Specifications for the National Tunnel Inventory (SNTI)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The New Hampshire High Tunnel Story
The New Hampshire High Tunnel Story NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE New Hampshire January 2011 BACKGROUND National High Tunnel Conservation Benefits Local Foods Initiatives 3-Year Pilot Program High tunnels can provide a number of Growing food locally, especially before significant conservation benefits such as and after the traditional growing season, NRCS offered seasonal high tunnels an increase in plant and soil quality, a helps strengthen the local economy and (officially called “seasonal high tunnel decrease in pesticide use and foliar (leaf) helps ensure the viability and profitability system for crops”) as a conservation disease, and improved energy savings. of small farms. When NH farms succeed, practice for the first time in fiscal year Many farmers who want to grow toma- valuable farmland and cultural heritage are (FY) 2010 as part of a three-year trial to toes without using pesticides often find protected. High tunnels are important tools determine their effectiveness in con- they can only do so successfully if they for enhancing the availability of local food serving water, improving soil health, are grown in a tunnel. Without rainfall, year-round. foliar disease is often reduced because the leaves stay dry. Insects that are com- “As expected, the seasonal high monly a problem in the field may not be “It is phenomenal that winter tunnel pilot has been popular in so in the tunnel because the tunnel tends farmer’s markets in NH have grown New Hampshire. In just one to disrupt their feeding patterns. Other from none four years ago to twenty year, the NRCS-NH helped fund insects that occur in a high tunnel are today. -
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008 with Comparisons to Prior Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2006
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board San Carlos, California A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement among: City and County of San Francisco San Mateo County Transit District Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD San Carlos, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008 Prepared by the Finance Division This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal.....................................................................................................................i Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement......................xi Board of Directors .................................................................................................................... xii Executive Management ........................................................................................................... xiii Organization Chart...................................................................................................................xiv Map............................................................................................................................................xv Table of Credits ........................................................................................................................xvi II. FINANCIAL SECTION INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ...............................................................................1 -
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 with Comparisons to Prior Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2015 and June 30, 2016
This Page Left Intentionally Blank PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD San Carlos, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 Prepared by the Finance Division This Page Left Intentionally Blank Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................................................................................ i Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement ............................................. ix Board of Directors ............................................................................................................................................... x Executive Management ...................................................................................................................................... xi Organization Chart ........................................................................................................................................... xii Map ................................................................................................................................................................. xiii Table of Credits ................................................................................................................................................ xiv II. FINANCIAL SECTION INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ...................................................................................................... 1 MANAGEMENT'S -
A Guide to the MTBTA Verrazano-Narrows Bridge Construction Photograph Collection
A Guide to the MTBTA Verrazano-Narrows Bridge Construction Photograph Collection TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview of the Collection Administrative Information Restrictions Administrative History Scope & Content Note Index Terms Series Description & Container Listing Archives & Special Collections College of Staten Island Library, CUNY 2800 Victory Blvd., 1L-216 Staten Island, NY 10314 © 2005 The College of Staten Island, CUNY Overview of the Collection Collection #: IC 1 Title: MTBTA Verrazano-Narrows Bridge Construction Photograph Collection Creator: Metropolitan Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Association Dates: 1960-1964 Extent: Abstract: This collection contains eleven photographs of the construction of the Verrazano- Narrows bridge. Administrative Information Preferred Citation MTBTA Verrazano-Narrows Bridge Construction Photograph Collection, Archives & Special Collections, Department of the Library, College of Staten Island, CUNY, Staten Island, New York. Acquisition These photographs were donated to the CSI Archives & Special Collections on October 26th, 2004 following their use in an exhibition at the college. Processing Information Restrictions Access Access to this record group is unrestricted. Copyright Notice The researcher assumes full responsibility for compliance with laws of copyright. The images are still the property of their creators, and requests for or use in publications should be directed to the Administrator of the MTA Special Archive, Laura Rosen. Laura Rosen Administrator, Special Archive MTBTA 2 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 646-252-7418 Administrative History The Verrazano-Narrows bridge was constructed in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and was completed in November of 1964. It was built to permit the movement of vehicular traffic between Staten Island and Brooklyn and link parts of the Interstate Highway System. -
FACT SHEET: BART Silicon Valley
Twin-Bore Single-Bore Running Tunnel Running Tunnel Utilities Utilities Up to ~60' FACT SHEET: VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project FACTTunneling MethodologySHEET: BART Silicon Valley VTA’sVTA’s BART BART Silicon Silicon Valley Phase Valley II Project Phase is a six-mile, ll Extension four-stationUp extensionProject to ~75' that will bring BART train service from Berryessa/North San José through downtown San José to the City of Santa Clara. The Phase II Project will include an approximately five-mile tunnel, two mid-tunnel ventilation facilities, a maintenance facility and storage yard, three VTA’sunderground BART Siliconstations (AlumValley Rock/28th Program Street, Overview Downtown San José, Diridon), and one ground-level station (Santa VTAClara). is extending The subway the tunnelBART regionalwill be in heavy one large rail system diameter to Milpitas,tunnel. San Jose, and Santa Clara. The 16-mile extension, called the BART Silicon Valley Program, will extend the BART system south of BART’s future Warm Springs/SouthSingle-Bore Fremont Tunnel Station in Fremont to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara. When completed, this fully grade-separatedThe tunnel will be project constructed is planned as a tosingle, include large six diameter stations andtunnel. a new The maintenance and storage facility in Santa Clara.approximately VTA’s BART 45 footSilicon tunnel Valley will Program contain istwo being independent delivered trackways,in two phases. one Thefor Berryessa Extension Project (Phaseeach direction I) is under of constructiontravel. Passenger and scheduled platforms willto open be located in 2018, within with thestations tunnel, in Milpitas and the Berryessa areaconnected of San toJose. -
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Project: Peer Review
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration SAN FRANCISCO–OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE PROJECT PEER REVIEW DECEMBER 2004 PEER REVIEW TEAM San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge Project: Peer Review DECEMBER 2004 Executive Summary After the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes, the State of Cali- fornia enacted the State Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program in 1997 to improve the safety and reliability of critical transportation infrastructure assets in Califor- nia. One of the critical elements to successfully finishing the program is comple- tion of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) project. This project consists of 16 separate contracts, including the proposed self-anchored suspension (SAS) bridge contract. Caltrans advertised the SAS contract in February 2003 and opened bids in May 2004. The single bid received (in the amount of $1.4 billion using foreign steel) exceeded the $740 million of funding available for the SAS portion of the SFOBB. The California Legislature was unable to develop a funding package to address the additional cost and the contractor’s bid was allowed to expire. In September 2004, the California Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for assistance in moving the SFOBB project forward. FHWA assembled the Peer Review Team (PRT), which convened November 1–5, 2004. The team examined project alterna- tives identified by Caltrans and assessed the risk that each might not achieve its key objectives. It is important to note that the PRT did not perform any independ- ent analysis of technical issues (seismic performance), environmental documenta- tion, cost estimation, or constructability, but relied exclusively on data presented by Caltrans, the Independent Review Team (IRT), the project design team (T.Y. -
Geotechnical Performance of a Tunnel in Soft Ground
Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine International Conference on Case Histories in (1993) - Third International Conference on Case Geotechnical Engineering Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 03 Jun 1993, 10:30 am - 12:30 pm Geotechnical Performance of a Tunnel in Soft Ground A. B. Parreira Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil R. F. Azevedo Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Parreira, A. B. and Azevedo, R. F., "Geotechnical Performance of a Tunnel in Soft Ground" (1993). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 17. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/3icchge/3icchge-session05/17 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. !111!!111 Proceedings: Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, ~ June 1-4, 1993, Paper No. 5.55 Geotechnical Performance of a Tunnel in Soft Ground A. B. Parreira R.F.Azevedo Assistant Professor, Universidade de Sio Paulo, Brazil Associate Professor, Pontificia Universidade Cat61ica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil SYNOPSIS The analysis of a tunnel section excavated through soft ground is presented. -
Wet Well Wonder in a Deep Sewer Tunnel
Columbus, OH Case Story Wet Well Wonder in a Deep Sewer Tunnel This wet well is a critical piece of a system designed to intercept wet weather overflows, and it demands powerful, high-quality pumps to handle the load. Designed to reduce environmental impacts resulting from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) in Columbus, Ohio, the Olentangy-Scioto- Interceptor-Sewer Augmentation Relief Sewer (OARS) is the key component in meeting this goal. This sewer tunnel will intercept wet weather overflows that currently empty into the Scioto River and instead carry the flows to the city’s Jackson Pike and Southerly wastewater treatment plants. The overall length of the OARS tunnel is just less than four and a half miles, and it includes three relief structures that divert wet weather combined sewer flow to the OARS tunnel. The OARS tunnel is sized to provide adequate conveyance capacity through 2047 for all storms contained within the typical year as defined by the city. The OARS tunnel ends at the OARS Diversion Structure just north of the Jackson Pike wastewater treatment plant, which serves as the pump station wet well. Scope Among the most interesting components of the OARS project is a 215-foot Flygt model CP3351/995 FM 800 HP 4160V, 10417 gpm deep, 60-mgd capacity pumping system and a 185-foot deep screening at192’ tdh system. The OARS pumping system consists of multiple pumps that can handle enough flow to dewater the tunnel within two days of a large flow event. The difficulty with the deep pumping system on this project is that the static head condition varies from as much as 210 feet when the tunnel is empty to as little as 15 feet when the tunnel and shafts are full. -
Bridges and Tunnels Committee Meeting
Bridges and Tunnels Committee Meeting May 2020 Committee Members L. Lacewell, Chair D. Mack, Vice Chair N. Brown R. Glucksman K. Law J. Samuelsen L. Schwartz V. Tessitore N. Zuckerman Bridges & Tunnels Committee Meeting 2 Broadway 20th Floor Board Room New York, NY 10004 Wednesday, 5/20/2020 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET 1. Summary of Actions - None 2. Public Comments 3. B&T Minutes of Committee Meetings and Board Meeting - April 2020 B&T Minutes of Committees and Board Meeting - April 2020 - Page 3 4. Committee Work Plan B&T Committee Work Plan - Page 23 5. Report on Operations - March 2020 B&T Report on Operations - March 2020 - Page 30 6. Safety Report - March 2020 B&T Safety Report - March 2020 - Page 45 7. Final Review of 2019 Year-End Operating Results B&T Final Review of 2019 Year-End Operating Results - Page 50 8. Capital Program Project Status Report - April 2020 B&T Capital Program Project Status Report - April 2020 - Page 74 9. Procurements - None 10. Diversity Report - First Quarter 2020 B&T Diversity Report - First Quarter 2020 - Page 80 Minutes of Committees and Board Meeting – April 2020 ________________________________________________________________________________ Master Page # 3 of 95 - Bridges & Tunnels Committee Meeting 5/20/2020 Joint Committee and Board Meeting of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the New York City Transit Authority, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, the Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, the Long Island Rail Road Company, the Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, MTA Construction & Development, the MTA Bus Company and the First Mutual Transportation Assurance Company Minutes 2 Broadway New York, NY 10004 Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:00 a.m. -
Manhattan River Crossings 2001
Manhattan River Crossings 2001 PT 2219913 and PT 2220914 Contract D00642 Task CDOT-02-01 and CDOT-02-02 The preparation of this report was financed in part with funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, under the Federal Highway Act of 1956, as amended, and the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. This document is disseminated by the New York City Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. It reflects the views of the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The report does not necessarily reflect any official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, or the State of New York. The report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. NYCDOT is grateful to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) for providing data used to develop this report. Following is the introduction and summary of the report. The complete report is available from the Division of Traffic Operations of the Department of Transportation. Prepared by: New York City Department of Transportation Iris Weinshall Commissioner Judy Bergtraum First Deputy Commissioner David Woloch Deputy Commissioner/Senior Policy Advisor Michael Primeggia Deputy Commissioner Ann Marie Sledge-Doherty Director, Research, Implementation, and Safety Richard P. Roan Research, Implementation, and Safety INTRODUCTION Since 1948, the City of New York has been monitoring traffic flow over the 20 bridges and tunnels serving Manhattan. The Manhattan River Crossings report, published annually by the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) since 1972, presents vehicular volumes, classification, and trends for all bridge and tunnel facilities serving Manhattan. -
Planting in a High Tunnel Department of Natural Resources Conservation Service Agriculture
United States Planting in a High Tunnel Department of Natural Resources Conservation Service Agriculture What is a Seasonal High Tunnel System? Alaska Crops A high tunnel (Seasonal Tunnel System for Crops) is a In Alaska four crops immediately come to mind as polyethylene (plastic) covered structure that allows benefitting from extended seasons, warmer growers to increase production of certain crops, grow temperatures and high market return. These are some crops that could not otherwise be grown in their tomatoes, cucumbers, corn, and peppers. They are area, and extend the length of time in the year (growing currently the most popular, as well as profitable, crops season) that the crops may be grown. for high tunnel production. Of course, this does not rule out other plants, nor does it rule out starting earlier in High tunnels often look similar to greenhouses, but are the season with cooler tolerant plants (i.e. quick maturing usually only single walled and are typically not baby greens), harvesting them and planting a second temperature controlled. The plastic covering traps crop that matures later in the season. High tunnel sunlight to raise temperatures inside the structure for the efficiency is increased by getting two or more crops a plants growing inside. The growing season can be growing season. This strategy also works if you have extended by up to four weeks by protecting crops from some plants that are incompatible because one plant potentially damaging weather conditions. Crops grown shades another. You can however, overcome shading by inside high tunnels tend to be of higher quality and spacing and/or by where you physically locate plants produce higher yields. -
Stability Charts for a Tall Tunnel in Undrained Clay
Int. J. of GEOMATE, April, 2016, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Sl. No. 20), pp. 1764-1769 Geotech., Const. Mat. and Env., ISSN: 2186-2982(P), 2186-2990(O), Japan STABILITY CHARTS FOR A TALL TUNNEL IN UNDRAINED CLAY Jim Shiau1, Mathew Sams1 and Jing Chen1 1School of Civil Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Australia ABSTRACT The stability of a plane strain tall rectangular tunnel in undrained clay is investigated in this paper using shear strength reduction technique. The finite difference program FLAC is used to determine the factor of safety for unsupported tall rectangular tunnels. Numerical results are compared with upper and lower bound limit solutions, and the comparison finds a very good agreement with solutions to be within 5% difference. Design charts for tall rectangular tunnels are then presented for a wide range of practical scenarios using dimensionless ratios ~ a similar approach to Taylor’s slope stability chart. A number of typical examples are presented to illustrate the potential usefulness for practicing engineers. Keywords: Stability Analysis, Tall Tunnel, Undrained Clay, Factor of Safety, FLAC, Strength Reduction Method INTRODUCTION C/D and the strength ratio Su/γD. This approach is very similar to the widely used Taylor’s design chart The critical geotechnical aspects for tunnel design for slope stability analysis (Taylor, 1937) [9]. discussed by Peck (1969) in [1] are: stability during construction, ground movements, and the determination of structural forces for the lining design. The focus of this paper is on the design consideration of tunnel stability that was expressed by a stability number initially defined by Broms and Bennermark (1967) [2] in equation 1: = (1) − + Fig.