure is not wide enough for a second track, then both new superstructure and

substructure would be constructed to support the proposed second track.

5.2.2.2 Part 2 - Structural Capacity Assessment process

The structural capacity assessment process, as illustrated in Figure 4, was used to evaluate the structural

state of the bridges, determine their capacity and fatigue condition (in accordance with established criteria

described in section 5.2.1.1), and to recommend an action. In this process, if the superstructure did not

meet the capacity and fatigue criteria, then based on cost considerations the superstructure would be

recommended for rehabiliation or replacement. If the superstructure meets the capacity and fatigue criteria,

then the substructure’s condition would be reviewed to determine if repairs or replacement7 are required

for the substructure.

7 The inspection reports did not include sufficient data to determine if the existing substructure meets the established capacity and

fatigue criteria. Therefore it was agreed that, for the purpose of cost estimating the substructure would be considered for rehabilitation

only (no replacement) and address only the visible defects reported in the inspection reports such as cracks and spalls. Additional in-

depth analysis would need to be performed to determine the substructure’s condition. At this conceptual planning level, such analysis

was not considered.


Figure 4: Part 1 - Structural Configuration Assessment Process

Figure 3: Part 2 – Structural Capacity Assessment Process


5.3 Assessment and Findings

The structural assessment process and the rating values included in the inspection reports were used to

determine whether a rehabilitation or replacement of the structure would be recommended. These ratings

were compiled based on the defects indicated in the bridge inspection reports. Cooper load rating values

were provided for only three bridges and no fatigue life cycle ratings were available for the bridge structures

within the passing siding locations. Therefore, it was assumed that these structures do not meet the fatigue

life cycle criteria.

Although no Cooper load rating was documented in the bridge inspection reports for the two structures that

would support the “Middletown” Passing Siding track, it was assumed that these structures meet the E80

loading criteria, based on discussions with Metro-North. The recommendation to replace rather than

rehabilitate a bridge superstructure was done in accordance with the stated criteria, and based on the

comparative costs for a new superstructure.

Bridge Structures

Table 2 summarizes the inventory of the bridge structures, including the characteristics of the structures,

the current condition ratings and the inspected versus as-built Cooper rating. The table also includes a

recommended course of action to bring the structure to a state of good repair and upgraded to Cooper E80

capacity. Based upon the assessment process and the established criteria, two bridge structures are

recommended to be rehabilitated, two are recommended to be replaced, and one requires maintenance

rehabilitation as needed.

All of the culvert structures appear to be in acceptable condition, but require rehabilitation of those elements

rated less than five (<5).


Culvert Structures

Table 3 summarizes the characteristics and condition ratings for the culvert structures. All of the culvert

structures appear to be in acceptable condition but require rehabilitation of elements that are rated less

than five (<5).

Table 2: Condition Summary Ratings of Bridge Girder Structures and Recommendations

Note: The general rating criteria is a standard used to represent the general condition of the structure relative to its as-built condition. Metro-North

Railroad uses the New York State Department of Transportation bridge inspection rating standards.

Table 3: Condition Summary Ratings of Culvert Structures and Recommendations

Note:

Culverts lengths were compiled from Metro-North’s bridge inspection reports. These reports presented culvert lengths from two different orientations.

Therefore, it was assumed that lengths of less than 30 feet reflect the “width” of the culvert (a measure taken parallel to the track) and lengths greater

than 30 feet reflect the length of the barrel (a measure taken perpendicular to the tracks.) All culverts were of sufficient barrel length to support two tracks.

Train Control System

To accommodate the increased bi-directional movement of trains along the PJL, a train control and

associated signaling system would be needed to control train movements in and out of the sidings and

allow trains operating in either direction on the mainline (Track 2) to pass the sidings. These signal systems

would be an extension of the existing signal system and installed at the appropriate locations to

accommodate these new train movements.

No analysis or evaluation was done to develop the signaling system required for the passing sidings. The

cost estimate assumed for the passing siding signaling system was a broad initial estimate based on costs

developed for other similar signal systems.


Impact Assessment

7.1 Environmental Impacts

Impacts to environmental resources would be minimal as all three passing sidings would be constructed

within the railroad’s existing ROW in areas that formerly accommodated Track 1.

However, as discussed in Section 5, the bridges that cross the PJL within the limits of each of the passing

siding locations may need to be widened to accommodate the proposed siding track and provide MOW

access. This widening of bridges and the related construction activities could impact the waters and

adjacent wetlands near the crossings. Though culverts are assumed to be sufficiently wide to accommodate

the passing siding track, it is also assumed that work near and around culverts may have an impact on

water resources. While wetland delineation has not been conducted in this phase of study, based on

collected data and mapping it is estimated that a combined total of approximately 15,000 square feet (0.35

acres) of waters and wetlands may be impacted by construction work at the three passing siding locations.


Table 4 provides a listing of estimated wetland impacts that may be triggered by structure widening. Based

on a required mitigation ratio of 1:3 (impacted acreage to mitigated acreage), it is assumed that

approximately one acre of mitigation could be required. The construction of passing sidings at the three

proposed locations are not expected to result in impacts to other environmental resources.

Milepost (JS)

Feature Crossed Location (NY) Bridge Type

Area of Wetland

Impacts (SF)

“Tuxedo” Passing Siding

38.98 Cattle Pass Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500

39.16 Wildcat Run Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500

39.55 Stream Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500

“East of Moodna” Passing Siding

52.89 Stream Cornwall Arch Culvert 2,500

53.91 Stream Cornwall Culvert 2,500

“Middletown” Passing Siding

72.5 Stream Middletown Culvert 2,500

TOTAL 15,000 SF

Table 4: Estimated Wetland Impacts

7.2 Right-of-Way

Based on the current available ROW maps, the construction of the proposed passing sidings is not

expected to encroach on property beyond the ROW.

7.3 Permit Requirements

Given the nominal projected impacts of construction of the passing sidings, a moderate level of permit and

approval process activities would likely be required. Approvals may be required at the federal, New York

State, Orange County, or local municipality level. Potentially required approvals would relate to regulations

associated with impacts to environmental resources. The following is a list of potential approvals by various

agencies that may be required during the construction of the passing sidings:

Federal Approvals: US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the placement of fill

material in waters of the US pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All passing siding

areas may have wetlands. In-field wetland delineation of waters and wetlands in these areas will

be required followed by confirmation by USACE staff. Impacts to regulated waters/wetlands

would likely require the submission of an application for a Section 404 permit.

State Approvals: New York State Department of Environmental Conversation (NYSDEC)

regulates impacts to regulated freshwater wetlands pursuant to the State’s Freshwater Wetlands

Program (Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law [ECL]). The proposed work in these

areas is unlikely to be covered under a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)


General Permit, and will require an Individual Permit for stormwater discharges from construction

activity.

Orange County Approvals: Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District requires a

Sediment and Soil Erosion Control Permit when clearing and grading is exceeded by 20,000

square feet (roughly 1/2 acre). An Erosion Control Plan must be submitted for approval and a

land disturbance permit obtained before any land disturbing activity begins (including timbering,

demolition, clearing, or grading, etc.).

Cost

8.1 Cost Methodology

An order-of-magnitude cost estimate for the Passing Sidings was prepared. The estimate addressed the

major elements required to construct each of the three passing sidings. This includes the ballasted tracks,

earthwork, bridges and culverts, and train control/signal systems work. The following should be noted:

These preliminary project planning level cost estimates were based on the development of typical

concept-level elements with no site-specific designs. Cost estimates for site work were based on

typical embankment cross-sections that are projected to be required for the reconstruction of the

siding track (Track 1).

Cost estimates for the replacement or rehabilitation of structures were based on conceptual designs

and unit costs of typical bridge structures. These estimates considered only the portion of the bridge

that would actively support Track 1 (i.e., if a bridge consists of two superstructures, each carrying

one track, the replacement cost would only reflect the cost of the superstructure that would carry

the reconstructed track).

The complete methodology, including key assumptions and other factors considered in developing capital

cost estimates for passing sidings and other second-track elements, is presented in Capital Cost Estimation

Methodology Report Phase II – Update report dated September 2012.

8.2 Cost Estimates of Proposed Sidings

All costs presented below are in 2012 dollars and are not escalated to a future mid-point of construction.

As indicated, the number of required passing siding locations will be determined by the final location of the

MPY. Therefore:

If the MPY is constructed in either the Harriman or Salisbury Mills zones, the total estimated cost

to construct passing sidings at the required two locations would be approximately $36 Million

Dollars.

If the MPY is constructed in the Campbell Hall Zone, the total estimated cost to construct passing

sidings at the required three locations would be approximately $55 Million Dollars.

technical memorandum 2: passing siding alternativeweb.mta.info/mta/planning/pjlstudy/pdf/appendix...

Documents