London Avenue Canal Floodwalls and Levees General Design Memorandum
prepared for the
Board of Levee Commis~ioners of the Orleans Levee District Orleans Levee Board Contract No. 2049·0269
by
Burk & As~ocialcl>, !tH'. WIl'U1('('I'S' 1'1~"ncl'l' F.I1VlrnnIJl('f'lW S..... 'lIiMI.
April 1986 London Avenue Canal Floodwalls and Levees General Design Memorandum
LIST OF SECTIONS
Section I Introduction Section II Existing Conditions Section III Proposed Improvements SectionN Construction Priorities Section V Cost Estimates Appendix A Plan-Profile Plates AppendixB Hydraulic Study AppendixC Geotechnical Investigation (under separate cover)
\ '
• j
.) 1 ! 1 , I London Avenue Canal Floodwalls and Levees General Design Memorandum
INDEX TO SECTIONS
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
Paragraph Page • 1 Number Title Number i i GENERAL 1. Executive Summary 1-2 2. Alternative Plans 1-3 3. Costs 1-4
TABLES Table Page Number Title Number 1-1 Summary of Construction Costs Recommended Plan of Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase I 1-5 1-2 Summary of Construction Costs Recommended Plan of Interim Floodwalls - Phase II 1-7 1~3 Summary of Construction Costs
" - , j Recommended Plan for Future Pennanent Floodwa1ls and Levees - Phase III 1-8
11 · i INDEX TO SECTIONS (continued)
, i SECTION II - EXISTING CONDITIONS
Paragraph Page Number Title Number GENERAL 1. Scope 2-2 2. Existing Levees 2-2 3. Pumping Station No.3 2-3 4. Pumping Station No.4 2-3 '1 ., , 5. Bridges 2-3 t! 6. Real Estate 2-4 PLATES Plate Number Title 2-1 Existing Conditions
SECTION III - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Paragraph Page Number Title Number GENERAL 1. Scope 3-4 if 1 BRIDGES AND GATES Southern Railroad Bridge 3-5 If 1 2. 3. Benefit Street Bridge 3-6 4. Gentilly Boulevard Bridge 3-7 5. Mirabeau Avenue Bridge 3-8
;; i 6. Filmore Avenue Bridge 3-10 7. Robert E. Lee Boulevard Bridge 3-11 8. Leon C. Simon Boulevard Bridge 3-12 - . .' .I
111 , ,
· j
1 1 ! · I INDEX TO SECTIONS , J (continued) , i
, 1 ! · i LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS 9. Description 3-14 ~ 1 10. Alternate Study 3-14 " t t 1 11. Reach I 3-15 12. Reach II 3-15 '1 13. ReachID 3-16 i ~ 14. Reach IV 3-17 , 1 15. Reach V 3-18 16. Levee Construction 3-19 t i
, l DRAINAGE PUMPING STATIONS · i t t 17. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board Drainage Pumping Station No.3 1 ) (Station 0+00) 3-20 ~ 1 i 1 18. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board Drainage Pumping Station No.4 . l 1 (Station 101+00) 3-20 tj
« , RIGHT -OF -WAY CONSIDERATIONS AND
• i OTHER CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 19. Right-of-way Considerations 3-22 , 1 20. Utility Relocations 3-23 J TABLES "1 j Table Page • j Number Title Number
• ! 3-1 Recommendations - Reach I 3-25 ; 3-2 Recommendations - Reach III 3-26 ~ ) 3-3 Utility Relocation Schedule 3-27
~ r ~ 1 i ! PLATES Plate .! f ~ t Number Title it 3-1 Recommended Improvements Existing Bridges - Typical Sections " , 3-2
" . 3-3 Alternate 1 - Plan & Elevation .). 3-4 Gentilly Blvd. & Robert E. Lee Blvd. Alternate 1 -
1 ' Typical Sections ., , , IV · \ : I
• 1, 11 INDEX TO SECTIONS , , (continued) : t
! 1 , I PLA TES (continued) • i Plate Number Title :I 3-5 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 2 - Plan & Elevation • I 3-6 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate t1 Gate Monolith f i 3-7 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate Storage Monolith • f i 3-8 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate '{ i Gate Details t l 3-9 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate if 1 { I Gate Sections 3-10 Railroad Crossing - Swing Gate ! , -1 Gate Monolith .~ j 3-11 Railroad Crossing - Swing Gate Gate Details ~ \ 1 3-12 Railroad Crossing - Swing Gate tJ Railroad Falsework Details
· l 3-13 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - , i Typical Sections 3-14 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - • 1 Typical Sections J 3-15 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - Typical Sections t1 ' ~ 3-16 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - . i , Typical Sections 3-17 Concrete Floodwalls - Typical Sections • 1 3-18 Drainage Pumping Station No. 3 - Site Plan • 1 3-19 Drainage Pumping Station No.3 - Typical Sections i ' 3-20 Drainage Pumping Station No.4 - Site Plan i ~ 3-21 Drainage Pumping Station No.4 - Typical Sections
v • 1
; i 1,
• I INDEX TO SECTIONS f , J. ( continued) • f
~ , , i SECTION IV - CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES
, f Paragraph Page ~ f • i Number Title Number r-l GENERAL i i 1. Scope 4-2
T , f FIRST PRIORITY • i 2. Bridges 4-3 ., l , ( 3. Levees 4-3 l i 4. Remaining Flood Protection 4-3
~ ) ~1 SECOND PRIORITY J. 1 5. Levees 4-4
~ t 6. Pumping Stations 4-4 w~ 7. Conclusion 4-4 8. Construction Schedule 4-5 ~ , i , TABLES Table Page '!' 1 ".:: # Number Title Number ...._ i 4-1 Priority Schedule for Bridge Openings 4-6 4-2 Priority Schedule for Levees and Floodwalls 4-7 fl ' , 4-3 Construction Schedule 4-8 ! }
• 1 PLATES
Ii ~ Plate Number Title . ~ 4-1 Construction Priorities _ ,1 , J
! ! -t t SECTION V - COST ESTIMATES i j
.. ! Paragraph Page - - • > Number Title Number GENERAL 1. Scope 5-2
VI • r _ 1 INDEX TO SECTIONS (continued)
TABLES • j Table Page Number Title Number 5-1 Cost Estimate for Recommended Plan of Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase I 5-3 n 5-2 Cost Estimate for Recommended Plan I i 1 of Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase II 5-7 , 5-3 Cost Estimate for Alternate Floodwalls , and Levees 5-10 - r ; I 5-4 Cost Estimate for Alternate Bridge
, l Modifications 5-13 • f 5-5 Cost Estimate for Recommended Plan t i for Future Pennanent Floodwalls and Levees - Phase III 5-16 APPENDIX A - PLAN-PROFILE PLATES
LJ WESTSIDE Plates A-I throughA-7
EASTSIDE • 1 Plates A-8 through A-13 J
~1 APPENDIX B - HYDRAULIC STUDY .11 · r • j APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION (under seperate cover) , r
i i
'f 1
Vll SECTION I INTRODUCTION INDEX
Paragraph Page Number Title Number GENERAL 1. Executive Summary 1-2 2. Alternative Plans 1-3 3. Costs 1-4
TABLES Table Page Number Title Number 1-1 Summary of Construction Costs Recommended Plan of Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase I 1-5 Summary of Construction Costs - , 1-2 Recommended Plan of Interim i j Floodwalls - Phase IT 1-7 1-3 Summary of Construction Costs Recommended Plan for Future Permanent Floodwalls and Levees - Phase III 1-8
- f - t I • j
, j page 1-1
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
GENERAL
1. Executive Summary. In February of 1985, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officially decided to abandon the proposed Barrier Plan for hurricane . ; protection in favor of the High Level Plan for hurricane protection to Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity. This change in methods of protecting the City of New Orleans from hurricane driven stonn tides requires the Orleans Levee Board to improve the existing levee system adjacent to the London Avenue Outfall Canal.
To upgrade the present level of flood protection, the most cost effective method of construction is to construct earthenlevees where adequate right-of way is available. However, within the project limits of the London Avenue Canal most of the present levee and floodwall system is located immediately adjacent to developed residential property and no additional right-of-way is available for raising earthen levees. Therefore, most of the proposed flood , 1 , protection improvements within this project will consist of providing cantilever steel sheet pile I-wall floodwalls constructed in the existing earthen levees.
The recommended plan includes approximately 4,300 linear feet of levee - , t i improvements consisting of raising the existing earthen levee to the new flood protection elevation with no floodwall construction. These earthen levees are all located north of Robert E. Lee Boulevard between station 120+00 and 146+50 on the west levee and between station 127+20 and 144+50 on the east levee. Also included in the recommended plan is 380 linear feet of concrete inverted T n- I
.t • floodwall along tlle east levee between station 2+80 and 6+60, where stability criteria dictated that an I-wall floodwall would be unstable without creating displacements to adjacent residential property. In addition to raising earthen levees and constructing new floodwalls, there are seven bridge crossings through the present levee system which will have to be modified to maintain i continuity to the levee system. i I The sequencing of the flood protection improvements included in the recommended plan will be established on a priority basis. The first phase is to increase the level of flood protection offered at the seven bridge crossings as well as raising the levees and floodwalls north of Robert E. Lee Boulevard (Station 120+00) to Lake Pontchartrain (Station 160+00). Included in the first phase of this project are the following items: construction of floodgates at two
page 1-2 ~ !
I! . } bridge crossings, full reconstruction of one existing bridge to upgrade flood protection, partial reconstruction of four existing bridges to increase flood protection, construction of approximately 3,600 linear feet of new floodwalls along with raising the elevation of approximately 4,300 linear feet of earthen levees. Project cost for Phase I improvements is $5,589,331 and is summarized in Table 1-1.
11 The second phase is to construct new floodwalls south of Robert E. Lee , .i Boulevard (Station 120+00) to the southern limit of the London Avenue Outfall Canal at Station 0+00. This second phase interim flood protection consists of approximately 24,000 linear feet of new floodwalls. In addition to constructing new floodwalls, the flood protection system at two existing Sewerage and Water q Board Drainage Pumping Stations are required to be upgraded to confonn to 1 i' this new level of flood protection. Project cost for Phase II improvements is $21,901,300 and is summarized in Table 1-2. Upon completion of the second phase of construction, interim flood protection will be provided to the entire area adjacent to the London Avenue Outfall Canal for a stonn tide with a still water level of 11.5 Mean Sea Level (MSL) in Lake Pontchartrain.
H The third phase is to eventually construct concrete caps over the steel
,. l sheet pile I-walls to provide pennanent protection to the steel sheet piles. Project cost for Phase ill improvements is $8,813,000 and is summarized in Table 1-3. The third phase is not intended to be constructed until some future time when additional funds are available.
• 1 2. Alternative Plans. The Corps of Engineers is presently studying an alternative plan for hurricane flood protection which consists of constructing a floodgate closure structure across the London Avenue Outfall Canal in the ~ 1 vicinity of Lake Pontchartrain. This proposed structure would consist of a 11 series of vertically pinned steel floodgates designed to be self closing during hurricane tide conditions. Since London Avenue Canal is an outfall drainage i1 canal for two major storm drainage pumping stations operated by the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board, it is necessary to maintain an outfall channel for discharge from these pumping stations during hurricane conditions. i1 For this reason, the Corps proposes to use the self actuated floodgate closure. As the drainage pumping stations pump their discharge into the London Avenue Canal, it is likely that the water level on the protected side of the floodgate structure would exceed the still water level in Lake Pontchartrain. As this
! - occurs the floodgates are designed to automatically open and allow the excess 1 . water in the canal to discharge into Lake Pontchartrain. However, this entire concept does not relieve the Orleans Levee Board from having to upgrade the level of flood protection along the London Avenue Canal levees. The design still
page 1-3 ,. 1 ! water level in Lake Pontchartrain is elevation 11.5 MSL as established by the Corps of Engineers. This elevation is above most of the existing levee and ;I floodwall elevations at the present time and without increasing the height of the existing levees, the city would still be subjected to potential flooding when the fl discharge canal is pumped full of stonn drainage runoff from the two drainage ! .. ,. pumping stations. Therefore, it is obvious that additional improvements are necessary to the levee system adjacent to the London A venue Canal and the Orleans Levee Board intends to pursue interim improvements to provide the necessary flood protection.
The Orleans Levee Board has decided to base the design for these levee improvements on design criteria obtained from the Corps of Engineers. By using the same design criteria, the proposed levee and floodwall improvements can be compared to the proposed closure structure alternative on the lakefront presently being studied by the Corps of Engineers. , . • ! : I t } 3. Costs. Cost estimates provided within this study are presented in three increments. The Estimated Construction Cost (E.C.C.) includes the total estimated cost for construction of the proposed improvements with no . , contingencies or other added costs. The Construction Cost (C.C.) is defined as the estimated construction cost with contingencies and engineering design fees t i added to this cost. Contingencies used in this study are approximately 15% of - 1 the estimated construction cost and include costs for mobilization, bonds, insurance and other potential added construction costs which could develop when more specific design details are developed. The design fees are estimated at approximately 5.75% of the estimated construction cost including contingencies. The Project Cost (P.C.) is defmed as the total cost for construction, including the construction costs along with surveying, design memorandums, geotechnical investigations, testing laboratory and resident
inspection costs. I Resident inspection fees were estimated at approximately 1.4% of the estimated construction cost including contingencies.
The cost summaries for the three phases of improvements to the London Avenue Canal levee system are shown in Tables 1-1 through 1-3.
page 1-4 ! ~ 1 TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PHASE I
Description of Work Total Cost
Reach I - Station 0+00 to 21+00
Steel Swing Gates at Southern Railroad $216,000.00 . \ Steel Roller Gates at Benefit Street 75,000.00 i i Construction of new bridge with flood walls at Gentilly Boulevard Bridge 445,400.00 Subtotal Reach I $736,400.00
Reach III - Station 37+00 to 120+00
Floodproofing of Mirabeau Ave. Bridge $305,000.00 • 1 Floodproofing of Filmore Ave. Bridge 264,000.00 Subtotal Reach III $569,000.00
Reach IV - Station 120+00 to 127+00
Floodwalls and Levees $485,200.00 Floodproofing of Robert E. Lee Blvd. Bridge 335,900.00 Subtotal Reach IV $821,100.00
Reach V - Station 127+00 to 160+00
Floodwalls and Levees $1,939,400.00 ~ 1 Floodproofing of Leon C. Simon Blvd. Bridge 158,500.00 l i Subtotal Reach V $2,097,900.00
1 J r ' .
• j page 1-5 r , , t TABLE 1·1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM , f FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES
• j PHASE I
~ T ·, I • j Description of Work Total Cost
Estimated Construction Cost (E.C.C.) $4,224,400.00 Contingencies 15% + 633,600.00
1 r Design Fees 5.75% 279,300.00 I 1 } Construction Cost (C.C.) Phase I Interim Floodwalls $5,137,300.00 II and Levees Surveys $95,089.00 Design Memorandum 168,942.00 Geotechnical Investigation 95,000.00 Testing Laboratory 25,000.00 Resident Inspection 1.4% 68,000.00 Project Cost (P .C.) Phase I $5,589,331.00
:1
" f ! ~ j
I• 1f j i
t j
1 '
page 1-6 ~ i .1 TABLE 1-2 ;I SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM f 1 FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES I .. j PHASE II
Description of Work Total Cost
Reach I - Station 0+00 to 21 +00
, l Floodwalls and Levees $4,467,000.00 j; ~ 1 Floodwalls at Drainage Pump Station No.3 (Station 0+00) 96,500.00 Subtotal Reach I $4,563,500.00 u Reach IT - Station 21+00 to 37+00 11 Floodwalls and Levees $1,569,100.00 Subtotal Reach II $1,569,100.00
Reach III - Station 37+00 to 120+00
Floodwalls and Levees $11,505,400.00 Floodwalls at Drainage Pump Station No.4 (Station 101+00) 75,000.00 Subtotal Reach III $11,580,400.00 r ! 1 I ; i Estimated Construction Cost (E.C.C.) $17,713,000.00 t j Contingencies 15% + 2,657,000.00 Design Fees 5.75% 1,171,300.00 Construction Cost (C.C.) Phase II Interim Floodwalls and Levees $21,541,300.00
Testing Laboratory $75,000.00 Resident Inspection 1.4% 285,000.00 Project Cost (p.e.) Phase II $21,901,300.00
i ' page 1-7 ;I TABLE 1·3 11 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS RECOMMENDED PLAN FOR FUTURE fl t j PERMANENT FLOODW ALLS AND LEVEES PHASE III 11 d Description of Work Total Cost
Reach I - Concrete Cap Over I-wall $1,016,000.00 Reach II - Concrete Cap Over I-wall 836,000.00 Reach ill - Concrete Cap Over I-wall 4,569,000.00 Reach N - Concrete Cap Over I-wall 186,600.00 !I Reach V - Concrete Cap Over I-wall 483,600.00
Estimated Construction Costs (E.e.C.) $7,091,200.00 H Contingencies 15% + 1,063,800.00 Design Fees 5.75% 468,900.00 Construction Cost (C.C.) Phase III Future Permanent Floodwalls $8,623,900.00
Testing Laboratory $75,000.00 Resident Inspection 1.4% 114,100.00 Project Cost (P.C.) Phase III $8,813,000.00 !I :I T1 i i
, ' page 1-8 !
. , . !i l i SECTION II EXISTING CONDITIONS 11 INDEX
Paragraph 11 Page f .: t Number Title Number • I f r GENERAL d 1. Scope 2-2 , , 2. Existing Levees 2-2 i i 3. Pumping Station No.3 2-3 1j 4. Pumping Station No.4 2-3 5. Bridges 2-3 6. Real Estate 2-4
PLATES Plate Number Title 2-1 Existing Conditions
, r
1,. !
1 . page 2-1 , r l I SECTION II EXISTING CONDITIONS
GENERAL
1. Scope. This section describes the existing flood protection system in place along the London Avenue Outfall Canal. Present flood protection levees and floodwalls along this canal vary between elevation 9.0 msl and 12.5 msl. All of these levees are below the required flood protection height as established by 11 the design criteria being used for this study. A detailed account of the present flood protection system is presented in this section. If) t I 1 ; l j 2. Existing Levees. The existing levees along the London Avenue Outfall Canal consist mainly of earthen levees with steel sheet pile I waIls. Most of these sheet piles have concrete caps to increase the floodwall height and to protect the steel sheets. The following describes the existing conditions along the present levee system:
a. The area from Sewerage and Water Board Drainage Pumping Station No.3 (Station 0+00) to just north of Gentilly Boulevard (Station 21 +00) has PZ-27 steel sheet piles 20 feet long with a 7.5 foot exposed height above the .- 1 r . l earthen levee with a continuous concrete cap over the steel sheets. ~ j b. On the west side from north of Gentilly Boulevard (Station 21 +00) to Robert E. Lee Boulevard (Station 120+00) there exists a steel sheet pile wall, an M-115 section 20 feet long with a 4.5 foot exposed height above the earthen levee.
) c. On the east side of the canal from north of Gentilly Blvd. (Station 21+00) to Prentiss Avenue (Station 101+00) and from Robert E. Lee Boulevard (Station 120+00) to Leon C. Simon Boulevard (Station 127+00) the same M-115 steel sheet pile section is provided. The M-115 sheet pile is a narrow 1 r , I corrugation, low section modulus sheet pile. These sheets are also badly rusted il in many places. It would be unfeasible to increase the height of the existing levees using these steel sheet piles as they are neither long enough nor stiff enough to take the additional lateral load.
d. The area between Prentiss Avenue (Station 103+00) and Robert E. Lee
t i Boulevard (Station 120+00), on the east side of the canal, has uncapped PZ-27 steel sheet piles 32 feet long with an 8 foot exposed height above the earthen
i .1 page 2-2 levee. These sheet piles were provided as a replacement to the original M-115 sheet pile I-wall by the Orleans Levee Board in 1982 prior to the adoption of the present design criteria for this project.
e. The levees north of Robert E. Lee Boulevard (Station 120+00) on the west and north of Leon C. Simon Boulevard (Station 127+00) on the east, up to Lake Pontchartrain (Station 160+00) are full earthen levees. The existing height ranges from elevation 9.0 msl to elevation 11.0 msl with most of this levee system at or below elevation 10.0 msl at the present time.
For a detailed map summarizing the existing conditions of the levees adjacent to London Avenue Canal, see Plate 2-1.
3. Drainage Pumping Station No.3. The Sewerage and Water Board's Drainage Pumping Station No.3 is located on North Broad Avenue at the beginning of the London Avenue Canal (Station 0+00). It is a masonry brick structure with the existing floodwalls tying into the walls of the building. The discharge tubes (from the pumps inside the building) extend directly out of the brick wall on the north side of the station and are turned downward into the canal. There also exists a series of floodgates which allow the pumping station to divert some of the stonn water to the Florida Avenue Canal. Present level of flood protection offered by the floodwalls at Drainage Pumping Station No.3 is
~ 1 l elevation 12.5 ms!.
4. Drainage Pumping Station No.4. Drainage Pumping Station No.4 is located on Prentiss Avenue on the east side of the London Avenue Canal
• 1 (Station 101+00). The original pump house structure presently houses two . ! I centrifugal pumps. In addition to the two centrifugal pumps three horizontal i 1 pumps are located outdoors adjacent to the pump house structure. Present floodwalls across this outdoor portion of the station consists of concrete floodwalIs constructed between the discharge tubes of these horizontal pumps. There is also a 10 foot diameter siphon tube crossing the canal that drains the area west of the canal. The water is siphoned across the canal into the pump sump of the station and then pumped into the canal with its three horizontal pumps and two centrifugal pumps. Present level of flood protection offered by the floodwalls at Drainage Pumping Station No.4 is elevation 10.73 ms!.
5. Bridges. There are. 9 bridges crossing the London Avenue Canal. Seven of these bridges are below the required floodwall elevation. The elevation of the lowest level of flood protection at these bridges, which is
1 • page 2-3 defmed as the critical elevation, varies between elevation 4.19 msl and 10.03 msl, which means there are gaps in the floodwall which must be closed. The • J ~ I alternatives for closing these gaps are: 1) constructing flood gates at each bridge approach; 2) modifying the bridge deck and building parapet walls; or 3) f 1 rebuilding the bridges higher than the proposed floodwall elevation. More ! t i details about the bridges are discussed in Section ill. The critical bridge elevations are also shown on Plate 2-1.
In addition to the 7 bridges requiring additional floodproofing, the two elevated structures carryirig Interstate 610 also cross the London Avenue Canal. i "i However, the elevation of these two structures is such that they provide adequate ~ 1 vertical clearance above the proposed floodwall height needed for flood , t protection. The lowest elevation of the bottom of the steel girders carrying 1- f i ; ! • I 610 is elevation 15.0 msl. Construction of new floodwalls under these existing structures will pose some problems but modification to the bridge structure will not be necessary.
6. Real Estate. Along most of the present levee system the existing property lines of the adjoining property are located at the toe of the existing levee. Most of these adjoining properties are rear yards of residential property and frequently garages or tool sheds are constructed adjacent to the property line. Alternates were considered for a full earthen levee and a 7.0 msllevee with steel sheet piling. The full earthen levee would result in approximately 90 acres of property acquisition and residential displacements,while the 7.0 msllevee
i ; l with steel sheet piling would result in approximately 10 acres of property acquisition and residential displacements.
The cost for land acquisition using a full earthen levee would be approximately $32 million. The cost involved with the 7.0 msllevee with steel sheet pile for land acquisition is estimated at $4.1 million. These costs and potential time delays dictate that the improved levees are to be designed to avoid acquiring land or displacing any residents. The recommended plan requires the
.! j use of structural floodwalls where there exists a lack of right-of-way. This " i includes using earthen levees with structural steel sheet piling as well as structural T -walls, if needed. Full earthen levees were used only where adequate right-of-way exists to allow construction within the existing right-of way. The recommended plan does not result in any residential displacements f1 and only temporary servitudes will be required for access during construction i i under this plan.
page 2-4 DESIGNATION ELEVATION SHEET PILEI SHEET PILE CRITICAL BRIDGE ELEVATIONS (MSL) EARTHEN LEVEE CANTILEVER DESIGNATION LOCA nON ELEVATION A 12.S Z-27 L~20 7.S' 9.33 MSL K SOUTHERN RAILROAD PLATE 2-1 B 10.S M-115 L~20' 4.5 L BENEFIT STREET DRIDGE 8.37 MSL C 9.0-10.0 EARTHEN LEVEE M GENTILLY BOULEVARD BRIDGE 4.19 MSL D 10.0-11.0 EARTHEN LEVEE N MIRABEAU AVENUE BRIDGE 9.27MSL ~,~ N l3urk & A~~()eiales , lne. l'...l1glnper~· Planner~· l'.u\,llunlIlt-onlal Snenlior;.,,\ E 12.S Z-27 L~20' 7.5 o FILMORE AVENUE BRIDGE 9.15 MSL i':,,,,, ()dean~. l.ullisialld F 10.5 M-115 L;20' 4.5 P ROBERT E. LEE BOULEVARD BRIDGE 8.64 MSL G 11.S PZ-27 L~32' 8.0' Q LEON C. SIMON BOULEVARD BRIDGE 10.03 MSL LONDON AVENUE CANAL H 10.0 M-115 L~20' 4.5 R DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NO.3 12.50 MSL I 10.0 EARTHEN LEVEE S DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NO.4 10.73 MSL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES J 10.0-11.0 EARTHEN LEVEE EXISTING CONDITIONS LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~'-"ll 1-.. 1,250' ':.nlllt,1J ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD muLlAl<-'C.. ___ -I GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM UAll ORLEANS lEVEE BOARD CONmACT NO, 2049-0269 HfVI[._'.___ ~ 8407 PLAN It! HANO FlLtr.(j
:I SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS II INDEX rI Paragraph Page Number Title Number f1 l 1 GENERAL , 1 1. Scope 3-4 i1 I BRIDGES AND GATES q 2. Southern Railroad Bridge 3-5 1 j 3. Benefit Street Bridge 3-6 4. Gentilly Boulevard Bridge 3-7 ~ i 1[ 5. Mirabeau A venue Bridge 3-8 11 6. Filmore Avenue Bridge 3-10 7. Robert E. Lee Boulevard Bridge 3-11 8. Leon C. Simon Boulevard Bridge 3-12 11.I n LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS 11 9. Description 3-14 10. Alternate Study 3-14 , l . ! 11. Reach I 3-15 d 12. Reachll 3-15 13. Reach III 3-16 11 U 14. Reach IV 3-17 15. Reach V 3-18 !I 16. Levee Construction 3-19 DRAINAGE PUMPING STATIONS ! 1 ; r 17. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board l j Drainage Pumping Station No.3 (Station 0+00) 3-20 : r +.. 18. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board I i Drainage Pumping Station No.4 (Station 101+00) 3-20 ~ 1 1j RIGHT -OF -WAY CONSIDERATIONS AND , r ~ ; I' OTHER CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS • I 19. Right-of -way Considerations 3-22
, , 20. Utility Relocations 3-23 i ~ ;
1 ~ page 3-1 • 1 : I
]I SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 11 INDEX (continued) : 1 TABLES Table Page II Number Title Number 3-1 Recommendations - Reach I 3-25 11 3-2 Recommendations - Reach ill 3-26 3-3 Utility Relocation Schedule 3-27 q i i PLATES Plate Number Title iI 3-1 Recommended Improvements 3-2 Existing Bridges - Typical Sections 3-3 Alternate 1 - Plan & Elevation 111 3-4 Gentilly Blvd. & Robert E. Lee Blvd. Alternate 1 - Typical Sections 11 3-5 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 2 - Plan & Elevation 3-6 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate ~ 1 : I Gate Monolith J j 3-7 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate Storage Monolith 3-8 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate U Gate Details 3-9 Mirabeau Ave. Alternate 3 - Flood Roller Gate 111 Gate Sections 3-10 Railroad Crossing - Swing Gat~ Gate Monolith 1] 3-11 Railroad Crossing - Swing Gate Gate Details 3-12 Railroad Crossing - Swing Gate li Railroad Falsework Details 3-13 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - 11 Typical Sections 3-14 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - , I Typical Sections 1 ! i • 3-15 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - Typical Sections I: page 3-2 ;I
;I SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS i1 INDEX (continued) ~ ~ t j Plate Number Title 3-16 Recommended Plan for Levees and Floodwalls - 11 Typical Sections 3-17 Concrete Floodwalls - Typical Sections il 3-18 Drainage Pumping Station No. 3 - Site Plan 3-19 Drainage Pumping Station No. 3 - Typical Sections Tj,1 3-20 Drainage Pumping Station No.4 - Site Plan 1 } 3-21 Drainage Pumping Station No.4 - Typical Sections II 11 1 j
11
T 1 . [ l j
W 11 i ~ ~ t ~ 1
1 I i 1
, T 1j
~ ~ 1 I 11
T l j : ' I. J page 3-3 1 r
H " )I i , j SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 111 GENERAL
1. Scope. This section addresses the different alternates for improving ;I flood protection along the London Avenue Outfall Canal. Included in the alternates studied were consideration of bridges, flood gates, levees, floodwalls, pumping stations and property acquisition and relocations of residences. A comparative analysis is done, cost estimates are provided, and recommendations of a plan of improvements are provided. For a map summarizing the proposed improvements for the recommended plan of interim flood protection, see Plate 3-1. II iIt 1 t i
'I l i I l J
'! J ! r H
, r j I it
1 r j
i j
i ; page 3-4 SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 11 BRIDGES AND GATES
2. Southern Railroad Bridge i f d a. Existing Conditions. The Southern Railroad Company owns two sets of tracks which cross the London Avenue Canal between Drainage Pumping Station No.3 and Benefit Street at approximately station 2+00. The structure is approximately 160 feet long and 28 feet wide. The bridge consists of a sub structure composed of eight concrete caps supported by eight steel pipe piles and one larger concrete cap with ten steel pipe piles. The superstructure consists of a l , solid concrete deck supporting the creosoted cross ties and two sets of rails. The j I concrete deck has weep holes and open joints at every bent. For a typical section of the existing bridge, see Plate 3-2.
b. Alternate Study. The structure is an open deck type railroad bridge with a top elevation of approximately 9.33 ms!. This elevation is below the required floodwall elevation of 13.9 ms!. The bridge cannot be modified to provide a watertight structure since a solid watertight deck and raised parapet walls would not allow stonn drainage to run off this type of structure. Therefore, two alternates for providing necessary flood protection are suggested and described as follows:
1) Alternate 1: New Bridge. This alternate proposed constructing a new bridge to provide vertical clearance above the design high 'f 1 :l t water level of 11.85 ms!. Included in the cost of this solution is the demolition of : ! i ~ the existing structure and the cost of the new' railroad trestle to clear the proposed floodwalls.
The preliminary design of the proposed new bridge would increase the bridge length to 4,200 linear feet. This bridge will be a steel girder span structure. The estimated construction cost (E. C. C.) of the new bridge is $4,432,000 (see Table 5-4).
2) Alternate 2: Swing Gate Flood Gates. This alternate proposes constructing steel swing gates at both bridge approaches where the ! r railroad crosses the floodwalls. A steel sheet pile cutoff will be provided for under seepage protection at each gate monolith. The opening size of the flood gates will be 30'-0" wide by 8'-6" high and will cost approximately $216,000 for t,,
, , page 3-5 i both gates (see Table 5-1). For typical details and sections see Plates 3-10 through 3-12.
c. Recommendations. Due to the extreme cost for constructing a new bridge, and the amount of time which the railroad would be out of service during construction of the bridge, this alternate is unfeasible. Therefore, the recommendation is to provide steel swing gates at each bridge approach as proposed in Alternate 2. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the 11 recommended alternate is $216,000. n 3. Benefit Street Bridge
! J ; ! 11 a. Existing Conditions. This two lane bridge is located on Benefit Street at London Avenue Canal at approximately Station 6+60. The bridge is approximately 121 feet long and approximately 27 feet wide and was built in 1960. The bridge consists of a substructure composed of a concrete cap supported by four timber piles and a superstructure composed of a concrete deck supported by eleven steel girders. For a typical section of the existing structure, see Plate 3-2.
b. Alternate Study. The critical elevation of the bridge is 8.37 msl at the existing roadway deck. The deck elevation is below the required floodwall elevation of 13.9 ms!. Three alternates for providing necessary flood protection are suggested and described as follows:
1) Alternate 1: Modify Existing Bridge. This alternate considered the installation of a new deck and parapet wall. The modifications include: 1) removal of the existing deck; 2) installing tension connections to the steel girders; and 3) installing a new concrete watertight deck and parapet wall. For a typical section and details similar to this type structure, see Plate 3-3. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $149,700 (see Table 5- 4).
, 1 11 2) Alternate 2: Ne,v Bridge. This solution considered the II construction of a new bridge above the top of new floodwalls. Incorporated into the cost of this solution will be the demolition of the existing structure, the cost of the new bridge itself and the cost to raise the roadways, so that the bottom of the bridge deck elevation will be maintained above the floodwater elevation of 11.85 ms!. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $394,800 (see Table 5-4) ..
1 ' page 3-6 , 1 r : i
The preliminary design of the proposed new bridge would increase the bridge length to 550 feet. This bridge will be a concrete slab span structure. For a typical section similar to this type structure, see Plate 3-5.
3) Alternate 3: Bottom Roller Flood Gates. This solution proposes the installation of bottom roller flood gates at both bridge approaches. The opening size of the roller gate will be 31'-0" wide and 7'-0" high. A steel sheet pile cutoff will be provided for under seepage protection at each gate 1I monolith. The estimated construction cost (B.C. C.) for this alternate is $75,000 , , (see Table 5-1). For typical details and sections, see Plates 3-6 through 3-9. !: l' i c. Recommendations. Benefit Street handles only localized traffic, and is in close proximity to the Gentilly Boulevard Bridge which has been recommended for modification. For these reasons and the fact that bottom roller flood gates are less expensive than floodproofing or rebuilding the entire bridge, the recommendation is to construct bottom roller flood gates as proposed in Alternate 3. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the recommended alternate is $75,000. ~ 1 ; I i \ 4 J 4. Gentilly Boulevard Bridge
a. Existing Conditions. This bridge is located on Gentilly Boulevard
• J and London Avenue Canal at approximately station 14+00. It is approximately 108 feet long and approximately 86 feet wide, and was built in 1934 and expanded in 1950. The structure carries six lanes - three lanes in each direction. '!' 1 I : t The bridge consists of a substructure composed of concrete footings supported H by timber piles, concrete columns and concrete caps. The superstructure consists of a concrete slab span deck, with steel girders encased in the slab, supported by steel channels at the column bents. For a typical section of the existing bridge, see Plate 3-2. .
b. Alternate Study. The lowest elevation of the bridge is 4.19 msl at top of slab and 7.53 msl at top of the parapet wall. The parapet wall elevation is below the required floodwall elevation of 13.9 ms!. After evaluating the uplift forces to be resisted by the existing bridge foundation, it was detennined this structure cannot safely resist the maximum uplift force which could develop during high water level to the top of floodwall elevation. The timber piles are capable of developing the tension capacity needed, however, the embedment into the existing concrete pile footings is not adequate to develop the tension forces necessary. There is no way of upgrading the pile to footing connection for this bridge since the bottom of footing elevation is several feet below the bottom of the concrete slope paving in the bottom of the canal. Therefore, two alternates
page 3-7 for providing the necessary flood protection are suggested and described as follows:
1) Alternate 1: New Low Level Bridge and Flood\valls. This alternate proposes the construction of a new bridge, keeping the existing deck elevation the same. The modifications include: 1) removal of the existing bridge (except footings and piles); 2) installing precast prestressed concrete (p.P.C.) pile bents; and 3) installing a new concrete watertight deck and parapet walls. The existing bridge has adequate seepage cutoff sheet piling at the end abutments. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $445,400 (see Table 5-1). For a typical section of the new bridge, see Plate 3-4.
, , 2) Alternate 2: New High Level Bridge. This solution , ,I i j proposes the construction of a new high level bridge. Incorporated into the cost of this solution will be the demolition of the existing structure, the cost of the new bridge itself and the cost to raise the roadways, so that the bottom of the bridge deck elevation will be maintained above the floodwater elevation of 11.85 ms!.
The preliminary design of the proposed new bridge would increase the bridge length to 550 feet. This bridge will be a concrete slab span. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $1,216,000 (see Table 5-4). For a typical section, see Plate 3-5 .
.. I c. Recommendations. Gentilly Boulevard is a major arterial roadway serving this area. During the approach of a hurricane this roadway functions as "!' 1 a primary hurricane evacuation route for residents in this area. For this reason it is necessary to keep this roadway open to traffic during the approach of a major stonn. Therefore, flood gates are not considered a feasible alternate. The cost for Alternate 2 is not justified when compared with Alternatel. As a result the recommendation is to build a new bridge~ keeping the new deck elevation the same as the existing deck, as proposed in Alternate 1. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the recommended alternate is $445,500.
5. Mirabeau Avenue Bridge
a. Existing Conditions. This bridge is located on Mirabeau Avenue at London Avenue Canal at station 70+00. The bridge is approximately 125 feet
1 r long and approximately 70.4 feet wide, and was built in 1960. The structure carries four travel lanes - two lanes in each direction. The bridge consists of a substructure composed of a concrete cap supported by twelve steel piles and a
page 3-8 superstructure composed of a concrete deck supported by twelve steel girders (see Plate 3-2). Adjacent to the bridge is a timber pedestrian bridge. 11 b. Alternate Study. The lowest elevation of the bridge is 7.70 msl at the top of the slab and 9.27 msl at the top of the parapet wall. The parapet wall elevation is below the required floodwall elevation of 13.9 ms!. Three alternates for providing necessary flood protection are suggested and described as follows:
1) Alternate 1: Modify Existing Bridge. This alternate f , considered the installation of a new deck and parapet walls. The modifications include: 1) removal of the existing deck; 2) installing new steel girders along Ii the exterior faces of the existing bridge; 3) installing tension connectors to the • ! steel girders, piles and caps; and d) installing a new concrete watertight deck, 4 • d parapet walls and pedestrian sidewalks. The existing bridge has adequate seepage cutoff sheet piling at the end abutments. Additionally, the adjacent ; , pedestrian bridge will be removed. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) i 1 for this alternate is $305,000 (see Table 5-1). For typical sections and details, see Plate 3-3.
11 2) Alternate 2: New Bridge. This solution proposes the construction of a new high level bridge. Incorporated into the cost of this ~ 1 1 t i \ solution will be the demolition of the existing structure, the cost of the new is bridge itself and the cost to raise the roadways so the bottom of the bridge deck elevation will be maintained above the floodwater elevation of 11.85 ms!.
The preliminary design of the proposed new bridge would increase the bridge length to 700 feet. This bridge will be a concrete slab span. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $1,095,600 (see Table 5-4). For typical section and details, see Plate 3-5.
3) Alternate 3: Bottom Roller Flood Gates. This alternate suggests the installation of bottom roller flood gates at both bridge approaches. !, !, - T ,J The opening size of the roller gate will be 75 feet wide and 7 feet 3 inches high. The estimated construction cost (B.C.C.) for this alternate is $141,000 (see Table 5-4). For details see Plates 3-6 through 3-9.
c. Recommendations. It is not a practical solution to close the bridge during the flood period as suggested in Alternate 3. In addition, the cost differential between Alternate 3 and Alternate 1 is relatively small. The cost of Alternate 2 is $1,095,600 which is substantially more than Alternate 1. Since the ." , benefits derived from Alt~rnate 2 do not justify this additional expense we, .", ). therefore, recommend Alternate 1. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for 1 -, the recommended alternate is $305,000.
T' page 3-9 6. Filmore Avenue Bridge
a. Existing Conditions. This bridge is located on Filmore Avenue at London Avenue Canal at station 85+50. The bridge is approximately 140.4 feet long and approximately 38 feet wide, and carries two travel lanes - one lane in each direction. The bridge consists of a substructure composed of a concrete cap II supported by seven steel piles and a superstructure composed of a concrete deck supported by eight steel girders. It was built in 1959. For a typical section of the existing bridge, see Plate 3-2. Adjacent to the bridge is a timber pedestrian bridge.
b. Alternate Study. The lowest elevation of the bridge is 6.48 msl at the top of the slab and 9.15 msl at the top of the parapet wall. The parapet wall elevation is below the required floodwall elevation of 13.9 ms!. Three alternates for providing necessary flood protection are suggested and described as follows:
1) Alternate 1: Modify Existing Bridge. This alternate considered the installation of a new deck and parapet wall. The modifications , r include: a) removal of the existing deck; b) installing new steel girders along . f the exterior faces of the existing bridge; c) installing tension connectors to the l j steel girders, piles and caps; d) installing a new concrete watertight deck, parapet wall and pedestrian sidewalks. The existing bridge has adequate seepage cutoff sheet piling at the end abutments. The adjacent pedestrian bridge will be removed. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $264,000 (see Table 5-1). For a typical section similar to this type structure, see Plate 3-3.
2) Alternate 2: New Bridge. This solution proposes the construction of a new high level bridge. Incorporated into the cost of this "' solution will be the demolition of the existing strucuture, the cost of the new t bridge itself, and the cost to raise the roadways, so the bottom of the bridge deck elevation will be maintained above the floodwater elevation of 11.85 ms!.
The preliminary design of the proposed new bridge would increase the bridge length to 550 feet. This bridge will be a concrete slab span. The estimated construction cost eE.C.C.) for this alternate is $518,000 (see Table 5- 4). For a typical section similar to this bridge, see Plate 3-5.
3) Alternate 3: Bottom Roller Flood Gates. This solution suggests the installation of bottom roller flood gates at both bridge approaches. The opening size of the roller gate will be 42 feet wide and 8 feet 6 inches high.
page 3-10 The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $80,000 (see Table 5-4). For similar details, but different dimensions, see Plates 3-6 through 3-9.
c. Recommendations. It is not a practical solution to close the bridge during the flood period as suggested in Alternate 3. In addition, the cost
.t I differential between Alternate 3 and Alternate 1 is relative! y small. The cost for Alternate 2 is $518,000 which is substantially more than Alternate 1. Since the benefits derived from Alternate 2 do not justify this additional expense we, therefore, recommend Alternate 1. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the recommended alternate is $264,000.
7. Robert E. Lee Boulevard Bridge
a. Existing Conditions. This bridge is located on Robert E. Lee Boulevard at London Avenue Canal at station 120+25. The bridge is approximately 180.6 feet long and approximately 35 feet wide, and it was built in 1960. The structure carries two lanes - one lane in each direction. The bridge consists of a substructure composed of a concrete cap supported by piles and a superstructure composed of a concrete deck supported by twelve steel girders. For a typical section of the existing bridge, see Plate 3-2. Adjacent to the bridge is a timber pedestrian bridge.
... 1 b. Alternate Study. The lowest elevation of the bridge is 5.39 msl at i J. .1 the top of the slab and 8.64 msl at the top of the parapet wall. The parapet wall elevation is below the required floodwall elevation of 13.9 ms!. Two alternates for providing necessary flood protection are suggested and described as follows:
, 1 1) Alternate 1: Modify Existing Bridge. This alternate ; I i considered the installation of a new deck and parapet wall. The modifications include: 1) removal of the existing deck; 2) installing new steel girders along the exterior faces of the existing bridge; 3) installing new tension piles at each bent to resist uplift during high water; 4) installing tension connectors to the steel girders, caps and piles; and 5) installing a new concrete watertight deck, parapet wall and pedestrian sidewalks. The existing bridge has adequate seepage cutoff sheet piling at the end abutments. The adjacent pedestrian bridge will be removed. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $335,900 (see Table 5-1). For a typical section, see Plate 3-4. .
2) Alternate 2: New Bridge. This solution proposed the construction of a new high level bridge. Incorporated into the cost of this solution will be the demolition of the existing structure, the cost of the new
page 3-11 bridge itself and the cost to raise the roadways, so the bottom of the bridge deck elevation will be maintained above the floodwater elevation of 11.85 msl.
The preliminary design of the proposed new bridge would increase the , 1 bridge length to 550 feet. This would be a concrete slab span. The estimated ! construction cost (E.C.C.) for this alternate is $488,300 (see Table 5-4). For a typical section similar to this type structure, see Plate 3-5.
c. Recommendations. Robert E. Lee Boulevard is a major arterial roadway serving this area. During the approach of a hurricane this roadway
. I ; ! functions as a primary hurricane evacuation route for residents in this area. For .~ .1 this reason it is necessary to keep this roadway open to traffic during the approach of a major stonn. Therefore, flood gates are not considered a feasible alternate. The cost for Alternate 2 is too high. As a r~sult, the recommendation is to replace the deck and parapet walls as suggested in Alternate 1. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the recommended I I alternate is $335,900.
8. Leon C. Simon Boulevard Bridge
a. Existing Conditions. This bridge is located on Leon C. Simon Boulevard at London Avenue Canal at approximately station 127+50. The i 1 bridge is approximately 184 feet long and approximately 71 feet wide, and it was built in 1967. The structure carries four travel lanes - two lanes in each direction. The bridge consists of a substructure composed of concrete caps each supported by nineteen steel piles and a superstructure composed of a concrete deck supported by twelve steel girders. For a typical section of the existing bridge, see Plate 3-2.
b. Alternate Study. The lowest elevation of the bridge is 6.52 msl at the top of the slab and 10.03 msl at the top of the-parapet wall. The parapet wall elevation is below the required floodwall elevation of 13.60 msl. Three alternates for providing necessary flood protection are suggested and described as follows: II 1) Alternate 1: Modify Existing Bridge. This alternate considered the installation of tension connectors to the steel girders, caps and piles, and construction of new parapet walls parallel to the centerline of the bridge along each face of the bridge deck. This existing bridge has a watertight deck and therefore replacement of the existing deck is not necessary. The existing bridge has adequate seepage cutoff sheet piling at the end abutments.
( , page 3-12 The estimated construction cost (B.C.C.) for this alternate is $158,500 (see Table 5-1). For a typical section similar to this type structure, see Plate 3-3. 11 2) Alternate 2: New Bridge. This solution proposed the construction of a new high level bridge. Incorporated into the cost of this solution will be the demolition of the existing structure, the cost of the new bridge itself and the cost to raise the roadways, so that the bottom of the bridge deck elevation will be maintained above the floodwater elevation of 11.60 ms!.
The preliminary design of the proposed new bridge would increase the bridge length to 700 feet. This bridge will be a concrete slab span. The estimated construction cost (B.C.C.) of this alternate is $1,134,000 (see Table 5- 4). For a typical section and similar details, see Plate 3-5.
3) Alternate 3: Bottom Roller Flood Gates. This solution suggests the installation of bottom roller flood gates at both bridge approaches. The opening size of each roller gate will be 75 feet wide and 8 feet 6 inches high. The estimated construction cost (B.C.C.) for this alternate if $141,000 (see Table 5-4). For typical details and sections, see Plates 3-6 through 3-9.
c. Recommendations. It is not feasible to reconstruct this entire bridge as suggested in Alternate 2 due to the extreme cost involved. It is also not practical to recommend installing flood gates, which involve ongoing operation and maintenance costs, when modifications to the existing structure can adequately provide the necessary flood protection. Also, the costs for modifying this structure as recommended in Alternate 1 are approximately equal in cost to installing flood gates as discussed in Alternate 3. ·Therefore, the recommendation is to replace the parapet walls and secure the steel girders and piles to resist the uplift forces as discussed in Alternate 1. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) of the recommended alternate is $158,500.
'( t
. ; page 3-13 SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS
,, 9. Description. The levees adjacent to the London Avenue Canal require i ~ upgrading to confonn to the design criteria obtained from the U.S. Anny Corps . i of Engineers, which is the adopted design criteria for this project. This design f t calls for a still water surface elevation in the canal at Lake Pontchartrain of 11.5 ;t' ! i j. msl. The design criteria also requires a two foot freeboard in the canal, raising the levees to elevation 13.5 msl in the vicinity of the Lake. Due to the hydraulic gradient in the canal (see Appendix B - Hydraulic Study), the levee will be raised to 13.9 msl at Sewerage and Water Board's DPS #4 (Station 101+00) and be maintained at this elevation down to DPS #3 (Station 0+00). Along the perimeter of the Lake, the Corps of Engineers is raising the levees to elevation 17.5 msl. This elevation includes wave action and three feet of freeboard. The project design criteria allows two feet of freeboard for levee design within the 1. 'I 1 j confmes of the canal. There will be an area of transition of the levee from elevation 13.5 to 17.5 near the Lake to tie into the lakefront levee system.
10. Alternate Study. The basis of the design and analysis of the • 1 levee/floodwall combinations are from a stability analysis, performed by Eustis j 1 Engineering Company (see Appendix C - Geotechnical Investigation), using the hydrostatic pressure with the water at the top of the wall. This analysis is conservative because the design allows for two feet of freeboard above the design water surface profile. The design of the sheet pile section was based on a , , deflection analysis due to lateral loading with the hydrostatic loading to the top :j ! of the wall.
The criteria for selecting the recommended alternate was established by selecting a levee system which satisfies the stability criteria, has the lowest net cost, and which does not require any additional right-of-way. Where right-of 1 I way is not a problem, a full earthen levee section is recommended. Where right of-way becomes restricted, an elevation 7.0 msllevee or an elevation 5.0 msl levee with cantilever steel sheet piling ranging from PZ-27 to PZ-40 is recommended. In areas where these alternates are not feasible, a poured in place concrete T-wall floodwa11 is recommended.
If an earthenlevee was selected for the entire project, it would require that 90 acres of real estate be acquired at a cost of approximately $32 million in
page 3-14 addition to the levee construction cost. Similarly, if an elevation 7.0 msllevee with steel sheet piles were used throughout this project, approximately 10 acres of real estate would need to be acquired at a cost of $4.1 million. For these reasons, as well as potential time delays in acquiring the land, it was established that the Recommended Plan would be developed such that no relocations would be required.
In some reaches, a number of different alternates are recommended within a particular reach. This is due to the varying right-of-way limits and the least expensive alternate is recommended. For typical sections of the levee/floodwall improvements for the recommended plan, see Plates 3 -13 through 3-17.
11. Reach I. The section of canal, located between stations 0+00 and 21+00, is defmed as Reach I. Within Reach I, the present right-of-way is very narrow and construction of an earthen levee is not feasible within the existing right-of way. The landside toe of an earthen levee would be located approximatley 160 , \ j i feet landside of the existing floodwall resulting in a major amount of residential 1J relocations. The alternate for constructing an earthen levee to elevation 7.0 msl was also considered but due to stability criteria, a setback distance of approximately 46 feet from the existing floodwall to the lands ide toe of the new levee is required. This setback also results in a significant amount of residential displacement and consequently is unfeasible. Therefore, the recommendation is to upgrade the existing earthen levees within Reach I to elevation 5.0 msl and to provide PZ-40 steel sheet pile I-walls cut off at elevation 13.9 ms!. Along the east levee between stations 2+80 and 6+60 where construction of a levee to elevation 5.0 msl would require right-of-way acquisition and would result in
, 1 residential displacements, a concrete inverted 'T' floodwall is recommended. i ; There are many variations for sheet pile placements for the recommended plan within the levee along Reach I. The locations and type of sheet piles along with
'f J the length and setback distances are summarized-in Table 3-1. : t The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the levee improvements in Reach I is estimated at $4,467,000 as summarized in Table 5-2. Plan and profiles are shown in Appendix A, Plates A-I and A-2 on the west side and Plate A-8 on the east side, and typical sections are shown on Plates 3-13 and 3-17. f1 . Li 12. Reach ll. The section of canal located between stations 21 +00 and 37+00 is defmed as Reach II. Within Reach II the existing right-of-way is not as restricted as Reach I, but still does not allow enough room for construction of an earthen levee to the required grade. An all earthen levee would have a lands ide
page 3-15 toe located approximately 140 feet landside of the existing floodwall and would displace many residences along with many facilities within the Dillard University campus. On the other hand, construction of a concrete inverted 'T' floodwall is too costly and not necessary for maintaining the construction limits '1 within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the recommendation for this reach .. j is to construct an earthen levee to elevation 7.0 msl with a PZ-27 cantilever sheet pile I-wall cut off at elevation 13.9 ms!. The length of the sheet pile is 34'-6" and ~ f ! is setback 3 feet from the existing I -wall. This recommendation is for both the I l I east and west levees of the canal. The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the levees in Reach II is estimated at $1,569,100 as summarized in Table 5-2. ·, Plan and profiles are found in Appendix A, Plate A-2 on the west side and Plates A-8 and A-9 on the east side, and typical sections of the recommended plan are shown on Plate 3-13. n 13. Reach Ill. The section of canal located between stations37+00 and J i 120+00 is defmed as Reach III. Within this reach the right-of-way restrictions vary but are not adequate for construction of an earthen levee to the required grade. An earthen levee would have a lands ide toe setback approximately 170 feet from the existing floodwall. This would result in a major amount of residential displacements along both sides of the London A venue Canal within this reach and is therefore unfeasible. A combination levee and cantilever sheet pile floodwall system is feasible so it is not necessary to construct concrete inverted 'T' floodwalls within this reach. Therefore,the recommendations for Reach ill improvements are generally to build up the earthen levee slightly and place steel sheet piles cut off at elevation 13.9 ms!. From station 37+00 to station 58+00 on the east levee and from station 37+00 to station 120+ 10 on the west levee an earthen levee can be constructed to elevation 7.0 msl with a PZ-27 steel sheet pile I-wall cut off at elevation 13.9 ms!. Due to a more restricted right-of way from station 58+00 to station 120+10 on the east levee, an earthen levee can ~ J only be constructed up to elevation 5.0 msl with a PZ-40 steel sheet pile I-wall
" i cut off at elevation13.9 msl is required. The other alternative to this more costly PZ-40 I-wall would be to acquire an additional strip of right-of-way from the rear yards of the residential properties along Warrington Drive between station 58+00 and 120+10 (approximately 1000 feet south of Mirabeau Boulevard to Robert E. Lee Boulevard). This required right-of-way would result in displacing numerous garages and tool sheds and several large oak trees for I1 construction of the required levee. Additionally, this alternate was almost as J. j costly as the recommended plan when the right-of-way and relocations costs are included in the estimate. Therefore, to minimize this negative impact and potential time delays from having to acquire this large scale right-of-way acquisition, the recommended plan is to develop the earthen levee only to elevation 5.0 msl in this portion of Reach ill, and provide the 8.9 foot high
page 3-16 , l I ~ 1 cantilever I-wall floodwall within the existing right-of-way. The detailed , 1 summary of sheet pile type, length, setback distances from the existing I-wall : ! and the required levee elevations are shown in Table 3-2. I l
.1 j! The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the levee improvements in .. j Reach ill is estimated at $11,505,400 and is summarized in Table 5-2. Plan and profiles are shown in Appendix A, Plates A -2 through A -5 on the west side and Plates A-9 through A-12 on the east side, and typical sections for the recommended plan are shown on Plates 3-13 and 3-14.
14. Reach IV. The section of canal located between stations 120+00 and 127+00 is defmed as Reach IV. The east levee within Reach IV is similar to Reaches IT and ill. An earthen levee constructed in this reach would have a lands ide levee toe approximately 140 feet setback from the existing I-wall. This n would again result in a significant number of residential displacements along this i 1 section of levee between Robert E. Lee and Leon C. Simon Boulevard and is considered unfeasible. A concrete inverted 'T' floodwall is not necessary since adequate right-of-way is available for construction of a combination earthen levee and cantilever I-wall. Therefore, the recommendation for the levee on the east side of the canal is to upgrade the earthen levee to elevation 6.5 msl and place PZ-27 cantilevered steel sheet piles cut off at elevation 13.6 ms!. The sheet piles will be 34'-6" long and they will be setback 3' from the existing I-wall.
~ 1 i ! .il The west levee within Reach IV can be improved up to the required elevation of 13.6 msl without creating any displacements or acquiring any additional right-of-way. Since earthen levees are more economical than combination levees with cantilevered I-walls or concrete T floodwalls, the recommendation for this west levee is to construct the entire levee as an earthen levee. The location of this levee section, as established by the geotechnical investigation performed by Eustis Engirieers, requires the centerline of the
~ 1 upgraded levee to be setback 100 feet from the -5.0 msl contour in the London 1 ! II A venue Canal. This places the centerline of the improved levee approximately 25 feet landside of the existing levee centerline. or r ; i t 1 The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the levee improvements in Reach IV is estimated at $485,200, as summarized in Table 5-1. Plan and profiles are shown in Appendix A, Plates A-5 and A-6 on the west side and Plate A-12 on the east side, and typical sections of the recommended plan are shown
,,- , on Plates 3-14 and 3-15. I
page 3-17 · ) : i
15. Reach V. The section of canal located between stations 127+00 and
, f 160+00 is deflned as Reach V. This reach consists of three separate required : I levee heights. In the south end of this reach, the design levee height is 13.5 ms!. There is an area on each side of the canal where the elevation will transition from 13.5 to 17.5 ms!. The north end of this reach has a design height of 17.5 j • msl where the levee is subjected to wave runup from Lake Pontchartrain ..
a. East Side Station 127+20 to 144+50. The recommendation for this section is to construct a new earthen levee with a crown elevation of 13.5 ms!. The centerline of the new proposed levee will match the centerline of the existing levee and all construction shall remain within the existing right-of-way ( j 1 limits. Since this alternate is the most economical solution, no other alternates were considered.
b. East Side Station 144+50 to 147+50. This section is the transition area where the earthen levee crown elevation will vary from 13.5 to 11.0 ms!. PZ-27 steel sheet pile I-walls will be placed starting at a cut off elevation at 13.5 and extending to elevation 17.5 ms!. The lengths of the sheet pile will also change from 14'-6" to 33'-6".
c. East Side Station 147+50 to 159+90. Due to stability criteria, an earthen levee constructed to elevation 17.5 msl would require a setback distance of approximately 160 feet from the existing levee centerline to the new landside levee toe. This setback would require additional right-of-way acquisition from the University of New Orleans and also conflicts with proposed roadway improvements which UNO is scheduling in the near future. Therefore, this last section on the east side will continue with the crown of the earthen levee at elevation 11.0 msl. It will have a PZ-27 steel sheet pile I-wall cut off at elevation 17.5 ms!. The sheet pile will be 33'-6" long and the centerline of the new levee crown will match the centerline of the existing levee.
d. West Side Station 127+55 to 146+50. The first section on the west side of the canal will have a new earthen levee constructed at elevation 13.5 msl similar to the east side. The centerline of this new levee will match the If r centerline of the existing levee and all construction shall remain within the I i existing right-of-way limits.
e. West Side Station 146+50 to 149+50. The transitional section on the west side is the same as for the east side. The earthen levee's crown elevation will vary from 13.5 to 11.0 msl. A PZ-27 steel sheet pile cut off between elevation 13.5 and 17.5 msl will be placed in the levee, and the lengths of the sheet piles will vary from 14'-6" to 33'-6".
page 3-18 T f I I Ij i f. West Side Station 149+50 to 159+70. This last section on the west side will be similar to the east side. Due to stability criteria, an earthen levee constructed to elevation 17.5 msl on this west levee would require a setback distance of approximately 190 feet from the existing levee centerline to f 1 the new lands ide levee toe. This setback would require additional right-of-way , , and also result in substantial residential displacements adjacent to this levee. Therefore, under the recommended plan, the earthen levee crown elevation will continue at elevation 11.0 ms1. It will have a PZ-27 steel sheet pile I-wall cut off !I at elevation 17.5 ms1. The length of the sheet piling will be 33'-6" and the setback distance will be approximately 20 feet lands ide from the existing levee centerline.
, f The estimated construction cost (E.C.C.) for the levee improvements in it 1 j Reach V is estimated at $1,939,400, as summarized in Table 5-1. Plan and profIles are shown in Appendix A, Plate A-6 and A-7 on the west side and A-12 and A-13 on the east side, and typical sections for the recommended plan are shown on Plates 3-15 and 3-16.
16. Levee Construction. When the new steel sheet pile I-walls are
! r constructed from Reach I through Reach IV, the existing concrete floodwall will ! t j be obsolete above the new earthen levee elevation. Therefore, the upper portion of the existing flood wall is to be removed and disposed of by placing the , . concrete cap along the canal bank of the London Avenue Cana1. This concrete will serve as rip rap for scour protection along the face of the new floodwall. Removal of this upper portion of the old floodwall will also assist the Orleans Levee Board in maintenance of the new levee since the area between the old and new I-walls would be inaccessible if it remained intact.
During construction of the new levees and floodwalls, interim flood protection will have to be maintained to elevation 8.0 msl at all times. Where construction activity requires removal of the existing I -wall for driving the new steel sheet piles, minimal gaps will be permitted during the construction phase on a daily basis only. All openings in levee protection required for construction ., l ; ! access will have to be closed at the end of each working day .
page 3-19 SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
DRAINAGE PUMPING STATIONS
17. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board Drainage Pumping Station No.3 (Station 0+00). This pumping station is located just north of the intersection ofN. Broad Avenue and London Avenue and marks the beginning of the London Avenue Outfall Canal. Being situated across the south end of the canal, the current level of flood protection is provided by the structure of the station itself. The walls of the discharge basin are then integrated with the earthen levee and floodwall system of the canal on the east and west sides to complete the continuity of flood protection.
Proposed improvements to the existing level of flood protection at Pump Station No.3 involves upgrading of the existing system. On the west side, T 1 enough space is available to raise the elevation of the existing earth levee to Ii elevation 13.9 ms!. This will require that a portion of the existing concrete discharge basin wall be raised also. On the east side, the entire length of the existing discharge basin wall, from the pumping station to the junction with the proposed swing gate at the railroad crossing, will be raised to the required elevation of 13.9 ms!. This portion of new work includes proposed replacement of an existing flow diversion flood gate which permits certain pumps within the station to pump either directly to Lake Pontchartrain or to divert discharge to N.O.S.&W.B. Pump Station No.5. Since major modifications to the pump station structure are not economically feasible at this time, improved flood protection across the front of the station will be provided by constructing a new concrete wall immediately in front of the existing structure. This new wall shall extend laterally between the discharge basin walls on either side and will be supported vertically by the existing foundation slab. Plates 3-18 and 3-19 present pictorially the proposed improvements to Pump Station No.3.
~ 1 Ll 18. New Orleans Se,verage and Water Board Pumping Station No. 4 (Station 101+00). This pumping station is located on the east bank of London Avenue Outfall Canal at Prentiss Avenue. Being situated parallel with the flow of the canal, existing flood protection is provided by the earthen levee and floodwall system of the canal being linked with the foundation and building structure of the station.
l j
page 3-20 :I Consistent with the existing scheme, improvements to the levee and floodwall system of the canal will extend completely to the structural limits of 1 pumping station. Therefore, proposed upgrading of flood protection for the i station will be confmed to modifications of the structure only. The level of flood protection for the original pumping station was upgraded in 1973 and , i proposed new improvements are predicated upon the system used. These interim modifications to the pump station are proposed to be replaced with new components constructed to the higher elevation of 13.9 msl as required and founded upon the original structure of the station. In addition, the centrifugal pump discharge bay on the south end of the structure is to receive a new concrete wall facing against the existing building. This wall is to extend laterally between the walls of the discharge basin and vertically from the top of the existing discharge tubes up to the required elevation of 13.9 msi. Plates 3-20 and 3-21 present pictorially the proposed improvements to Pump Station No.4.
11 1 j
, l t i
page 3-21 ~ 1 I • 1 SECTION III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
, t , 1 , i The recommended plan of .. 1 19. Right-or-Way Considerations. improvements to the London A venue Canal floodwalls does not require any significant right-of-way acquisitions. Under the recommended plan, only temporary construction access servitudes will be necessary during the construction phase of this project. Several alternate plans were looked at which involved any where from a minor right-of-way acquisition to massive acquisitions and relocations. In order to be able to expedite the implementation of the interim floodwalls and levees, it was a high priority to develop the levee sections to remain within the existing right-of-way.
a. Reach I. In Reach I, due to the weaker subsoils, this resulted in iI maintaining a levee embankment at elevation 5.0 msl with an 8.9 foot high cantilever I-wall since a levee constructed to elevation 7.0 msl in this reach would require a setback distance of approximately 17 feet from the existing floodwall to the new flood wall. This setback would have resulted in a large number of residential displacements and was therefore considered unfeasible. • 1 b. Reach II. Right-of-way was not a problem in Reach n since the earthen levee can safely be constructed to elevation 7.0 msl with an economical steel sheet pile I-wall to provide the full flood protection with no additional right-of-way required.
c. Reach III. The southern portion of Reach ill as well as the western half of this reach can safely be constructed similar to Reach n within the existing right-of-way. However, along the eastern levee of Reach In between station 58+00 and 120+00 (1000' south of Mirabeau Ave. to Robert E. Lee Blvd.) the earthen levee crown has to be lowered to elevation 5.0 msl to avoid levee construction crossing the existing right-of-way limits. This results in a substantially heavier steel sheet pile I-wall due to ,the reduction in levee crown elevation. The other two choices were to maintain the levee crown at elevation 7.0 msl and either construct a retaining wall 3 to 5 feet high at the property line or acquire 10 to 15 feet of additional right-of-way within this reach. In addition i · to the reaT estate purchase, a substantial number of garages and tool sheds would
t 1 be displaced as well as approximately 160 trees would be displaced by this acquisition. The costs for this real estate and relocations, as well as the potential ... page 3-22 time delays for these acquisitions, resulted in selecting the lower levee height with a heavier I-wall in this area for the recommended plan.
d. Reach IV. In Reach N the east levee can be constructed to elevation 6.5 msl with an economical steel sheet pile I-wall to provide full flood protection safely within the existing right-of-way. However, the option of omitting the I-wall and developing an earthen levee to elevation 13.6 msl results in major relocation of adjacent residential property. The west levee in Reach IV can safely be developed as an earthen levee to elevation 13.6 msl within existing right-of-way. There are no displacements within this existing right-of-way.
e. Reach V. In Reach V between Leon C. Simon Blvd. and the point where the levee must be raised due to wave runup from Lake Pontchartrain, an earthen levee can safely be constructed on both the east and west levee within existing right-of-way. The only displacements are 26 trees within this right-of way. At the north end of Reach V when the levee crown must be raised to elevation 17.5 msl, an earthen levee on the west side would result in a large scale residential relocation and was ruled unfeasible. On the east levee, the earthen levee to elevation 17.5 msl would require a significant amount of right -of-way acquisition from the University of New Orleans. The 5 year plan of improvements of UNO plans to construct a new campus perimeter roadway within the area where this levee would be located. Therefore, it is more feasible to maintain an elevation 11.0 msl earthen levee with a 6.5 foot high sheet pile 1- wall within the present right-of-way for this portion of Reach V.
20. Utility Relocations. Included in the plan for the floodwall improvements is the relocation work at certain existing utility crossings along the existing floodwall. Where new steel sheet piling is to be driven at these utility crossings, the normal procedure is to build a temporary bypass line to maintain the necessary services. After iristallation of the temporary bypass, the new steel sheet piling is driven at the proper location and a steel sleeve is installed to allow the permanent utility line to pass through the floodwall. Once the permanent utility pipe is passed through the flood wall, a water tight seal is placed around the pipe and then the temporary bypass pipe line can be disassembled. At less critical utility crossings,the bypass line can be deleted if the existing utility line can be disconnected long enough to allow construction of the new sheet pile floodwall and reconnection of the utility pipe line. Besides water mains, sewer force mains and gas transmission trunklines crossing this floodwall, the Sewerage & Water Board's primary electric power transmission cable will require relocation at certain areas. This power cable provides the S&WB electric power to D.P.S. No.3 and No.4 and must be maintained operable at all times to allow the drainage pump stations to operate. Therefore,
page 3-23 before construction involving flood walls which support the present transmission cable proceed, a relocated power cable must be installed.
Another major utility line which may be affected is the 10 foot diameter siphon pipe line from Prentiss Ave. west of London Avenue Canal to D.P.S. No. 4 on the east side of the canal. Constructing the new levee will have to be coordinated closely with New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board so the siphon tube can be disconnected while the steel sheet piles are driven. Then the tube must be replaced immediately, keeping the shut down time to a minimum. The construction must also take place at a time of the year when weather conditions will permit. This type of construction will save thousands of dollars by not having to build a bypass tube. A summary of the existing utilities requiring relocation is shown in Table 3-3.
page 3-24 TABLE 3-1 INTERIM FLOODWALL AND LEVEE RECOMMENDATIONS - REACH I
Station Canal Side Elevation of Levee Sheet Pile Cutoff Elevation Length of Setback from (msl) Section (msl) Sheet Pile Existing I-wall
0+00 to 1+40 E 5.0 Inverted T 13.9
1+ 78 to 2+80 E 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 58'-0" 3' 2+80 to 6+60 E 2.0 Concrete 13.9 0
Inverted T 6+90 to 13+70 E 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 58'-0" 3'
14+70 to 21 +00 E 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 58'-0" 0-3'
0+00 to 2+10 W 13.9
2+38 to 6+60 W 5.0 PZ-40 1.39 58'-0" 3' 6+90 to 13+10 W 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 58'-0" 0-3'
14+10 to 18+00 W 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 58'-0" 0 '0 s:o (JQ 0 18+00 to 21 +00 W 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 58'-0" 3' V.l, N V1 "''1 ...... ~~-~ ilil.... "J---,.~ ~.~.l ... ~~ ...... -".~,"""-~ ...... -...,...... -.----....1 .~~ 1."::-"': '
TABLE 3-2 INTERIM FLOODW~ AND LEVEE RECOMMENDATIO' S-REACHill
Station Canal Side Elevation of Levee Sheet Pile Cutoff Elevation Length of Setback from (ms}) Section (mst) Sheet Pile Existing I-wall
37+00 to 52+00 E 7.0 PZ-27 13.9 34'... 0" 3'
52+00 to 58+00 E 7.0 PZ-27 13.9 34'-0" 0
58+00 to 69+60 E 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 49'-0" 3'
70+30 to 85+35 E 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 49'-0" 0
85+ 70 to 100+80 E 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 49'-0" -2'
102+20 to 120+10 E 5.0 PZ-40 13.9 49'-0" -2'
37+00 to 69+60 W 7.0 PZ-27 13.9 34'-0" 3'
70+30 to 80+00 W 7.0 PZ-27 13.9 34'-0" -2'-( -3')
80+00 to 85+35 W 7.0 PZ-27 13.9 34'-0" 2'
85+ 70 to 94+00 W 7.0 PZ-27 13.9 34'-0" 2'
"0 ~ 94+00 to 120+ 10 W 7.0 PZ-27 13.9 34'-0" -2'-( -4') (JQ CD Ul I N 0'1 :I TABLE 3-3 ;I UTILITY RELOCATION SCHEDULE 11 i t • • Station Description Disposition r 1 1+23 48"0 Drainage Force Main Remains - Adjust Floodwall · i around existing pipe 'r li 6+55 Overhead Power Lines Remains · , 10+59 Overhead Power Lines Remains f i i 13+08 12"0 Gas Main Remains - Install Temporary J , Bypass i j 14+18 12"0 Water Main Remains - Install Temporary ~ 1 Bypass 1\ 49+88 Pedestrian Foot Bridge Remains - Install new conc. ! 1 i i step
T t 69+35 Pedestrian Foot Bridge To Be Removed, Replaced f i 1 with Sidewalk on Bridge i 1 69+44 10"0 Gas Main Remains - Install Temporary J Bypass
~ 1 1 ! 69+46 6"0 Gas Main Remains - Install Temporary ,( i Bypass I t 11 70+40 12"0 Water Main Remains - Install Temporary Bypass 1 r i1 d • 84+91 5"0 Gas Main Remains - Install Temporary Bypass
fI 1I i 1 85+00 50"0 Water Main Remains - Install Temporary Bypass .,-- 1
1 ~ , ,\ I 85+13 Pedestrian Foot Bridge To Be Removed, Replaced with Sidewalk on Bridge
page 3-27 · , ! • 1 TABLE 3-3 (continued)
UTILITY RELOCATION SCHEDULE
I Station Description Disposition • j 100+60 Overhead Power Lines Remain 100+66 18-5"0 Telephone Conduits Remains - Provide Split Sleeve Casing through Steel Sheet Pile 101+55 10'0 Steel Siphon Tube Remains - Temporary Removal during Sheet Pile Driving Only 101+64 52"0 Steel Discharge Tube Remains - Temporary Removal during Sheet Pile Driving Only 119+87 Pedestrian Foot Bridge To Be Removed, Replaced with Sidewalk on Bridge 120+49 12"0 Water Main Remains - Install Temporary Bypass 121+10 Overhead Power Lines Remains
Ii I 0+00 to S&WB Primary 25 To Remain - Relocate where 100+00 Cycle Power Cable necessary
j i . ,
_..l ! t
1 I : t
j j
1 j ~ , page 3-28 LEVEE I FLOODWALL IMPROVEMENTS BRIDGES AND PUMP STATIONS
DESIGNATION LEVEE HEIGHT TOP OF WALL HEIGHT SHEET PILE SECTION & LENGTI-f DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION PLATE 3·1 A 2.0 13.9 INVERTED T WALL J STEEL SWING GATES B 5.0 13.9 PZ-40, 58' LONG K STEEL ROLLER GATES BUl'k & Associates ~ [ne. C 5.0 13.9 PZ-40, 49' LONG L FLOODPROOF BRIDGE DECK & Engineers. Planners • [·.I1,ilonmenlal Scientl>ls D 7.0 13.9 PZ-27, 34.5' LONG RAISE PARAPET WALLS ~ew Urleans, LOllisiana E 7.0 13.9 PZ-27, 34' LONG M RAISE BRIDGE PARAPET WALLS F 6.5 13.9 PZ·27, 34.5' LONG N F~AISE CONCRETE FLOODWALLS LONDON AVENUE CANAL G 13.6 AT DRAINAGE PUMP STATION Ii 11.0 17.5 PZ·27, 33.5' LONG. o RECONSTRUCT 8RIDGE WlTIi FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PARAPET WALLS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
;,SSQf:,CE A,U ,"0 G[ ~Ic..', l D :O.:,. .... lE 1'= 1 ,250' :"dlLrl.:J R[Y:£"'E~ 8407 Gi. TAI"lD CA.·E P\..AM H HA~,D C,,[Cd D >llE r.O u, .. - ?O~ q. 1~1J~ Lt) -
_ Concrete Cop Z~8')( 3'-0'
7 E aces ~ q'-O'(tJ C c
SOUTHERN RAILROAD BRIDGE
38'-0'.. 1!~7..-. ..--- .3ra'-o'_;:;~.~-,-. ""-0' j l!O' 34'-0' t7-0't . 13'- <0'. ___ . __ f: Q' --'v '" ~ I _-______28'- 0' 2G~9%'(t) Wa}1 _ -4' AI. Rat/Post r-="-Sraewalk -- .-- .. T _Sidewalk' porapeJ 5idervalk ___. Sfriewall< --@ 4':t-o/c.crlfP·) • 7'.CasUnplrz 7~.Casl in place Slab Parapet - 'Nail --
Concrete --Diaphrogm Concrete Cop . ::Sleel Beam • w/e-3",.3x o/IQ' := ·SO· JC -'G' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 20 5JeeJ Beam (@r.;5.4f) "ngle5·(T'I~.) Ji-Beam --_ .- 8Z~}'(:!:)(T'ip.) ____.. _ =-. le',/> 5/eelPipe pjJe_ Timoer 8'x }Z' _ - CT'IP') Piles--:connot 00 seen. .. - J -_(~OpoCifq __ perpile- . .. f3_5/eeLGjcd~r:1.e 4~a~~_o/c (~~ZL~) _·_Design Loaa" 85Ton5) 14'¢ Timber pde (50' /ong) . ROBERT E. LEE BLVD. BRIDGE I_. __ _ TSleeLP1Jes @ 5-0 (x) 1"c ( T'ip,) FILMORE AVE. B RID GE
71'-0' 1!0'=--
BENEFIT ST. BRIDGE
.3?!. q.' __ Zl'-~---
I ,'I .' I I I I I," I I .' I -I I 1'" I I·' I ·1 I·-I· I 1"'-1
~-t--- Con c re t(LeOp- DeSIgn load:::. 35 /01'75'/Pt'le e 2'-1'
'0 -<;t, llurk & Associates, Inc. Ulgin..n • l'lannen • En yirunmnuJ Sci
, I 9 Pile Foo rmg I~ Pile Foolin9 .9 Pile Foofing Ie PIle roofi"9 .9 Pf/elccfin9_ -.-.-~----.------____... _ EXISTING BRIDGES ·'TILLY BLVD. BRI DG E . Nole ,A " Piles·· are-G5' /on9 ·;010155 "8 "':umher_Pl/e~ •.. _::.: ... GE " --·-Plle-co oeif -.-loTon5 ---- .-~~...... --- TYPICAL SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND .. LEVEES _BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS. . GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM .ORLEANS _LEVEE_BOARD_ ORLEANS LEVEE .. BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049 - 0269_ '- ...... - .' ... - .. -----~-.,. ' .. ---- - .---.... -~.-,-.-.~.-.-: ..... ~-~ ...... ----- .. ---.--.:----.-.- -.--- ..... ~--, .~:.-.- .... ~ ... --.-.. -. -,- - .~. c:l-t Slrvc/vre
Brid Ih =-- -- 4'-0" Sic/ewa/I<. I 12~o'-10_~G'-0' 12~O' 10 gr;;'-o' . ill (Typ.) _ .New Exlerior GirdertJ _.. 6ee Tobfe fo bc provided at thHJ eneet I Mlraboau Ave.Filmore I I I AYe,Roberf£Lee8/vrJ. I I ___ JI I I I ~ Leon C. SImon 8lvd. '------~~~~*FR_------J ... ---- ar/de; ~ [ --~-.O-~~~1~ E;Ci~/;I7 PLAN DIMENSION "A" TOP ELEVATION OF BRIDGE NAME ~ (MINIMUM) PARAPET WALL Beale: " - 50' GenfilJl( Blvd. 8ridge .-- 7'· 13' 1.3.85 - . ..- Mirobeau Ave. Bridge 5!.../0· 1.3.85 - Filmore Ave. 13ridge 10'-.3' 1~.135 Rober! c.lee Blvd. Bridge CD'· ,9" 1.3.135 - ._- Leon C. 81m<:>n Blvd.13rfclge 5'·/0" 1.3. r;;o' '20 ~ --New Parap.1 Wall r--'---~~-=i-H.W.E!ev.I1.t35 . 10 !T--!!!!!!,,!~:!5!!!~"'"'"-::::tt-- New Blab E~ifll. Grovnd Line 1;r-ry--~--1i! EXISTING STRUCTURE o , I ~ ',I "I o 6cale:Ye.'=/'-O· I q • I " I 'I • , " 1Z.' 20 ELEVATION Scale: Ho,-iz.:I'==-50' Veri.: I' .10' Bllrk 4.~ Associates, Inc...... ~. P'ta..nnc-n. £Jlvin.Jnll)f!'fltal ~ N~ Orleans.. Louisiana ALTERNATE I .- PLAN AND ELEVATION LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NQ2049-0269 IUIOO_ 1 .. ,3 . -~ 8Z'-.3' , . ------~---.. -~ 4/~/'Iz.' 41'- 1'12' '. TOTAL UPLIFT TOTAL UPLIFT FORCE ACTiNG FORCE PER 5'·0' .:3 Z'- 10' G' ?' 3Z~ 10' ~'-O' BRIDGE NAME RECOMMENDATION ~- ON BRIDGE -~~ PILE (TONS) ( TONS) Top_of Wed/ ------I l!lev.l!J.85{T'fP) L southern R.allroad I3ridge - --- -" .- -- Floodgates $Ic:ie wOIIk.-. - f- 6ir:iewa/k. t New Brlr:igc Z_l3eneftl S/reef 13ridge ' 5C02 . IG.20 F/oocigo/es ( New 8n<:l<]fS @ l!J J I ~ .. ~ .. -. . /~8-:- . -~- I? '- e,' Y T - T y~~ VNew~8eQm ---~ -'- 1'~Anchor ~elf/ .&1", Jl,J,I, .&I..i I New I J3eQm (T'IP') ~"A CTlfP')' -- ..- ! sleel n ~!:" ?:4'~- .orlB'?_P.P.C. PiPit.- eCT,-{p.)Pi', ~~_. _/'¢)( I'-G' .... nch~ f • ., " ~- ., :13011 (Tl(p,) ~ LI ~J ~ yq. r - (TlfP)"" - f- !-It- -f-'-~ -!--~.. ~ ~ I~ ., _ f.Ex1 olin9 Cone. Cop ~~ ~ I ~~ I 3''''' !~. - ,,~ -t- .- (74 :>.) - ~ t '.'~ ~~ -r. rt~ ... f, . 31'00 p.5.f. ... ~,/q.·'iLS/ee/ Pipe Pile or ,'-h ~ Iel ...... h "iT ~~ri-1' ,+-, i ~X"8!. Cop =1: p . T8· i Po RC. Pile (Typ.) r- f - -+ I 1" .... r· I . Concrele(TIfp.)-z-...... (Fer sfeel PIp<: \~ ...I --l~ "t' .l..! "t' \.+..' :~E l! k!J Uf-I, ~ - Piles enl'1) . .... " II r": \ -~~t~ ~' ~ ~i7 ~Ne~Cbonn~ ~t, I Exf5hn9 -Cop-...... c)(iefing ·Pile,-- .- . "e)(i3Iin~ - -1" .ll- ~" c.. It-. I . Pile ('iP') ., v <1T4P) - ~ Y4 ., " --~~ - . -_. = --.-- -_. =F-- -. F ." .... - l'-A SECTION A-A ~ PLAN J =CScale: Ye··I~O·J=- - ( 6 caJe J 1fz' =~ o· ):- PROPOSED TENSION PILES (Q) ROBERT E.LEE BLVD. BRIDGE -" PLATE 3·4 - J r. ~, ,.,.. "'OUW"~ .. Buck & Associates, Inc. £.nPn«:n • f'Wln - ALTERNATE I TYPICAL SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND _LEVEES_ , BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS "-><"1 ...... 1"'''-'' ;t'-O' '28'-0" )0' '28'-0· 1'-0' I -----=.--- - 1 ! ! Ii ! ! ! I! ! ! , -- :, -j--~i r-i- -r-+~i -I--i· 1 ---I -+------_I_.JI !'-.. I- 'I-'-! -I -1- 1 1 I ----- + I ' i ! Iii iii iii I ------III I t t I ~ I~~r~;;t~i:~r~h~';;i~7;~~~~~) I ! 1 P;/e '2'-0' 18 -aJ I CL .. pr~co,' C~C. I I!l 1 L"A I~ ~B ( TlfP-) SECTION A-A I London Aye.Cona/J Scale Yd'· /'-0' :3'-o;JL PLAN -.JL.z:g' . Bcale: i'· 50' - P.Vl. ero. /9 + 97. 00 EI -to - -/0 .. Bllrk & Associates, Inc. Enginecn • PIa.nI1en • E:n,"i~tal SOenti3ts 1-5 20 '25 Sew OT!ea~ loui.5iU\.8 ELEVATION MIRA BEAU AVENUE <3cale: Horiz. I' "'60' V~. t' -/0' OVER LONDON AVE. CANAL ALTERNATE-2 LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS PLAN a ELEVATION ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ~rt JOetooQ 1:;Jt.~O".W."'. 1!C..AI...l'~$HOW)Jf .....'Il10 GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ~..:...=yu....::...... __-.I 8407 \"' ...... a.p. I,.... JA.1ge.- I ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NQ2049-0269 """'-- L~" "'}Q.J. L'~''''' 1 l ",.9 PROTECTED SIDE S?~o' Il~ O· 15'-0' /I' 0' e/-o' ~~q:'1 : 37'- G' :3?~ G' ~O' - 8'-0' f-kJ-,~-·1-'='·~4"::::" 0~'-1~4-T1J,-..l<:O~'·=-·1-+-4-" o-'-,------"''-'----=------e-e- p-a-c-e-6-@--·'1-!la-S.'--;-·-a-:-fe.- G- 8-'--0-·------=..!...-=------·--I,:'i-'.oTo ! ,,~ 60. .'-0: I, Zc~ 1 1 +- lH A it:- ,rCO"crel e P,J;ng (T~p.l I iL •• ho/a w-\.- In :t ,t: , " '!' " !' I :i: 4l 1+1- l~ l? .1"':- FLOOD SIDE PLAN II'· 0' (Sco/e-: Y4'· 1'-0' ) 11'- 0' (A)..... I ______, I ~------~7~5~'..~O~'(,~o~)p~le~n~I~·n~IQ~G~0~t~e~) I(~ ______, , .37'-6' :37'-6' , , , I ., i -L4"4)C~8 Gale I K . G)i of __ • i ,,-vertical Seal Ii. '[[Enr:li Seal ~--- .0, ~ I ..... ,Seal ti,l!l. Vart'e~ I J _ _ _ '\j - ~ ------+------'tl rt: rh m etl rt, ri~ rtl r: d' rh rt:m it1 ~t jl{ l+l ~ . -4l \ llL J~L I~ Jtl JtL Jll ~Concrele Piling (Tl(p.) 4' .91obilizohon Slob 1..1, -r FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION ®-... (5 cole: 75'-0' :F-j' e'·o' ~ r~ ~ ... :IL-- ______-.I __ --.- «4.: '0 1.4 ., .. ~" ~ .~ 0) It) /' I -t--"'::::"'. --+--- Vuhcal Seal ri- -...... -- ' k;' ~ '". ~ F- _~ rl Seal oX -, '---I- .-'-- - t Seal ti ----- ~ -~ PLATE 3- 6 ~--~i------4r---~, 3'- 5' J ~ ~ _1 :Jt:!I.:__ -':::" .. 10'- G' :38'-0' .3S'-I' S'-5' llurk & Associates, Inc. 48'- G' 48'-(0' ~ • 1'IAnnn-. • Em-irurunrnt&i Scienti>ts Sew OT!ea~ LouCsl,1na PART PLAN FLOOD SIDE (Scale: Yz' ·I~O') MIRABEAU AVENUE OVER LONDON AVE. CANAL ALTERNATE-3 FLOOD ROLLER GATE LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GATE MONOLITH ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ~T1 ~1lIO. I (JI:SIQHlO K,W.I(, I ~..'*I"3 NoTtO J iltCStllQ GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM 1-""_&-___--1 8407' 1"'-A.UlI LV.a. 1""'1 oU<'Q J ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049 - 0269 "-"'..... 1',,",,"-'0 >4.G.J. I ",.., I ,3.,:3 PROTECTED SIDE - 83/- O· 1!5'-S' /15'-9' J!5'-9' 10'- 9' /0'- 9' 2'0; I" "I 'I "('~I r" l I ~.~ ,. l ,. .~ .. ~ [52.')( 2,' Piloe/er .~ ~ (I Woll.-/' ~ · I'. ~" - -- ., ~ '0 , - ·l\. - ~ee Gale Slop De/a'; - eheetr;of" -:--...... ---- '- ~ ~ . 0) .' · . ~ 2"~~ .~ ,-B08<: Blob) -- N ~ r-t, rt' '-h .-t .-t., rh . ' I-. <:j (TIIP') ~4" s/obilizolion - -ltl- I;)- ~Concrele Pilln9 -Y- -¥ J.tL Blob ( I- Wall )-_- No Ie ;.. ELEVATION FLOOD SIDE Guard Poel noL ~r..own -: ~ cloril~~ .- ( Scale, -3/8'-I~O') for __ - ,---- PLATE 3-7 :,:';___ lCIIIII .... '""" .. Hurk & Associates, Inc. ~ • Plannen • Envirorun<"Tltal Scinlti.>ts Sew Orlean3. Lou131iina MIRABEAU AVENUE OVER LONDON AVE. CANAL ALTERNATE-3 FLOOD ROLLER GATE LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS STORAGE MONOLITH ....ao..~ ...... I"...... I I=j-~I==I=::::- .. ---~~---- ... ---t-----~---~=------t--_-- ___ -.::::;ab ____ .zo:a --.. ------~l- ... ~~-... ----+-~------i------a.a-:1:a- ...... ~--~--- ... ----1 .. ------1:---- __ ~-- ==-~=-6-1c::s.,. I~ j • " • : l II JL ~ ~ • I I ~ II II:~- f, ? Spocea @ Z~?'h·(+)· /8'-8' Gote S,-/rnrnelrz'col about i FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION (8eale; "/4-'.'!O' ) -, . ~ 'l ,... 4~...... ' ..... ~~. . '" '." ", ;~~: - - • J:3·(TyEJ.. L4x.4 x '7'a? "':"lr>~::" 'y c.,VerlicQI ~~ft - I 3') - PROTECTED SIDE .:3 (Tiff'll . r,'"cj> DrQin Ho/es(TIIP:) in ..t~~&. ",' t- .. , ' . II ill ill (Typ. m+ ~m / W3Gx./S4 and W3Gxl35 III II~-} ~ ::: "'! 'II "ooh' :i! ill " 1iL_. r.....lU , I '~I;';:{'., .5: , liLt- itt''" (9 ~ Ul_ _JJ.t i ~L5}C3~}C1c_ ...~ t.: .. I ~ I _!.a~' h A H - L • f---;-r.------F----~ -;--r---r-;------y.------; -;,------T.;------f' -----iJ.------. ;-----... c,,;------1".------.- ;------";------.-'---.-~- /-nlnc rI 't~'~~9 ==. b======_======1 :======IL======JL======1b======p======'b======p=_"",_=_.J~=====Jb======Jb======:o==---:=-t' L I c::. ti Va tt"IBXO'~ Jt~e"'<,;/' ~/h' I---' CTy p. ) '\ '\. II---+-=-''-'-- R,) :rr- -1:1 = I I I 11!-- -:!1 r--SJ PLAlE3·a .. Hurk & Associates, Inc. Ellgint"," • P1 onnen • £nvirorunnlta.l ScirntiJu New (hl~an"" Loui~iln. MIRABEAU AVENUE OVER LONDON AVE. CANAL ALTERNATE - 3 FLOOD ROLLER GATE LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES_ BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GATE DETAILS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM. ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO.2049-0269 Jl!" 0' _ ._ 4'·G' z'- Z' 5'.10'. . (9 PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE - Column F'oce II 8enl II Verhcol Seal Ii II I Rubber S(!oJ I Ii 1z x ""0:-:: I :-- I L 4 x 4>< 0/8---=-- i' (,../11 , PROTECTED Skin PROTECTED V II ti7r.. , II II ,I ~ ~ , 11 II I :1 II , L 5x.3Yz",Ye VeriiCO/ 11 Ii I Sea} Ii ~ Supper! 6eol ISvpp¢rt an91e 'I II , I II , 'l! I .! ~ II I II lisA3x5 I Q II I K:>r;;1I::lI'101------4- .' I II , -'--lio/ax5 0(') '\ ii ,LE·.L ~.J.II/' __ I"-Ie? -- . I' -1----'- (9 4' 8 fabflizo!ion -'t\J . ____ :31ab 4. %'<$ xt!'h' Hex.;'~o<:l -, boll w/wo!J~r fZ hex. ON n ~ ~'" Nole:"-, 0 .... Porlieulor al/enhon ::3hal/ be given \.9 -, _, to 'Yelcf. oa/us/men! or bollom ~eol _ ~ - .. - _In order-fo obfoin a-perfect eeol , - - - with seQI Ii.. , ~ -.J. 4' Slobilizolion Slob Cancre/e Pilin9 llllrk & Associates, Inc. ~necn • Plannen • uwirunmeotal Scic:nti>U Sr-r Orlca.ns.. Louisiana MIRABEAU AVENUE SECTIO N ® GATE STOP DETAIL (Seo/tI: )Ie'· J~o') '- ______{ N. T. S. ) __--=- __ _ OVER LONDON AVE.. CANAL LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS _ GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM _ORLEANS_LEVEE_BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO.2049-0269 " f--'.... =.=-_-----I 8407 --:-=-:~_+_---=-=..:::..::..-~ <;; ""~ PROTECTED ~IDE .:)e,'- 4" __ _ e)-Of 4'- G' - - 28'- 10' rOpeninq) __------7 ~ 4-' ------7~ 1'14'------?~ 1:;4'~--- FLOOD SIDE _ :.St.Trar::~-=-- - -I -tr.c..ack2;. '0 i, 'I II '11\ 1,',' ,J'I • ..!,. A i ---,:~-T -L 4 x 4 x sa,~---'-- +----~~~__~rl~--/~ ~ rt, rt, rt, II lIB ~ tEnd 8ent_ '0., L+-l -( Le iJj ----+-L--l-t---l-l-+----·---+-Ll-1Jf--+---+-L+J ---+-+-=1J - ~r----f-,...y.,....J~-t---iJ-+ ~ . . ~ b cD / ~ -1. L ~~ -. 'f---+---l' , J 'f---+---l' , I ~ .' ~ cD i----J----l!I-~J- f--+H,.ng~~ped •• JaJ~ ~ I ''--=seal "-.6'~ ~"x'Xy.. ~ _i.1'OOlin;f-- . . . 1~e,' 4" I - __ De/ail W . I .If __ .J 1;} ·'1 --+--+-rt'l _ .' rf, rt, +-+-++------+-+-4I--+----t-trh' rt" rt, __ r+, ___ ..r... t_'I--+----1N .... : ~ -I--m ' J - ". , , TI F1~ 4.J L+.J t Lt.J ~~ ~~ , I . I i I I : L : ~ 04 " -- 4 ,.- --I \"-t---t---P-f-, ..~ , • FLOOD SIDE PLAN 'O)IL_L:::t+-:t====t====t:M=1 C Scale: 'Je"-/~O') Concreie Pilin9 (Typ.) 38'- 4-. SECTION 0 (Sco/e; Ye"cl'-O") .1 t:) e/ 10' Ii Sle: t CR5 l Top of sill ..·(9 4'· l11e' - - I 4'- 1/ Ye" I() • '«l \j) .' ., ~ "-- ~! ~t." 1> x Gi" A ncr,ons r- 12" O.C. 8to9~e SEAL PLATE - DETAIL ill __ (Scale: 3"· l~O") ·(9 , ~ '1" Stab(/Iza/{on Slab ELEVATION Concre/e Pilin9 (TIfP') - (Scole: t;z",. l~O') PLATE 3 ·1 Burk & Associates, Inc. ~ • l'1annrn • Enviruo:unn1laI Scienti>o N.".. Orielin'<. louisian.o RAILROAD CROSSING OVER LONDON AVE. CANAL SWING GATE LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES __ BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GATE MONOLITH GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM _ORLEANS LEVEE_BOARD .ORLEANS.LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT N~2049-0269 .. 33' 4' - ._- -_. _...... Z:-o' ... . . 28',.,10' . .. . - ... _.. _.-- .. Z~G· "-3' V- Upper-Hi.nge- .. .. ,- '" ./ .. . rr= -~ ~ i ~ . .. r 0" . . .. _. _...... - .. - . .-. -. _."--- '" ... 0 .. _. I ------. "-- - '- '._------._------.k ~ , ~t::: - ,_. I I I ~T5 14)«(;,> Ie r-- I I ~ ======".:c.n ~hn K. . -it--"~ ... -I-=-y = -'-" . '.... ~" L4)(4x~ PROTECTED SIDE ,_ :'0' '."'~:JIT' 6"...... ,,).:.7 '.':'. Side Seo! ..., t>~\ .:. ~~ ..' ~t>.: ' .. ;" fl. !Ie x 4 CTl.{p.) ....:. 1-'" Droin Holes. bolh~~ ti!tex13"!t>W/'dlh vorie~ 10 auit W /4x 30 (l W 14)( 2G _-=-:...=~==-_:::.._ depth of bol/om W e.hope5 (Tllp.) . FLOOD SIDE ._------"--'- .- ...------~ ------______~-~--=-~..~~.~ .. = .. -~-~.~---~~P~LA=TT~E=3~.~1 llurk & Associates, Inc. Engineen • Ptannen • Em-in>runnrtal Scicnti>to Nt'" ... Ot-Ican.s. Louisiana RAILROAD CROSSING OVER LONDON AVE. CANAL SWING GATE GATE DETAILS . LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES. _~'oARD.OE.LE'J'EE_COMMISSIONER~ ....., ...... GENERAL_DESIGN __ MEMORANDUM_ ORLEANS_LEVEE_BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE. BOARDCONTRACL NO.2049 -0269_ """-- PROTECTED SIDE 20'-0' Roll Beef/on 11"0' ito 'i Bents \ l PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SIDE 4'-0' 4'-0' Place roll join/~ ~o . thaI 20 feet of trocJ<. \9 can be removed - (or driving pfl1'ng. Nofe: Crooo fie_ apacing to .'0 , -- be determined hlf R.R• 4' stobihzalion Slab--~ IZ'" Conere/e Pilee (7yp.) fA'.. ~ 8feel Sheef Piling SECTION 0J (FALSEWORK SPAN) ( S cole: %'. I~O') 40'· 4" lsi Fooling iR.R. Track. ~ __ ~i P.P.. Track. FLOOD SIDE PLAN - FALSEWORK 4'-0' TO' z!o;;' (Scole: 3/8··/~0·) FLOOD SIDE PROTECTED SIDE I sill ze/'lO' 7~ 4' Lsi P.R. TraCK 12'xllo'x.e?!0· pile cops to be rc:moved.-__-+r- 1>:tT"Y--++-Afler bose s/Qo I1QI3 cured, . contractor :!nQll proVide Bock.fill WIth balloef offer conlfnlJolJ(J "teel ~hl'rn . remoyjng steel beam l3upporl for Iv' ,<:>;<}OO beom (J on bo~e slob. 13eom-~holJ .' eupporfs ond IZ'xJ2' ~ limber pile COPI3._ then be cut fo 0110 w (or (arming ond pourin9 of 90fe sill ~ - __ ------.- SECTION (A)(FALSEWORK REMOVED) (S cole:' 3/8 ' - I~O' ) PLATE 3 ·12 .. llurk & Associates, Inc. [ngi",-","' rlann",..' [nVirurunnltal Scienti3u St:w Orlean." Loui..siana FLOOD SIDE ELEVATION - FALSEWORK BENTS Note: Faleework bt!nfl3 On Protected RAILROAD CROSSING (ScQ/o: 3/ '" I~O') Side are eirnl/ar to Inose S on Flood Side. OVER LONDON AVE. CANAL LON DON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO.2049-0269 PROTECTED SlOE VARfl!"G FLOOD SIDe ("1' 1 I 3 ,015' 7' 3' VARIES FLOOD SIDE VARIES _ J' f2"DZ7' 10' O· 70 =' l r--r-=:- 20 r- 7' -20 r--=-- .j ...; CVTQI'F cL. f3"1 ';.,.1 et.trCTF EL 13 q \J) ~c t-~ __ ~r-~E~L.~/~I.~9_U~A~X~.~W=A=T~r~R~L~E~V~£~L_ ~ ll.- Ilq M.U: WArER LEVEL ~ 10 - ~ ~ I f.; ~~ EXI5TIIJG FL;OODWALL '* EL 7.0 <1-' - 10 ~ IV 70 3H t-71<~r;;;w,*J:~;::E_L_.I 5._0 . PZ-27, 20 LONG -/!Xf57"lt-.!G FLooD+1/ALL ~ ''-' 'v VARIES ~ ://, IYro8H EL 0.0 TV EL.. • 4.0 YARfES ~ o - //~, -- 0 EL ~5D TO -2.0 - ~..... EL. -5.0 /.AIIJ. WATER LEVEL EL. -50 MIN. WATE'? LCYEL ~L/ .....,.,. - -10 ~ ~ II.J ~ 17PEL -20.S --20 11---PZ-40 SHEEr PILING ReACH II 58'L0'V<3 STA 21-00 TO 5z;.(. 87.-a:;1 £AST 51 DE AND WE5r 5rOE .,.: £){~T7.vC; nOOC>W'~ 7V ~ R'EMO DOW,v ro ELEV..(T;c:K/ ~TI,ltV./ ~£.£ ArTER COMPL.£T?OA/ or /J£W ~~. rTf"EL. -440 REACH I STA. 0.00 1'0 srA. 2/-00 W'£sr SIDe STA. "80 TO 5TA. 2.80 CASTS/DE STA . .:;,.(,0 TO STA. 2/"00 GAsr SiDe ,; : EYr.sn.vc; noooWALl.. ro 6e ~VGD oc;;w'- PROTECTED SIDE I IB' FLOOD SIDE VARIES VARI£G I O'TOI2' /.8'7024' I fO" EL. fl.q MAX V'i4.TER LEVEL PZ·27 SHCE:T PlUNG 34'LONG rTf" EL. -eo. 0 PLATE3·13 REACH III ...... " 5TA. 37'00 7OSTA. 59-00 EASTSIDE ~. a7'00 TO STA. 70'00 WEST 5/0G Burk & Associates, Inc. ~ • !'I&nnr:n • Uln"""orn TYPIC4L SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT N~2049-0269 ....-.- PROTECTCD 610e FLOOOS/C>£ FLOtXI SlOE /Q' ItJ' YARrES VARIES VA/C'tES MIN. 0'- -4 Z4' T0.:33' 10' Z7' TO 33' 7' cO C(,/rQFF a.' I~. ~ J II) E/". 11,9 MA X. WATER L,n'EL E/... 11.6 MA)(' WATER LEVH ~ E/... 7.0 /0 EXISTJI.IG FLOODWALL L.J IV TO 2H RlPRAP l.J""' FlU- AS REQ'O. TO t... VARIES REACH Ct-• .. 5 0 £L.-IO ro eL-4.o 0 -~ EL. -5.0 MIIJ. WATER LEVEL VARieS ~ a. -40 TO -"'.0 0 i:: -/0 ....~ U-----PZ-Z7 S/-IE£TPILIIJG, .34'LONC; ..J pz- 40 SHEET Ptu/W3 !oJ ~'LON'G TIP EL..-200 np E/...-~5.0 -Zo. REACH III REACH 1Il STA. :5"-'00 TOSTA. IZO"'/O EASTSICIC STA. 70~~ ro SrA.IEO- 10 WEST 8/DE' , • SE:TdACK DISTANCE BETWEEN CXISnNG F1..000wALL • seTdACK DI5TAAICE 8ETWEEN EXISnNG nCCOWAU AND NEW CANTILEVER I'WALL VARIES 8ETWEEJ.J AND NEW CANr7LEVER I' wALL VARIl~S BeTWeEN 3'5ETt3ACK roWARQS PROTECTED 510E OF E.(ISTING . 2'SETBACK n:::>YVARD5 PROrECTED SIDC OF A..OOOWAU AND 2' OFA!5E r n:;Ji.¥~ FUXJO SIDE EX/STING FLOODwALL AND 4' DFFSE, roWARDG OFE.'C16T7NGI FLOODWALl... FLOOD SIDlE OF' EUISTING FLDODWALJ.... M::JTE : r:;ROSS' <;£4.DC !.hr TO.£XC'E£D I V OJ,/ 2. '7 1/ "",. EXISTIM:; FZOOoi« E/". 11.6 MAx. WATER LE:VE:L --.,------. --~ -.::: ~AVAlLAe,LE: FOR e C/...-5.0 MIIJoWATER LtYl/.. , -zo REACH IV W£..5T STA./ZOfOO TO STA,IZ7~OO WT£ : c;ROSS r;RADE wr. TO .D:C££D IV 0. PLATE 3 ·14 ". llurk & Associates, Iuc. ~ • PIann.n • u-.,;runn>nlW Scienti.ts ~C'V o.-karu.. Louisian. R£COUUE..uacO .c¥.A..u .RAe L.£V££S AA./O ROOOH/ALLS TYP/C4L SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO.2049-0269 ...... 1--'-----+'------1 2", 4 FLOOD SlOg 50' PROTECTED SIDE .34. S' 20 .J c.; CvrOF'F E1... 13 (., tL.II.6 MAX. WATER /.EVEL ~ 10 I-- 4J tt 0 ~ E/,. -5.0 MIIJ. WATER LEVeL EL. -'0 ~ () ...... -10 ~ t..J PZ·27 SHEET PlUM:; -J $4'·7·~ lc.J nPEL. -etO -20 R£AC~ IV £"AST 5TA. It?O+ 40 TO "TA. 127 +20 ~Te: ~ qRADe WT TV GXC££P IVoV.!!711 ~: £XISrfNq rzOOOWALl. TO 8& R£<-fOVEP OO.v.v TV £l.LV~TIOA.I Q&" C;'I.li'T,t./,e,(/ L.E:VE£ AFTeR COMP£.£T!Oi(/ or ,<.I::;V nooowAV... 10(..' MIN. F7..OOO 510[; PROTECTED SlOe VARIES 10' 2>:,' TV 41' 1 V TO JH E/". IJ.5 (N£T GRADE.) EL. Il.!S MAX. WATER LEVEL IY TOJH I EL. -50 MIN. WATER LEVEL EL. -1).0 -20 I PLATE 3 -15 llurk & Associates, Inc. f.ngincen • f'Wmcn • un-ironmrntAI Scic:nti>U !'("W OrI~In.s. Louisianl R£COMM£IJOE 0 ,c(A..I/,rQI? LEVEES MlO nCX:::VWALL S TYPICAL SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD !-::;::....,.="~_-I GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM "' .... ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO.2049-0269 ...... - owe . _ .... _~. .. .-..._'f_ . ___ ._J..,..-. ___ ' ._._ .... _. __ -o...-___ ~_. ___ • PROTECTED §IOE - ,0 .j ClffOFF EL n.5 or; EL. I/.!5 IvIAIf. WATER LE:VEL EI..ILO ~ -=------L.!.. V TO -4H - 10 \... -...:.::::::--,. EL. 5.0 ~, . ~~---:~ ~ ~____ -----=~====~------.~------~~~------0 ~ ~-:?;'7" $TA. 14~ '50 TO STA. I~' 70 wesr &'OE ~ srA. 147-50 TO srA. 15"'1' 'to ~ST SIDe •• _NOTE: 8ErweOl STA.I4<,-50 AND 14'1~!50 CurOFP EUII: FOIi! STEEL SHEEr PruNc3 77CANSIT7ON/3 FROM e/.... 13. ~ TO EL. 17. 5 •• NOn::.. BeTWEEN srA. 144+50 ANO 1-47+50 ctrrOFf: ELEV. FOt'? 6TECL.. SHEeT" PILIM3 T7'CANS/T70N/3 FR'OU eL. a3. s TO eL.. 17.5 - PLATE 3 ·16 o llurk & ~iates , Inc. ~ • I'I&nn R£CO<-fM£,vOEO Pf.A,(/ R:Jr€> l.£VE£S A.W Fl.OOOWALLS • TYPICAL SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO.2049-0269 \' 1'!O'j ,-______~L~L~./~J~.'~------ ~ . , , . ," ~ ':.' . ,~. ... ~.~ : I' OIAUFER (TYP.) EL. "7.5 il ' .. t. " " ...... £L.",/7.0 .... ". ... ", ~t-.-!::::":"':"'!.:.:.:~- , . ~. '. . /':. \ ~ ", .. ~' .. : :'. .. .. ~ ~ . ... ,', ... .' ' ... ::.:. " .. ," . . :;..... '; ' .. ~.' EL. ~/3.q ., . ,I . .' ~ ." .... " n ,",' .. ~ _,I,'.f .' n ", ...... -. "' to ... ," ~ '.:', . ,',". "; .... " , . :,::',,;: ., , .:' ~ \ "; ~ , I ',. ~ ...... ~ '" .....<9 ; ~ : 'f i '. ; .' .. .: ~ .. ' t;I ': .... ',' ,",," . , ": ~. . '-. .' /~ #; !'CC !',US 71' LONG , •.. ~ • • ·c. II~; -'CC PIi,IS 41 r CAP {'T£IItl) , 1I~'LONa .~ /I '.~. O.C REACH V 71' r CAP (];OKIf) /#-; I'CC I'/L£S ., .' I~' L "1'nS PERMANENT CCWCRErE~ /6 '-II' o. c . " .'. .' EL. 's,o OVER CANVl EVER SHEET PILe 76' r CAP tcl>N') " '. WIlli £ARrH LEVEE Ar EL ./1 0 : REACH r INVERTeO 'T' WALl. pz-40 5r£EL g7'"A. 2 + 130 TO S7'"A.5 +50 EA97'" SIDE 5HE£rPIUNG REACH If - IV PERMANENT CONCRETE CAP OYER CANTlL.EYFR SHEET FILE WITH gARTH LEVEE AT EL. .. ZO PLATE 3· 17 REACH I -III ~ENr CONCRETE: CAE.. OVER CANtiLEVER SHEEr PILE WITH EARn! LEVeE AT EL +50 !.IoI~ : For Conslrucl/an PUrposes. Ex'-sl/ng St-I ~ Ale ;-Vill Be CuI t;;'. Burk & As...~iates , Inc. orr f.ngi"",," , Mannen ' Em'in>nInmtal Scin,li..u l'..... Od.... no. Loui,ian.a CONCRETE FLOODWALLS TYPICAL SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049 -0269 ...... 0- N WALL 'F" E'X\5T. GA"CE 1"0 ee: i{(.P\..ACE.o "2 o 'rlAll 'C" 'rlAlL '0" o ? .3 E'X\'5itNG. eU\lO\tJCi - N.o. '5.l'!w.~. PLATE 3 -18 DAA\tJAGe: PUMPING '5TAi\ON No. ~ llurk & Associates, Inc• .5IT£ PLAN w~neen • Plannen • wvironmental 5OnJti3u Sew Orlea~ Loui5ian. I. 0 16 Jl DRAINAGE PUMPING SCALE: IIJ ~££T STATION NQ 3 SITE PLAN LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049 - 0269 lop at Ne ...... \-10.\\ U. \~.05 M.5.L. Flood. '5 ide lop at E">'-·\~t. Vall E.\. \'Z..'Z. M.S.L. f"'lood '5 ide WALL "A" '5cole·. \ " " \'-0' l -- .. C:\~cho.~a,'-'''lt. woH I I I \-lOon? E.l.7.0 M.'5.L. I 1 ,~ ,J ~, J j i Wall r-' ---- ~ '- irE~"1. ,I ,I __ ------l l....---__ ~,I , I 'r----:::j. ~- F'i I' ~'P""c.c ..... ,\'h - "",en' 9f"'OUt WALL "S" WALL "C" WALL "D" <5ca\e '. \' .. \'-0' '5<;ca \e: '3/0 '. \'-cI "3<:ote: 0/0'· \'-0' Top or ~e"" \00101\ ,..-+.-'" :," ".:. E\. \3.05 kf.5.L. ?ro~ecleJ '5ide E",~L n .... ~5.1... '. IOf' or E,o'5t. 'w'o I I El.rJ E.I. \-z..~ /.1.S.L. --I I I I PLATE 3 ·19 J 1 WALL "F" ,J, l , llurk & Associates, Inc. , 1<---___ ----1 Eng1neen • Pla.nnet'S • r..n,"ironmentaJ ScienU3t.S Sew Otfearu.. Loui3iiilna WALL "E" DRAINAGE PUMPING '5cole: ~/o·· ,'-0' STATION NQ 3 T'fPICAL SECTIONS LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISS lONERS ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD "'...... J .M.e. I "-'" "'~ ~>1O'J\J I ..., 000 GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM 00·...... C.H.'!>. I'" 4/~ I ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049 -0269 C"i;C"t:D ..... () J. "'\.1 -.0. Z JI 'l. J ,J __ ---.J ) 1 - -- ) I ) N I ) I STA.IOJ-OO ~ .-l- ~ J 1 I -¢- I I I I I ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 f- 19 ~ Q: Ct 1 W 12' WALL 'G,' fL.IJ.BS ~ I I J ~ 1...1____ _ I t- - I I I o I ~g!~TPtf fd-~:'PIP~S PLATE 3-20 ~------'I I SITE PLAN ..." "'., ,...... ~ ... Burk & Assodates , Inc. ~ I Wll;ilX","' Ptannen • wvirorunnltal Scicnwts 16 0 16 Ji! ~t'W Ode8r1!J. Loui!iana SCALE IN FHT DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NQ 4 STA.IOO-'oO I SITE PLAN LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DES IGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049 -0269 Weef [!xlerior face of r:.xi:Jj,,,:" . N.O.D.F.S.N!4_. . E.lev. 13.135 Elev. 13.135 Elev. 13.85__ PROTECTED SIDE FLOOD SiDE_ _FLOOD ._'310E. r--:--"[. PRQU.CTED SIDE nOOD SID!! PROTECTED SIDE. I .'. 10''; 10' ~-r-r-'~ 'O::~ J"'.. E/ev. 10.73 Elev./0,?3-: . iQ v . ). : ..... 0 V ..... E/ev.9.44 :> l!lev. 3.44 1 I: o ~ () r ~ E 0 Elev. 8. q.q. 8.44 tJ 0- ill i- E!e.v. I: t( .: Elev. 9.~4 - r-- ..... ~.i1-....- 8 N '1 fl U ~U ~ ~ :.: g ~ .~ y 1--'---'- ~ -'---'---;'-"""'1 '-- .... lI.J ...: tJ G' I (0 I 7" 7" ['-a' ~ 0/ ~ n ';-:":.: 'i:( IaJ iI.J , ..... !~ 0 e.!ev.. 5.44 Elev.5.q.q. I Elev. 5.44 I -- l- ~ t· f 1 t WALC"A· WALL ~B'" WALLS·· .. C·,· "D", "e-,"F", "G·~ "H" EXISTING PR.OPOSED EXiSTING PROPOSt:O I!XI<.3TING -.. PROPOSED SECTION SECTION -'"""" SECTION - WALL .J" PROPOSl!O ';"PLATE 3·21 Hu.rk & Associates, Inc. Eng;"",,"' Plannen. Enyirunm<'Tll31 Sonlwu ~ew Orl~aru.. Loui"ianl DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION N!? 4 TYPI CAL SECTION LONDON AVE. CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF LEVEE COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO.2049-0269 SECTION IV CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES INDEX Paragraph Page Number Title Number GENERAL 1. Scope 4-2 ~ 1 t t FIRST PRIORITY ; i 2. Bridges 4-3 3. Levees 4-3 4. Remaining Flood Protection 4-3 SECOND PRIORITY 5. Levees 4-4 6. Pumping Stations 4-4 7. Conclusion 4-4 8. Construction Schedule 4-5 TABLES Table Page Number Title Number 4-1 Priority Schedule for Bridge Openings 4-6 4-2 Priority Schedule for Levees and Floodwalls 4-7 4-3 Construction Schedule 4-8 PLATES Plate Number Title 4-1 Construction Priorities 'I f ! • page 4-1 SECTION IV CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES GENERAL 1. Scope. This section addresses the sequence of constructing flood improvements along the London Avenue Outfall Canal to resolve the most critical areas in present flood protection as a top priority item. After n completion of the first phase, then a continuation of construction will upgrade i 1 the remaining parallel levees to result in accomplishing the completion of the , , interim flood proofing in accordance with the design criteria obtained from the i Corps of Engineers. Eventually, permanent flood proofmg will be scheduled to complete the entire project. • r ~ . I ~1 ,. ., • 1 page 4-2 '"1 i . ! • I SECTION IV CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES FIRST PRIORITY 2. Bridges. The first priority for eliminating present gaps in the flood protection along London Avenue Outfall Canal is to floodproof the existing openings at seven bridges along the canal. These seven bridges listed in their 1'1 order of priority order are shown in Table 4-1. As seen in Table 4-1, the , ! Ii 1 present bridge elevations vary between elevation 4.19 msl and elevation 10.03 ms!. The additional height necessary for required flood protection is as much as ,. , 9.66 feet of additional protection at the Gentilly Boulevard Bridge, making this 11 the top priority item for construction. The other bridges require between 5.48 feet and 3.57 feet of additional height to meet the required flood protection !, 1, , t levels necessary under this project. lJ 3. Levees. The top priority levees to reduce potential flooding within this project are the earthen levees between Robert E. Lee Boulevard and Lakeshore Drive Station 120+50 to 160+00, See Table 4-2. After the bridges have been modified as discussed above, this reach of levees represents the highest priority for required flood protection. Present levee heights vary between elevation 9.0 and 10.0 msl on the earthen levees between Robert E. Lee and Lakeshore Drive, adjacent to the London Avenue Canal. These levees must be as high as elevation 17.5 msl in the vicinity of Lake Pontchartrain due to wave runup. Therefore, as much as 7.5 feet is required to be filled by these levees making them a top priority item. n II 4. Remaining Flood Protection. Upon completion of the Phase I construction items, the most critical flood protection level along London Avenue Outfall Canal will be elevation 10.50 msl. The remaining construction will fall under the Phase IT of construction to eliminate this difference between elevation 10.5 and 13.9 msl as required protection. ~ I I ( i 1 page 4-3 SECTION IV CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES SECOND PRIORITY s. Levees. The second priority for providing flood protection to the area adjacent to the London Avenue Outfall Canal will be to raise the remaining levees south of Robert E. Lee Boulevard to achieve the req~ired level of flood protection. As seen in Table 4-2, these levees are prioritized beginning with priority number IT-I through number IT-4. The east levee between Dillard University (Station 21 +00) and Prentiss Avenue (Station 101 +00) is the first ! r item under the second priority due to the present I-wall configuration. The , i .. l present I-wall consists of a 20.0 foot length of M-115 sheetpile section supporting a 4.5 foot cantilever I-wall. Also natural ground elevations in this particular reach are as low as -4.0 msl adding to the critical stability of this 1- wall. The next priority is the west levee between Dillard University (Station 21 +00) and Robert E. Lee Blvd. (Station 120+00). This present floodwall is similar to the east floodwall with only slightly higher natural ground elevations adding to the stability of this floodwall. After completion of these two reaches !!f 1 offloodwallthe existing floodwalls between Drainage Pump Station No.3, Station 0+00 to Dillard University Station 21 +00, east and west of London Avenue Canal, need to be upgraded. These present floodwalls in this reach consist of a 20-foot length ofPZ-27 sheetpile with approximately a 7.5 foot cantilever I-wall. The last reach of floodwall requiring improving is the east floodwall between Prentiss Avenue and Robert E. Lee Boulevard, Station 102+60 to 120+00. The present floodwall in this reach is a 32-foot length of PZ-27 sheet pile with an 8.0 foot cantilever I-wall. This section of wall was constructed in 1982 and is the most recent improvement to the floodwalls within this project. 6.· Pumping Stations. Also within Phase IT of construction is the need to raise existing floodwalls within Drainage Pumping Station No.3 at Station 0+00 and at Drainage Pumping Station No.4 at Station 101+00. The existing concrete floodwalls adjacent to each pump station need to be raised to elevation 13.9 msl as well as construction of new concrete floodwalls across the masonry pump station structures to provide the necessary flood protection. \. j 7. Conclusion. The construction of the necessary flood improvements along the London Avenue Outfall Canal will require several years to be page 4-4 , 1l . I completed. Therefore, it is necessary to address the most critical gaps in the present levee system as the first priority of construction. Upon completion of the Phase I, a similar schedule of construction is necessary for levees and floodwalls within the Phase IT. For a map summarizing the proposed construction priority schedule, see Plate 4-1. ! f I , r 8. Construction Schedule. A proposed schedule of construction for both . ) the Phase I and Phase IT interim floodwalls and levees is presented in Table 4-3 . Total estimated time of completion from the initial start of the design phase is 3 years and 3 months until completion of the interim flood walls and levee construction. jI "+ .:!: J page 4-5 ,•• «."41 litH' ,,""~"'" ,. .,. '-"~:";-.• I-'---- ...,.!,,_. ",. ("r...... ,. TABLE 4-1 PRIORITY SCHEDULE FOR BRIDGE OPENINGS Flood Present Required Priority Critical Protection Number Location Station Elevation Elevation I-IB Gentilly Boulevard Bridge 13+50 4.19 13.9 I-2B Benefit Street Bridge Rollergates 6+70 8.37 13.9 I-3B Robert E. Lee Boulevard Bridge 120+25 8.64 13.9 I-4B Filmore A venue Bridge 85+50 9.15 13.9 I-5B Mirabeau Avenue Bridge 70+00 9.27 13.9 I-6B Southern Railroad Trestle Swing Gates 2+20 9.33 13.9 1-7B Leon C. Simon Boulevard Bridge 127+60 10.03 13.60 "'0 ~ OQ (l) ..p;.. I 0\ .,.---~, -....•• "'1 "'- ...--"" ... "4 ...... tII ..... ~:..-Ioi~ ...../-' '--I· ...... " ...... ~ :~~:J ...... ,t----...... -T"N ..' .• ,,",,~ :::::':j 11---... ~- TABLE 4-2 PRIORITY SCHEDULE FOR LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS Present Required Flood Priority Critical Protection Number Location Station Limits Elevation Elevation 1-1 Robert E. Lee Boulevard North to 120+50 to 142+00 9.0 13.6 Transition Area, West 1-2 Transition Area to Lakeshore Drive, West 142+00 to 160+00 10.0 17.5 1-3 Transition Area to Lakeshore Drive, East 144+50 to 160+00 10.0 17.5 1-4 Robert E. Lee Boulevard North to 120+50 to 144+50 10.0 13.6 Transition Area, East 11-1 Dillard University to Prentiss Avenue,East 21+00 to 100+80 10.5 13.9 11-2 Dillard University to Robert E. Lee 21 +00 to 120+00 10.5 13.9 Boulevard, West 11-3 Drainage Pumping Station No.3 to 0+00 to 21 +00 12.5 13.9 Dillard University, East & West 11-4 Prentiss A venue to Robert E. Lee 102+60 to 120+00 11.5 13.9 Boulevard, East "d Po) (fQ ("D 11-5 Drainage Pumping Station No.4 100+80 to 102+60 10.5 13.9 .(::::.. I -.l 11-6 Drainage Pumping Station No.3 0+00 12.5 13.9 ..... , ... ,...... ,.. -.. ~ """+'---""! :::':.:J t-: :::.:.:J ~'"'''''''''' -- TABLE 4-3 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE TASK CONSTRUCTION PERIOD (Months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 39 FIRST PRIORITY Interim Floodwalls and Levees Design, Plans and Specs Review Bidding and Award Construction SECOND PRIORITY Interim Floodwalls and Levees Design, Plans and Specs ~ Review cfJ (l) ~ Bidding and A ward I 00 Construction PRIORITY SCHEDULE FOR LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS PRIORITY SCHEDULE FOR BRIDGES 1-1 ROBERT E. LEE BOULEVARD NORTH TO TRANSITION AREA, WEST 1-1 B GENTILLY BOULEVARD BRIDGE PLATE 4·1 1·2 TRANSITION AREA TO LAKESHORE DRIVE, WEST 1-213 BENEFIT STREET BRIDGE 1-3 TRANSITION AREA TO LAKESHORE DRIVE, EAST 1-313 ROBERT E. LEE BOULEVARD BRIDGE Burk & Associates ~ [11(" 1-4 ROBERT E. LEE BOULEVARD NORTH TO TRANSITION AREA, EAST 1-413 FILMORE AVENUE BRIDGE Engineers. Planners. 1:,)\ i,ol1ln,·ntal Scient"t< 11-1 DILLARD UNIVERSITY TO PRENTISS AVENUE, EAST 1-513 MIRABEAU AVENUE BRIDGE ~ew Orleans, Lc.01lisial1d 11-2 DILLARDUNIVERSITY TO ROBERT E. LEE BOULEVARD, WEST 1-613 SOUTHERN RAILROAD TRESTLE SWING GATES 11-3 DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NO.3 TO DILLARD UNIVERSITY, EAST & WEST 1-713 LEON C. SIMON BOULEVARD BRIDGE 11-4 PRENTISS AVENUE TO ROBERT E. LEE BOULEVARD, EAST LONDON AVENUE CANAL 11-5 DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NO.4 FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES 11-6 DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NO.3 CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD ::.(.A,E 1'=1,250' ~I.~~r.,::; ORlEANS lEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049-{)26g I_P_'V_Tjo/_'"____ ~ 8407 1-0 '_"_"_"___ !-_c_/t,;E.____ ~ p\""N IN ~iANO SECTION V COST ESTIMATES INDEX Paragraph Page Number Title Number GENERAL 1. Scope 5-2 TABLES Table Page Number Title Number 5-1 Cost Estimate for Recommended Plan of Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase I 5-3 5-2 Cost Estimate for Recommended Plan of Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase II 5-7 5-3 Cost Estimate for Alternate Floodwalls and Levees 5-10 5-4 Cost Estimate for Alternate Bridge Modifications 5-13 5-5 Cost Estimate for Recommended Plan for Future Permanent Floodwalls and Levees - Phase III 5-16 page 5-1 SECTION V COST ESTIMATES GENERAL 1. Scope. This section addresses the estimated costs for constructing the interim and pennanent flood protection improvements along the London A venue Outfall Canal. Also alternate plans are presented for comparison with the recommended plan cost estimate.The cost estimate for the floodwalls and levee improvements included in the recommended plan are shown in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. Included in these tables are all costs including levees and floodwalls, modifications to existing bridge crossings and flood protection measures at the two drainage pump stations. The costs for alternate levee and floodwall improvements are summarized in Table 5-3. The costs for alternate bridge modifications are summarized in Table 5-4. The future costs for the pennanent concrete cap construction on the I-wall floodwalls is summarized in Table 5-5. Typical sections of the new pennanent concrete cap can be found on Plate 3-15. page 5-2 TABLE 5-1 COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODW ALLS AND LEVEES PHASE I Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach I - Steel Swing Gates at Southern Railroad Demolition Lump Sum $2,500.00 Falsework 2 Each 40,750.00 81,500.00 Gate Monolith 2 Each 42,000.00 84,000.00 Steel Swing Gate (28' opening) 2 Each 24,000.00 48.000.00 Subtotal $216,000.00 '- Steel Roller Gates at Benefit Street Storage Monolith 2 Each 4,750.00 $9,500.00 Gate Monolith 2 Each 8,750.00 17,500.00 Steel Roller Gate (31' opening) 2 Each 24,000.00 48.000.00 Subtotal $75,000.00 New Low Level Bridge at Gentilly Blvd. Demolition (except ftg. & piles) Lump Sum $120,000.00 New bridge 9,180 S.P. 30.00 275,400.00 - Approach Roadway Modifications Lump Sum 30,000.00 Concrete parapet walls 72.73 C.Y. 275.00 20.000.00 Subtotal $445,400.00 page 5-3 TABLE 5-1 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PHASE I Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach ITI - Floodproofing of Mirabeau Ave. Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $50,000.00 New Steel Girders and Tension Connections between Slab and Girders 247.19 L.F. 445.00 110,000.00 New Concrete Deck and Parapet Walls 327.27 C.Y. 275.00 90,000.00 Tension Connections between Cap and Girders Lump Sum 25,000.00 Tension Connections between Cap and Piles 60 Each 500.00 30,000.00 Subtotal $305,000.00 Floodproofing of Filmore Ave. Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $35,000.00 New Steel Girders and Tension Connections between Slab and Girders 263.16 L.F. 380.00 100,000.00 New Concrete Deck and Parapet Walls 261.82 c.y. 275.00 72,000.00 Tension Connections between Cap and Girders Lump Sum 25,000.00 Tension Connections between Cap and Piles 64 Each 500.00 32,000.00 Subtotal $264,000.00 page 5-4 TABLE 5-1 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PHASE I Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach IV - Floodwalls and Levees - Station 120+00 to 127+00 Levee embankment fill 15,500 C.Y. 10.00 $155,000.00 PZ-27 steel sheet pile 23,460 S.P. 14.00 328,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 2.2 Acre 1,000.00 2.200.00 Subtotal $485,200.00 Floodproofing Robert E. Lee Blvd. Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $40,000.00 New Steel Girders & Tension Connections between Slab and Girders 360.36 L.F. 333.00 120,000.00 New Concrete Deck and Parapet Walls 327.27 c.Y. 275.00 90,000.00 Tension Connections between Girders and Cap Lump Sum 25,000.00 New Steel Pipe Piles (for uplift resistance) 30 Each 1,530.00 45,900.00 New I-beams to Connect Piles to Caps, including all Connections Lump Sum 15,000.00 Subtotal $335,900.00 Reach V - Floodwalls and Levees - Station 127+00 to Station 160+00 Levee embankment fill 67,000 C.Y. 10.00 $670,000.00 PZ-27 steel sheet pile 90,110 S.F. 14.00 1,261,600.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 7.8 Acre 1,000.00 7,800.00 Subtotal $1,939,400.00 page 5-5 TABLE 5-1 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PHASE I Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Floodproofing of Leon C. Simon Blvd. Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $10,000.00 New Concrete Parapet walls 185.45 c.Y. 275.00 51,000.00 Tension Connectors between Steel Girders and Deck Lump Sum 20,000.00 Tension Connections between Cap and Girders Lump Sum 30,000.00 Tension Connections between Cap and Piles 95 Each 500.00 47,500.00 Subtotal $158,500.00 Summary of Estimated Construction Costs Recommended Plan - Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase I Reach I $ 736,400.00 Reach ill $ 569,000.00 Reach IV $ 821,100.00 Reach V $ 2,097,900.00 Estimated Construction Cost (E.C.C.) $4,224,400.00 Contingencies (15% B 633,600.00 Design Fees (5.75%) 279.300.00 Construction Cost (C.C.) $5,137,300.00 Surveys 95,089.00 Design Memorandum 168,942.00 Geotechnical Investigation 95,000.00 Testing Laboratory 25,000.00 Resident Inspection (1.4%) 68,000.00 Project Cost (P.C.) - Phase I $5,589,331.00 page 5-6 TABLE 5-2 COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PHASE II Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach I - Floodwalls and Levees - Station 0+00 to Station 21+00 Demolition Lump Sum $11,000.00 Levee embankment fill 1,500 c.Y. 10.00 15,000.00 PZ-40 steel sheet pile 182,352 S.P. 20.00 3,647,000.00 Concrete Inverted T Floodwall 380 L.F. 1,900.00 722,000.00 Utility Adjustments Lump Sum 70,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 2.0 Acre 1,000.00 2.000.00 Subtotal $4,467,000.00 Floodwalls at Drainage Pump Station No.3 Construction Dewatering Lump Sum $50,000.00 Reinforced Concrete Floodwalls 69 c.Y. 500.00 34,500.00 New Fabricated Steel Sluice Gates 1 Each 12,000.00 12,000.00 Subtotal $96,500.00 Reach II - Floodwalls and Levees - Station 21+00 to Station 37+00 Levee embankment fill 2,100 c.Y. 10.00 $21,000.00 PZ-27 steel sheet pile 110,400 S.F. 14.00 1,545,600.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 2.5 Acre 1,000.00 2.500.00 Subtotal $1,569,100.00 page 5-7 TABLE 5-2 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PHASE II Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach III - Floodwalls and Levees - Station 37+00 to Station 120+00 Demolition Lump Sum $21,000.00 Levee embankment fill 32,000 c.Y. 10.00 320,000.00 Riprap fill 1,000 c.Y. 14.00 14,000.00 PZ-27 steel sheet pile 350,370 S.P' 14.00 4,905,200.00 PZ-40 steel sheet pile 292,285 S.F. 20.00 5,845,700.00 Utility Adjustments Lump Sum 387,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 12.5 Acre 1,000.00 12.500.00 Subtotal $11,505,400.00 Fioodwalls at Drainage Pump Station No. 4 Construction Dewatering Lump Sum $50,000.00 Demolition Lump Sum 10,000.00 Reinforced Concrete Floodwall 30 C.Y. 500.00 15.000.00 Subtotal $75,000.00 Summary of Estimated Construction Costs Recommended Plan - Interim Floodwalls and Levees - Phase II Reach! $ 4,563,500.00 Reachll $ 1,569,100.00 Reach III $11,580,400.00 page 5-8 TABLE 5-2 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF INTERIM FLOODW ALLS AND LEVEES PHASE II Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Estimated Construction Cost (E.C.C.) $17,713,000.00 Contingencies (15% ±) $2,657,000.00 Design Fees (5.75%) $1.171.300.00 Construction Cost (C. C.) $21,541,300.00 Testing Laboratory 75,000.00 Resident Inspection (1.4 %) 285,000.00 Project Cost (P.C.) - Phase II $21,901,300.00 page 5-9 TABLE 5-3 COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach I - Earth Levee Crown Elevation 7.0 msl, Cantilever I-wall Levee embankment fill 10,000 c.Y. 10.00 $100,000.00 PZ-27 steel sheet pile 119,816 S.F. 14.00 1,677,400.00 Utility Adjustments Lump Sum 70,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 4.0 Acre 1,000.00 4,000.00 Demolition Lump Sum 140,000.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition Lump Sum 1,570,000.00 Relocations Costs Lump Sum 168,000.00 Subtotal $3,729,400.00 Reach I - Earth Levee Crown Elevation 13.9 msl Levee embankment fill 97,000 c.Y. 10.00 $970,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 16.5 Acre 1,000.00 16,500.00 Demolition Lump Sum 380,000.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition Lump Sum 4,039,000.00 Relocations Costs Lump Sum 456,000.00 Subtotal $5,861,500.00 Reach II - Earth Levee Crown Elevation 13.9 msl Levee embankment fill 103,000 c.Y. 10.00 $1,030,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 11.6 Acre 1,000.00 11 ,600.00 Demolition Lump Sum 100,000.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition Lump Sum 1,686,000.00 Relocations Costs Lump Sum 120,000.00 Subtotal $2,947,600.00 page 5-10 TABLE 5-3 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach III - Earth Levee Crown Elevation 7.0 msl, Cantilever I-wall Levee embankment fill 58,000 C.Y. 10.00 $580,000.00 PZ-27 steel sheet pile 553,180 S.P. 14.00 7,744,500.00 Utility Adjustments Lump Sum 387,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 16.2 Acre 1,000.00 16,200.00 Demolition Lump Sum 111,000.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition Lump Sum 2.515.000.00 Subtotal $11,353,700.00 Reach III - Earth Levee Crown Elevation 13.9 msl Levee embankment fill 730,000 c.Y. 10.00 $7,300,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 71.4 Acre 1,000.00 71,400.00 Demolition Lump Sum 2,010,000.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition Lump Sum 21,494,000.00 Relocations Costs 2.412.000.00 Subtotal $33,287,400.00 Reach IV - Earth Levee Crown Elevation 13.6 msl Levee embankment fill 42,000 c.Y. 10.00 $420,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 4.5 Acre 1,000.00 4,500.00 Demolition Lump Sum 110,000.00 Right -of- Wa y Acquisition Lump Sum 1,233,000.00 Relocations Costs Lump Sum 132.000.00 Subtotal $1,899,500.00 page 5-11 TABLE 5-3 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach V - Earth Levee Crown Elevation 13.5 to 17.5 msl Levee embankment fill 130,000 c.Y. 10.00 $1,300,000.00 Seeding and Fertilizer 22.4 Acre 1,000.00 22,400.00 Demolition Lump Sum 20,000.00 Right-of-Way Acquisition Lump Sum 3,465,000.00 Relocations Costs Lump Sum 24.000.00 Subtotal $4,831,400.00 page 5-12 TABLE 5·4 COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Southern Railroad· New Elevated Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $70,000.00 New Bridge Structure 61,600 S.F. 70.00 4,312,000.00 Approach Railroad Modifications Lump Sum 50.000.00 Subtotal $4,432,000.00 Benefit Street Bridge Floodproofing Demolition Lump Sum $30,000.00 New Concrete Deck and Parapets 127.27 c.Y. 275.00 35,000.00 New Steel Girders & Tension Con. 242 L.F. 350.00 84.700.00 Subtotal $149,700.00 Benefit Street· New Elevated Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $50,000.00 New Bridge Structure 14,740 S.F. 20.00 294,800.00 Approach Roadway Modifications Lump Sum 50.000.00 Subtotal $394,800.00 GentiIIy Blvd .• New Elevated Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $70,000.00 New Bridge Structure 47,300 S.F. 20.00 946,000.00 Approach Roadway Modification Lump Sum 200.000.00 Subtotal $1,216,000.00 page 5-13 TABLE 5-4 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Mirabeau Ave. Bridge - Floodgates Storage Monolith 2 Each 7,500.00 $15,000.00 Gate Monolith 2 Each 18,000.00 36,000.00 Steel Roller Gate (75' opening) 2 Each 45,000.00 90,000.00 Subtotal $141,000.00 Mirabeau Ave. Bridge - New Elevated Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $60,000.00 New Bridge Structure 49,280 S.F. 20.00 985,600.00 Approach Roadway Modifications Lump Sum 50.000.00 Subtotal $1,095,600.00 Filmore Ave. Bridge - Floodgates Storage Monolith 2 Each 4,900.00 $9,800.00 Gate Monolith 2 Each 9,100.00 18,200.00 Steel Roller Gate (42' opening) 2 Each 26,000.00 52,000.00 Subtotal $80,000.00 Filmore Ave. Bridge New Elevated Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $50,000.00 New Bridge Structure 20,900 S.F. 20.00 418,000.00 Approach Roadway Modifications Lump Sum 50.000.00 Subtotal $518,000.00 page 5-14 TABLE 5-4 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATE BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Robert E. Lee Blvd. - New Elevated Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $50,000.00 New Bridge Structure 19,415 S.P. 20.00 388,300.00 Approach Roadway Modification Lump Sum 50.000.00 Subtotal $488,300.00 Leon C. Simon Blvd. - Floodgates Storage Monolith 2 Each 7,500.00 $15,000.00 Gate Monolith 2 Each 18,000.00 36,000.00 Steel Roller Gate (75' opening) 2 Each 45,000.00 90.000.00 Subtotal $141,000.00 Leon C. Simon Blvd. - New Elevated Bridge Demolition Lump Sum $90,000.00 New Bridge Structure 49,700 S.F. 20.00 994,000.00 Approach Roadway Modification Lump Sum 50.000.00 Subtotal $1,134,000.00 page 5-15 TABLE 5-5 COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN FOR FUTURE PERMANENT FLOODW ALLS AND LEVEES PHASE III Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach I - Concrete Cap Demolition Lump Sum $84,000.00 Concrete Cap over I-wall 2542.86 c.Y. 350.00 890,000.00 Regrade and Seed Levee Lump Sum 42,000.00 Subtotal $1,016,000.00 Reach II - Concrete Cap Demolition Lump Sum $64,000.00 Concrete Cap over I-wall 2114.29 c.Y. 350.00 740,000.00 Regrade and Seed Levee Lump Sum 32,000.00 Subtotal $836,000.00 Reach III - Concrete Cap Demolition Lump Sum $332,000.00 Concrete Cap over I-wall 11631:43 c.Y. 350.00 4,071,000.00 Regrade and Seed Levee Lump Sum 166,000.00 Subtotal $4,569,000.00 Reach IV - Concrete Cap Demolition Lump Sum $13,600.00 Concrete Cap over I-wall 474.29 c.Y. 350.00 166,000.00 Regrade and Seed Levee Lump Sum 7,000.00 Subtotal $186,600.00 page 5-16 TABLE 5-5 (continued) COST ESTIMATE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN FOR FUTURE PERMANENT FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES PHASE III Description of Work Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Reach V - Concrete Cap Demolition Lump Sum $58,000.00 Concrete Cap over I-wall 1134.29 C.Y. 350.00 397,000.00 Regrade and Seed Levee Lump Sum 28,600.00 Subtotal $483,600.00 Summary of Estimated Construction Costs Recommended Plan - Future Permanent Floodwalls and Levees - Phase III Reach I $1,016,000.00 Reach II $ 836,000.00 Reach III $4,569,000.00 Reach IV $ 186,600.00 Reach V $ 483,600.00 Estimated Construction Cost (E.C.c') $7,091,200.00 Contingencies (15% ±) 1,063,800.00 Design Fees (5,75%) 468.900.00 Construction Cost (C.C.) $8,623,900.00 Testing Laboratory $75,000.00 Resident Inspection (1.4%) 114.100.00 Project Cost (P.C.) - Phase III $8,813,000.00 page 5-17· A.PPENDIX A. PLAN-PROFILE PLATES INDEX \VESTSIDE Plates A-I through A-7 EASTSIDE Plates A-8 through A-13 .: " J; . • ..<::r . . .. , ••• , .. " .. ! - - ~- _-,---,I_--I._i-t-iH-H_+++I-+-+l_r-+1 - [ -- T H--H--H--t-t-+-t-+-+-+++--+-+--;--+- 1 1- ii • ii, t--t-- i r- Lr- -l-+-!j" t--+-t--i -- I - . I .-- __ 1 1_ • - 1 • H--+-H-+-H....JI-t--+i--t-yl-+-+-+-++-+-I--H - . I [ [I r 1 r i -I r i ; I • -, 15 '0_ 5_ -5 '5 1'00 2. 00 " .. 00 ~H'OO 6 . 00 7+00 10"00 WEST SIDE JOaNa. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PUTE NO. Eng i n~n ' Pl annen' En"ironmoP nl l l Sc;"'nll~ 1 New OrL Uni. Lou; , i. n. ORlEANS lEVEE BOARD CONmACT NO. 204N:261i1 A·1 .. ... L \ .~ . ' ...... ,J .1 /' Fh~:SS~~~~'~~GWAlC "- L r ~ ~' ~ ';J ~ EP.-: E BRIDGE AND RAIS~ p:Rl~ ET WAllS ,,fo ~ .IG -'\ ~ ~ g .. ~ ~ \. ". ~ . ~ -~' 6 ' r~~"'OEOF ~OolEvEE ~ ~ -.-. . I L.,.p,I V_,44,1MSL t T i ' r ~rl L " I J I 1 r I' 'J", +--1 r ~ j' ~ ~ J- 15 "" El ,J-J-J.- REO ' oTO PI OF)vA~lElE~. 13.9 ~S , .T » E~EV .2o.6f1Sl .-r ,I.:. l. _ 15 I-+-I---<--t-r-I-+- I I ~--L+ I --r--_ --I--L' 10 _ ~ I / . 12" W TERtvtA1N I ~ . ,- rx,STWG Tod 0; l£ £ I ' IAEO 'DTOflOF lEVE ELEV. iT.O MS,l ! T . _ 5 If REO',oTOP FlEVEEElEV 5.0 MSl , ( - I I~' - ~ 'I ,; I 'r~ 'L -'- . _ ~ 5 o ~ f-;-2~S""; - . ,~-'~, " ; -+-' """-+-+-, -1 ~- --I'~~_ -r-:-;- " t-.-.+,:~ ",, ~ r -'-~,'-- 1- - ~ -;- ": ;' ~ ,. I ~"~I-- " "" i . .: , , ", ", 19 . 00 21.00 l1!1 · 00 26 . 00 zr . 00 28 ' - PZ.27 STEEL SHEET PILE l~ , O' 3' SETBACK FROM EXISTING WALL PZ.27 STEEL SHEET PilE l:34.S' 8.: /""" TOE OF REO'o lEVIEE ~ 8.> ( 3' SETBACK FROM EXISTING WAll r, I \. 0 ~=~~~~~~ki==~~~:=~~~/ 5 " r:======:======~--~------~~~~~~~~~-~~--~~~~ I , - ,- . 15 15 - 10 10 - 5 5 - 0 o 4 ) . 00 "5 5 )1 ' 0 0 .51 ~ OO J~ . 00 ) 6 . 00 31 .. 00 ~ . oo 42. 00 W EST SID E JOB NO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD pun ... [ ng;~r •• Pllnl1oen' Environmr nn l Sc:i.nli ~1 Ne. ... Q, lu nl. loui. iu" 0RlEAHS LEVEE BOARD CONmACT NO. 204!Hl2ii' A·2 GREGORY JR. HIGH seliOOk .~~: ,.,tf,,,, ... ~:,::;; )j • 5 • . ~ ,-, • • , :~ ' ":." - ,. ~,~,:;: n a I 'to. H .,.... JO ! r-- _I ~ 15 +J : I, , _ 10 --i --. t I LL- . '-~. ! ! 5 ~ . r--, - 1--'--- I i 1 5 ;-1_ +_ -I " -" ' , 1--' , , i- I . - IL.... . _ I · " I' . Iv_. I, EICI!. I NG+c'=l==I=-rI=f4=l=+~H~=I==l==l=:/=R-' I 0 ...... Q . . , i 'I . ~,' I-I- I I ".1:: - I ' . I I 1 I -5 1'--1 1 I I I : I '5 I 4 1 _00 -1 6 . 00 48 _00 50 · 00 5 5 - 00 ..... " · 00 r , .... ~-!.j;~~ ~ ie', -~ 1"1 I TOlO OF'REQ'O LEVEE I_~. :t~ PZ-27 STEEL SHEET PILE L=34.0· g 3' SETBACK FROM EXlSllNGWALL, ''''}._ I ',-, . t I ':)ii' "¥f Jf ;>; ~ti ~o~ r;.~ • 3 . ~ ';;'.r' • " • ~ ~~ ~ ",:-:".- . ~. - [ .~~ . ~ 1/1 n ... ~,.' - "" I , - 15 l I-- I +_ L i 15 _ - • 1 TO' '" ~ -tQ LL LL-LFfsI-L14 L "''' '"' 10_ - - -, - ~ ReO'OJ OP-O"I LE~ EE ELI¥" . . 'Ol Ms\- ::=::r--'1. I '#'I I 'L7 1 -~=i,==:[:1I =1=--1 I -- ! . JF I I I ! I ) , EIC!S,INGT OPO ~ (Ve;( - r:- r--r~F ~ r-, f--:' f--- - -'- 5 -+ It--. I I I r ' ! o - 5 , JOeHO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PlATE NO. E"SinHn' Pl annrn· E n~iron m t nt a l Sci.nlilu New Orlu nl. loui, il nl ORL£ANS lEVEE BOARD CONmACT NO. 2\)4g..()2fj9 A·3 , w ~ • , It ·• ~ " . , , , , , I f , I ,. , - ,- , -, _ .. .. ,.j"H' I 12" , 'ATEAMA'N I ,- EXISYING TOP OF j .11"""1 ' ~. ([-~ 1--1.. AL~l r "-l- A'EC'PTOP F JA l~E lkv' I 13, t Ml l,'TlPf 5 5_ ~ o o 1 :L-. __ . _ _ _ ----1....- --+- .- - - I ~=--"":1-,-; 1,,,-I, :!-.",,-l!..!I~~ "".:. 1.c'-" ~, ~I -,--_Ltf .... !~:-"'I--'---''''".:,.•;;;;.~L-L, ... ~. oo",i---,--,i",,;-!-. 00;;;;-"-I L-L.;;;.:O,00",1--'--"0 ' ".-:0,00;;;;-,- 1-'--~ .;;c,.:O. ;;l.'--,--,' .. ".;;. oo;;;;-'--'--~, .. , .:Ooo.-L--'--.".-!- _ o;;..,-L-~."".:0 ."--'--.,,,':-. oo;;o-'----L-'w Eb T S to E -'0 JOaNO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PUTt NO. EnginHl'S' Pl lnnen · EnYironm~n ll l Sti.ntilh New Orlu ns, I.oui,il nl ORlEANS L£VEE BOARD CDNmACT NO. 204t-0261 A·4 ~', .::,~' ~"'t. 'l1~ ,.;" ~J,j ~~~:."'~i\.. "'""~'l , t,~;j~~8! '<1 '. ~' .!;".;! ~Pll:.Ec ~~.O ' ; WALJI. ~ li-~ ~~( ~~ .. ~~.~,~ ~'~J;'! ~. --'J .. n ~ l' ~ Ibl~ c' .. ~. _., " . s., jii';' Y .'" ,~... ,'.- ·"l~. ::t:d .~o:.J~p ~ ~ . " L ~ , '. __I . . r" . ' - I I "' ',' ~ " ,. =;- -- . ; " " '",,~ , = t '.: ~:~ l~ " ,2.- rt !.i '. ;'.- ·~3..... :.,.:.·!i '::~~:;~ :~(J:'~ l~·'~· Z ,' (~"., 2 '-"'N I ' :. .. l: . : ~~~' .~j,,: :~\,: ",<",,--),':, . E , , I I J C' - ~~ - I- ,v, .u :UI j W. ILL ~ LE , , IP L E .,'.'-1 ~S l ' 5 ! I h i - '5 - I I , 1 18 , 5': .,.<, I. - l- t f' '" I i ....!.Q. , . '0- Ir ',' ; I l . "',' .'" --S::""i" .,; ·,:t .~ ~!:: .,": ... .' . " t \ .. , , EXlSllNQ PEDESTRIAN BRIOGE TO BE AEMOVED .... ~;• , • II --N ~ - ill , , , I - 1 I L I c i ! ,V" V, ,.E LEI " '.9. ~S l TlPE .E) ,21 MSL rOY" , LEVE E '<0 ,t. M J08NO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PlATE NO. Engi nHn. Pl l nMn· Envi ronml'nu l Sci.n.i,u 0Al..£ANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2041-0261'1 A,S Ne ... Orl".nt, Lou; ' ;'n' :',., ,., t ~ 1 00, 0 ~J if:. , ,~ 10 , \ o . - 0_ - I , -, I -'- r I 1 j ) -10 , - 10 126*00 121.00 128-> 00 I]Z.OO " . , .. '40 ' 00 " - - ' . . 0 . , ~ ---!'-. -10 JOaNO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PlATE NO. E",inHn' PI.nnen· En"ironmt' nt . 1 Scian lj,u ORlEANS lEVEE BOARD CONmACT NO. 2049-0269 A-6 Nt'w OriOll nt . Lou,,;. n. " "V C O FRE~' D ~ -j- .i 1 -'- - i - ~ I ' 1'- I- r------(, - -I c- I , ,- - - I - " I r- i 1 , , -,. ,- - TO."r , - .~ -_.'- "• cv.~ ~t ; ,,""ii' .r'Z'n . ,r, ... , 105: ,_c,:~ MSL cOl 1 - ,--, - - I I I -- . 1 I I I-i--+-+--if-+-I--'-I , - _, I - - ! '" 00 ". 00 "'" '" 00 we' JOSNO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PlATE NO. EnginHn. Pllnnen. [nvironmr'n,.1 Stiltnl isu New OriUni. i.Quisilnl 0Rl.EAHS lEVEE BOAR D CONTR .... CT NO. 204t-026i A-7 :~ - ~ , I 10_ -5 - -...,. .------. 1 PZ·27 STEEL SHEET..!'!!:~LE~~~' __( ______--/ I 3' SETBACK FROM'S' L ~ z I. N 10 , 5 --...... i - --...... , I, f -I-:::::J:==hj..:i=l=='+:+ .::---:- ~ It ' 00 __ 5 I i i I 1<1 ~ 00 ,. 00 20"00 "'00 " 00 "'00 "-00 "·00 ."",. 0< JOe NO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD [nsonH"' Pla nn,,"' [nyironmtn'l\ Scienli,., Nt w Orlunt. LDuit i. n. ORLEANS lEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2049-0261 A· a ,~ " ~ ~: , PZ·27S1EELSHEETPILE PZ~27 I STEEL SHEET PILE W4.0· I , 3' SEJBACK.FROM EXlS11NG wALIi' • I 15 10 - _ 5 o ·5 28 · 00 29 · 00 30 · 00 31'" 00 34"00 3''''00 36 .. 00 -~I n •.. PZ·27 STEEL SHEET PlL~ 1.=34.0' 1Z.27 STEEL SHEET PILE l=MO' I 3' SETBACK FROM EXISTING WALL I • I, r- 15 15 10 ~ -~.- I r~ 1 ~- - .It ,,,l,, •• 1- ~ I. J" -:= ~ i .' I : ~ -,-: 1 o : r .. o . ,_ - -'--1--'--1 ~-~5~~-,~,~. oo~-L-',~, ~, oMo--~I ",,~.Moo~~I~,,~.Moo~L-~.,~.~oo~L-~.~•. ~oof-~~ I" '-,_~oo~~~".~o,~o~o~~I ~,,~. oo~-L~.~,~,o~o~: -L~,,7.. oMo--L-' ~,.~,oo~-L--~--LI---L--L-~L-EA'~S"TS~ID~E-5 JOB NO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PUTE NO. Entlnl!'en • PI."""n ' Env;fOnmp"..1 Sci.n""1 Nt .. Oriuni. Lo,lIti'fll ORlEANS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 204f-026t A·9 III L I 3' SETBACK FROM ...7 __ __._ I - a ... N , , r, :§, -" - j~ , I 1- '0 w, I;-;- t;- ~~ 9 MS++L : 1 l'L " 1" 1- r ~ j 0 't.NEWVlALL= 't.EXISTINQWAU 0 + ~ ,• •0 15_ 10 5 _ 0_ 82 ___ 00 611' 00 7 0 · 00 11 · 00 12·00 7 3. 00 74 • 00 75 ~ oo 76 ' 00 7 7 ' 00 18 · 00 79 .. 00 81 . 00 J06HO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD OUT< NO. EngltlHn. PI&nMn ' En~ironml!'nltl ScienlUoIl New O rluns. Loui~;lnl ORLEANS lEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 2G4t-026t A·10 g 2' OFFSET FLOODSIDE + ~ 15 10 I~ 50~W~TER 5 o g • z g • I • II IOO ~ 00 ..tOe NO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates , In('~ ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD PUTIHO. Englnl't'n' Pbnntf'$' [nvironml!'nnl Scienll1.U GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM New QrlUOl. L.oui~ian. 0FlLEAHS LEVEE BOARD CONTRACT NO. 204~1 A-.11 -: O· ILE ,,'f, .< 3'SElBACK 00., - ~ n 2 , .. ~. N -". ,,~- ,~ '''''" " ";r + "\ , • ., . + l- i L~LEV , 13.6 " ~ LoT1P""' -?n9M' ~ I .1 , + -t , :MlL .. PE ~c, 1f-tL I, , I" " ~,5r ; l- ~EC iDOP ? Fn~:., ! ~ ELE , 5 ~ L l- t-- 'r I, 0 i ~ - f I 5 I- t-. 1- 0 , -- I-_t-= f--t- 0- , -, 1=;- - -f------.2. I I 1-'- I - - - j I ' I I I If ~ • I I 0 I I- -10 ;' r I - I I I I , 0 •a ../ .... "'~.' , ~~ . ~ I I., 15 10 1 __- 5 o -5 121· 00 128' 00 129 ' 00 130 "00 Ill' 00 In · 00 133'" 00 I)." 00 Ill!. 00 138· 00 131 +00 EASTSIDE JOe NO. LONDON AVENUE CANAL FLOODWALLS AND LEVEES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8407 Burk & Associates, Inc. GENERAL DESIGN MEMORANDUM ORLEANS LEVEE BOARD "-''''NO. [nRInf'f rs ' PI. orw..,· Environmrnnl Sci. nliloll N~w 0,1'1'101. Louisiana ORlEANS lEVEE BOARD CONmACT NO. 204t-0261 A-1 2 London Avenue Canal Floodwalls and Levees General Design Memorandum APPENDIXB HYDRAULIC STUDY prepared for the Board of Levee Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District Orleans Levee Board Contract No. 2049-0269 by Burk & Associates, Inc. Engineen • Planners· Environmental Scientists 4176 Canal St. • New Orleans, LA 70119· (504) 4H6-5901 April 1986 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC STUDY Page Title Number Introduction B-2 Hydraulic Computer Model B-3 Pumping Capacities B-5 Computer Runs B-6 Modification No.1 B-12 Modification No.2 B-13 Modification No.3 B-15 Modification No.4 B-15 Modification No.5 B-17 Recommendation B-18 page B-1 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC STUDY INTRODUCTION A hydraulic analysis was perfonned for the London Avenue Outfall Canal to detennine the required floodwall height for hurricane protection. The hydraulic gradient in the canal between Lake Pontchartrain and Sewerage & Water Board Drainage Pumping Station No.3 was calculated for various lake water surface elevations, pumping capacities, and canal configurations. Still water level in Lake Pontchartrain under hurricane conditions is 11.5 msl as established by the New Orleans District Corps of Engineers. The proposed floodwalls along London Avenue Canal need to to be raised to protect the city from flooding during this hurricane condition, as well as the additional backwater build-up created by running the pumps at Sewerage & Water Board Drainage Pump Stations No.3 and No.4. The results of this hydraulic analysis, as well as justification for the recommended floodwall height are summarized in this report. page B-2 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC STUDY HYDRAULIC COMPUTER MODEL Calculations were perfonned on an IBM PC/XT microcomputer using the HEC-2 Water Surface ProfIles computer program developed by the U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center. The HEC-2 program is capable of computing friction and transition losses along the canal, as well as analyzing the effect of structures crossing the canal. Headloss calculated through bridges account for transition losses and the flow condition or combination of flow conditions -low flow, weir flow, or pressure flow. The hydraulic computer model consisted of surveyed cross sections for the 3-mile canal stretch, with reach lengths not exceeding 500 feet, and additional data at all structures crossing London Avenue Outfall Canal. A general layout of the canal and structures crossing the canal is shown on Plate B-l. The model was calibrated using Sewerage & Water Board rain load records for the May 3, 1978 rainstonn. The recorded high lake water surface elevations for this stonn at the Westend and Seabrook Bridge gauges were obtained from the U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers, and the average of these two elevations, 2.9 msl, was used as the starting downstream water surface elevation for the calibration. Canal flows were detennined using suction basin and discharge basin water surface elevations from the rain load records and the Sewerage & Water Board pump curves for the existing pumping equipment operating during that stonn. The data showed pumping capacities of 3190 cfs and 3500 cfs at D.P.S. Nos. 3 and 4, respectively during the highest recorded discharge basin water surface elevation (W.S.E.) for the May 3, 1978 stonn. The results of the calibration run are summarized on Table B-1 as run CAL. The HEC-2 model gave a W.S.E. of 4.04 msl in the discharge basin of D.P.S. No.4, which was very close to the actual recorded W.S.E. of 4.1 msl. At D.P.S. No.3, the calibration run calculated a W.S.E. of 5.65 msl, as compared to an actual recorded elevation near 5.5 msl for this stonn. page B-3 60" (6 S.8 w.B. PIPE CROSSING·,D.PS. NQ. 3 '., f7ll+ ~ SOUTHERN RAILROAD BENEFIT ST. y/ GENTILLY BLVD Y/ ./1// , o Z o o Z (j) ~ r /'TJ " oOJ o-, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING - ..;-- 1 z ):> < \TI Z e \TI PEDESTRIAN CROSSIN=t:J1 6"8 10" ¢ GAS LINE CROSSINGS ------MIRABEAU AVE. 2" ¢ ~ATER LINE CROSSING ---'0''r e -I "):> 5" C GAS LINE CROSSING I, 50" ¢ WATER LINE CROSSING-~I PEDESTRIAN CROSSING --,1\ -'T FILMORE AVE. C'> ):> Z ,):> S. S. w. B. D. P.S. N.o. 4 r ( Sl--PROPOSED 1,000 cis PRENTISS AVE. ==~LjJ/ fJ DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION 10' ¢ , . __J SIPHON CROSSING-· PEDESTRIAN CROSSING =l L _.--~~ ROBERT E. LEE BLVD. L----"---- LEON C. SIMON BLVD. \?f "'0 :z r ~, ~ tT, lD I'Ti 0 0 ~ :oZ 1.:" ...... OJ '-0 !Jl I "'O:J: "::: -""'= ., l>z-< ji"" J> ti 0 G) ~;~ ' ~ ~~ ~. \TI \TIC ::; Z c::: Jo..,.... \TI Zr e- -~./.CIJ:: ""I ~ LAKESHORE OR. gl ::0 w • C£ \TIC'> ):> _~ ~ 0 Z r Ou> :-' :::. ~ e-l :: ? ... p C'> -Ie =-:; :.: l> f· ~ ...,. CO Z ~~ :::: :::: t"": ):> , t- f (L. ~ , '0 'J.~ 0 , 2_ ""~ I ~ .-C'>"0):> 1 L A K E PONTCHARTRAI " I ,,-" N ~ ~z Z'~- 0 '!?):> 'J. • l>, I VI e :z I -I l> APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC STUDY PUMPING CAPACITIES The existing nominal capacity for Sewerage & Water Board D.P.S. No.3 and D.P.S. No.4 used in these computations was 4300 cfs and 3900 cfs respectively. The pumping equipment at D.P.S. No.3, excluding constant duty pumps, consists of 3-14 ft. diameter horizontal pumps, each with a nominal capacity of 1100 cfs, and 2-12 ft. diameter horizontal pumps, each with 500 cfs nominal pumping capacity. Pumping capacity at D.P.S. No.4 consists of 3-1100 cfs horizontal pumps and 2-300 cfs centrifugal pumps. Nominal pumping capacities are based on an approximate 11 ft. pool to pool differential head. A new 1000 cfs pumping station is proposed to be constructed on London Avenue Outfall Canal opposite D.P.S. No.4. This new pumping station would increase the existing 8200 cfs nominal pumping capacity to 9200 cfs., as required by the Sewerage & Water Board Master Drainage Plan. page B-5 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC STUDY COMPUTER RUNS Hydraulic gradients for the London A venue Outfall Canal were computed for various lake and canal conditions. The starting downstream water surface elevation at the lake was either assumed to be high lake level under a hurricane condition at elevation 11.5 msl as required by the Corps of Engineers or normal lake level of 0.0 msl. Five modifications to the canal or bridge crossings were analyzed separately, all in conjunction with raising the floodwalls parallel to the canal: 1. Construct floodwalls parallel to the bridges on either side of the existing structures for flood protection, which will prevent weir flow at all roadway crossings. 2. Construct roller gates in the existing floodwall openings and allow weir flow over all bridges and pipe crossings, except Robert E. Lee Blvd. and Gentilly Blvd., which will have to be kept open to traffic. 3. Reconstruct all roadway bridges above the anticipated high water elevation in the canal, with only the pile foundations interfering with flow in the canal. -- -- - . /" 4. Reconstruct all roadway bridges and the Sewerage & Water Board siphon crossing at D.P.S. No.4 above the anticipated high water elevation in the ) canal. Remove qll foot bridges and pipe _crossings with the exception of the 60" [ diameter pipe crossing and the Southern Railroad trestle just north of D.P.S. No.3. 5. Excavate the London Avenue Outfall Canal north of Robert E. Lee to Lake Pontchartrain, where necessary to maintain a minimum invert elevation of -11 msl in the canal. The results of calculated water surface profiles for the above modifications and various pumping capacities are summarized in Table B-l. A discussion of these results follows. page B-6 TABLE B-1 HYDRAULIC STUDY OF LONDON AVENUE OUTFALL CANAL RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Computer Special Conditions Canal Flow (cfs) Canal Water Surface Elevation (msI) Run DPS #3 DPS #4 PRENTISS "To TO LAKE LAKE LEON C. AVE(S&WB MIRABEAU GENTILLY S&WB DPS #4 PONT. PONT. SIMON DPS #4) A VE. BLVD. DPS #3 Existing Canal Configuration CAL Calibration Run for the May 3,1978 Storm 3190 6690 2.9 3.42 4.04 4.50 4.75 5.65 Modification #1: Floodwalls Built Across Roadway Bridges High Lake Level (11.5 msl) 1A Existing Pumping Capacity 0 2475 11.5 11.5 11.66 11.68 11.68 11.68 at High Head 1B Existing Pumping Capacity 0 3475 11.5 11.51 11.85 11.85 11.85 11.85 at High Head and Proposed 1000 cfs P.S. '"d I:il (JQ . (1) ttl, -J TABLE B-t HYDRAULIC STUDY OF LONDON AVENUE OUTFALL CANAL RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS (Continued) Computer Special Conditions Canal Flow (cfs) Canal Water Surface Elevation (msl) Run DPS #3 DPS #4 PRENTISS To TO LAKE LAKE LEON C. AVE(S&WB MIRABEAU GENTILLY S&WB DPS #4 PONT. PONT. SIMON DPS #4) AVE. BLVD. DPS #3 lC Existing Nominal Pumping 4300 8200 11.5 11.58 13.17 13.92 14.42 16.33 Capacity 1D Future Nominal Pumping 4300 9200 11.5 11.60 13.60 14.38 14.88 16.79 Capacity IE Existing Pumping Capacity 2850 5325 11.5 11.53 12.22 12.56 12.80 13.66 at Highest Head Condition Before Shut Down Normal Lake Level (0.0 mst) IF Existing Nominal Pumping 4300 8200 0.0 2.16 3.53 4.33 4.80 6.40 Capacity 10 Future Nominal Pumping 4300 9200 0.0 2.49 4.06 5.04 5.42 7.23 Capacity '"d ~ C/Q. (1) ttl, 00 l TABLE B-1 HYDRAULIC STUDY OF LONDON A VENUE OUTFALL CANAL RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS (Continued) Computer Special Conditions Canal Flow (cfs) Canal Water Surface Elevation (msl) Run DPS #3 DPS #4 PRENTISS To TO LAKE LAKE LEON C. AVE(S&WB MIRA BEAU GENTILLY S&WB DPS #4 PONT. PONT. SIMON DPS #4) A VE. ilL VD. DPS #3 Modification #2: Install Roller Gates & Allow Flow Over All Roadways Except Gentilly & Robert E. Lee 2A High Lake Level - Future 4300 9200 11.5 11.60 13.52 14.15 14.56 16.23 Nominal Pumping Capacity Modification #3: Raise All Roadways Above W.S.E. High Lake Level- Future 4300 9200 11.5 11.60 12.37 12.88 13.19 13.65 Nominal Pumping Capacity '"d po ~. t:;:I, 1.0 , TABLE B-t HYDRAULIC STUDY OF LONDON A VENUE OUTFALL CANAL RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS (Continued) Computer Special Conditions Canal Flow (cfs) Canal Water Surface Elevation (msl) Run DPS #3 DPS #4 PRENTISS To TO LAKE LAKE LEON C. AVE(S&WB MIRABEAU GENTILLY S&WB DPS #4 PONT. PONT. SIMON DPS #4) A VE. BLVD. DPS #3 Modification #4: Raise All Roadways and Siphon Above ·W.S.E., And Remove All Foot Bridges And Pipe Crossings Except 60" Diameter Pipe Crossing Just North of D.P.S. No.3 / 4A High Lake Level - Future 4300 9200 11.5 11.60 11.78 11.99 12.04 /12.58 L Nominal Pumping Capacity ~. '0 f}q (1)"' to, o~ TABLE B-1 HYDRAULIC STUDY OF LONDON AVENUE OUTFALL CANAL RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS (Continued) Computer Special Conditions Canal Flow (cfs) Canal Water Surface Elevation (mst) Run DPS #3 DPS #4 PRENTISS To TO LAKE LAKE LEON C. AVE(S&WB MIRABEAU GENTILLY S&WB DPS #4 PONT. PONT. SIMON DPS #4) AVE. BLVD. DPS #3 Modification #5: Excavate London Avenue Outfall Canal North of Robert E. Lee Blvd. 5A Normal Lake Level- 4300 8200 0.0 1.39 3.06 3.96 4.50 6.13 Existing Nominal Pumping Capacity '"d ~ [JQ (1) t!i, >-' >-' Modification No.1: Floodwalls Constructed at All Roadway Crossings Floodwalls would be constructed across the London Avenue Outfall Canal on either side of the roadway crossings extending from the bridge deck to 2 feet above the anticipated high water elevation in the canal. This modification would prevent stormwater from overflowing bridge guardrails and keep roadway crossings open to traffic during hurricane lake conditions. This canal configuration was analyzed with several lake levels and canal flows, as shown in Table B-1. Computer run lA calculated the hydraulic profile for the existing pumping capacity at high lake level. Pump curves for existing pumping equipment showed that the 2 centrifugal pumps at D.P.S. No.4 could not operate at head conditions greater than approximately 16 feet, pool to pool. The 3-1000 cfs horizontal pumps at D.P.S. No.4 have a total pumping capacity of 2475 cfs at the maximum head differential near 17 feet, pool to pool. Pumping during hurricane lake conditions with the water surface elevation in London Avenue Canal near 12 msl, would require a minimum intake sump elevation of -5 msl to allow the 3-1000 cfs pumps at this station to be operable. Therefore, assuming elevation -5 msl is the maximum allowable intake sump elevation at D.P.S. No.4 and the discharge basin elevation is near elevation 12 msl, D.P.S. No.4 would have an existing pumping capacity of 2475 cfs. Pump curves for the 2-12 ft. diameter pumps at D.P.S. No.3 showed shut off head level for these pumps to be near 13 feet, pool to pool. The 3-14 ft. diameter pumps at this station can operate up to approximately 16 feet differential head conditions, pool to pool, with a total pumping capacity of 2850 cfs. The hydraulic profile for the London Avenue Outfall Canal with 2475 cfs flow from D.P.S. No.4 and 2850 cfs flow from D.P.S. No.3 yielded a water surface elevation at the discharge side ofD.P.S. No.3 of 13.66 ms!. (See computer run IE). Therefore, in order io continue operating the 3-14 ft. diameter pumps at D.P.S. No.3, the intake sump elevation at D.P.S. No.3 could be no lower than -2.3 msl, thus flooding much of this pumping station's drainage basin. Consequently, it was assumed that there would be no pumping capacity at D.P.S. No.3 when lake level is near 11.5 msl, unless the pumping equipment is replaced in the future with equipment capable of pumping against these high heads. Run lA, with a total flow in London Avenue Canal f 2475 cfs exclusively from D.P.S. No.4, and a starting W.S.E. of 11. elded a high W.S.E. of 11.68 msl at D.P.S. No.3. Should the existing pumping equipment not be upgraded and the proposed 1000 cfs pumping station opposite D.P.S. No. 4 be constructed, run 1B generated a high W.S.E. of 11.85 msl at D.P.S. No.3, page B-12 with the same conditions as run lA and a total canal flow of 3475 cfs. The water L surface proftle for computer run 1B is shown in Plate B-2. If existing pumping equipment at both D.P.S. No.3 and D.P.S. No.4 is improved to pump against high head conditions, lake level is 11.5 msl, and floodwalls are constructed along the canal and across roadway bridges above canal W.S.E., the hydraulic profile would yield an ultimate canal W.S.E. of 16.33 msl at D.P.S. No.3, for the existing nominal pumping capacity of 8200 cfs, as shown by run 1C. Similarly, for the same conditions as run 1C except with canal flows totaling 9200 cfs to account for the proposed 1~ ~~~ p~g station at Prentiss, run ID gave a canal water surface elevation 16 9] D.P.S. No.3, analyzing the effects of future nominal pumping capacity. The London A venue Outfall Canal was also analyzed at normal lake level of 0 msl with this floodwall modification at the roadway bridges. Computer profile runs IF and IG for the existing and future nominal pumping capacity flows and starting W.S.E. of 0 msl, generated upstream water surface elevations of 6.40 msl and 7.23 msl respectively, as shown in Table B-1. Modification No.2: Flow Allowed Over All Roadway Bridges Except Robert E. Lee Blvd. And Gentilly Blvd. In an effort to reduce the amount of head loss at roadway crossing due to the reduction of flow area at roadway bridges with the proposed floodwalls included in Modification No.1, it was decided to analyze the effect of allowing - flow over all structures crossing the canal, except the Robert E. Lee Blvd. and Gentilly Blvd. bridges. Roller gates would be constructed across the Leon C. Simon, Filmore, Mirabeau, Benefit St., and the Southern Railroad bridges, aligned with the canal banks, and stormwater would be allowed to flow over the guardrails of the bridges within the canal. Floodwalls would be constructed across the canal on either side of the Robert E. Lee Blvd. and Gentility Blvd. bridges, as in Modification No. 1. The floodwalls would prevent stormwater from overflowing bridge guardrails and keep these two roadways open to traffic during hurricane lake conditions. The hydraulic gradient for this modification was calculated on computer run 2A for the high lake level of 11.5 msl and the full future nominal pumping capacity of 9200 cfs. The water surface elevation at the upstream end, D.P.S. No.3, was computed to be 15.23 msl, a 0.6 ft. reduction from Modification No. 1. page B-13 {, Z I , , I to z: Z V) I • '" '" Z '" ViZ ,/ '"z if) II Vi Z (j') (f) if) z Vi Vi U) '" V) OiJ) ~ (9 V) 0 0 Vi 0 'f) 0::: a z Z o a:: 0:: V) OJ) 0 0: U 0:: V) 0:: U U u o U W V) U n: 0: U? z: z 0 W U W Z it 0 ot ot z Z <1 '"ci 0: Z '&w W ..J;;;; U I, FLOODWALLS PARALLEL TO THE LONDON AVENUE OUTFALL CANAL ARE RAISED ABOVE THE CANAL W,S, E, '*2, FLOODWALLS ARE CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE CANAL ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROADWAY CROSSINGS, SOUTH OF LAKESHORE DR. TO PREVENT l'I'h'IWl'r ... • \'L11111< 1,·1"11\ II <>'1I11I'1:1.iI ..... " Il[l~h FLOW OVER THE ROADWAYS, :-\, \, (),ll·,111~. I,J\I''''LIIl.J * * 3, ROLLER GATES ARE CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE SOUTHERN RAILROAD HYDRAULIC STUDY OF ALLOWING FLOW OVER THE TRESTLE, LONDON AVENUE OUTFALL CANAL 4 THE PROPOSED 1,000 cfs DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION AT PRENTISS AVE, NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED, PLATE B-2: WATER SURFACE 5, DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NO,3 HAS 0 cf; PUMPING CAPACITY, DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION NO.4 HAS 2475 cfs PUMPING CAPACITY, PROFILE FOR COMPUTER RUN I B 6, U\KE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS 11.5 M,SL (HURRICANE CONDITIONS), 8 a A JOB NO. 8407-3 page '1l-14 Modification No.3: Raise All Roadway Bridges Above Canal W.S.E. Much of the headloss computed in the London Avenue Canal for Modifications No.1 and 2 during high lake level can be attributed to the structures crossing the canal. Modification No.3 assumed all roadway bridges would be reconstructed with the entire bridge deck above the canal water profile, and only the bridge pilings restricting flow. Beginning with a high lake level of 11.5 msl and assuming full future nominal pumping capacity of 9200 cfs, computer run 3A computed the high water surface elevation of 13.65 msl at D.P.S. No.3, a substantial reduction, as compared to Modifications No.1 and 2. Modification No.4: Raise All Roadways And Siphon And Remove All Foot Bridges And Pipe Crossings With The Exception Of The 60" Pipe At D.P.S. No.3 And Southern Railroad Trestle. To further reduce the headloss caused by bridges and pipe crossings, a [mal modification involving these structures was tested. As with Modification No.3, all roadways were raised above the canal W.S.E., with only the bridge pilings within the canal flow section. Additionally, all foot bridges and pipe crossings were completely removed from the hydraulic model, with the exception of the Sewerage & Water Board siphon crossing, the Southern Railroad Trestle and the 60" diameter pipe crossing just north of D.P.S. No.3. The siphon crossing, like the roadways, was raised above the canal water surface profile with only the pilings in the canal flow section and the Southern Railroad Trestle and the 60" diameter pipe crossing remained as is. Roller gates were assumed to be constructed at the floodwall openings for the Southern Railroad Bridge allowing weir flow across the bridge. Since both the railroad bridge and the 60" diameter pipe crossing are both within 200 ft. of D.P.S. No.3, additional modifications to these two crossings were not considered cost justified. Canal bank floodwalls from the railroad to D.P.S. No.3 can be built slightly higher than the remainder of the canal to account for the additional headloss caused by these two structures. In reconstructing roadway crossings, roadway bridge decks can be widened to include a pedestrian crossing, to account for the loss of foot bridges removed in this modification. Computer run 4A for this canal configuration, high lake level of 11.5 msl, and future nominal pumping capacity of 9200 cfs, calculated the W.S.E. at D.P.S. No.3 to be 12.58 msl, and a W.S.E. of 12.16 msl just north of the Southern Railroad crossing. The water surface profile calculated for these improved conditions is shown on Plate B-3. page B-15 - -~-'------~ -- ~.. -~--~ ---- ... _. ------._-- -- ~-- -. ------•• ----- # ~ - ~------_. ---".------,,"-_.------_._.-_._--.- Z SCAL E'G50(Y t N .~ *.~ 4. ROLLER GATES ARE CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE SOUTHERN RAILROAD, ALLOWING FLOW OVER THE TRESTLE HYDRAULIC STUDY OF LONDON AVENUE OUTFALL CANAL 5. THE PROPOSED 1,000 cfs DRAINAGE PUMPING STATION HAS BEEN • NEW ORLEANS CONSTRUCTED. LOUISIANA 6 FLOWS IN THE CANAL ARE BASED ON THE FUTURE NOMINAL PUMPING PLATE 8-3: WATER SURFACE CAffiCITY - 4300cfs FROM D.PS. NO,3 AND 3900cfs FROM Of'S. NO.4 PROFILE FOR COMPUTER RUN 4A -r' LAKE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS 11.5 M.s.L. (HURRICANE CONDITION), ! B S A JOB NO. 8407-3 page Il- 16 ., -- - -' . Modification No.5: Excavation Of London Avenue Outfall Canal As mentioned earlier, most of the headloss calculated during high lake level of 11.5 msl can be attributed to existing structures crossing the canal. However, during normal lake level more substantial friction headloss accumulates, especially near Lake Pontchartrain. Therefore, the final modification considered was to excavate the London Avenue Outfall Canal from Robert E. Lee Blvd. to Lake Pontchartrain within the existing canal banks, where necessary, to maintain a minimum invert elevation of -11 msl in the canal. The bottom of the canal is irregular, especially near the canal bends where silting may have occurred. However, the hydraulic profile analysis only showed a 0.3 ft. ultimate reduction in water surface elevation between Lake Pontchartrain and D.P.S. No.3 following 200,000 c.y. of excavation. These results, included as computer run SA, were based on the existing nominal pumping capacity of 8200 cfs, normal lake level of 0 msl, and floodwalls built at all roadway crossings as in Modification No.1. Therefore, the expense of excavation may not be justified. page B-17 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC STUDY RECOMMENDATION The results of the computer analysis were used to determine the required height of the proposed floodwall improvements for London Avenue Outfall Canal. Computer runs lB and 4A were used to establish this height. Since the existing pumping capacity is greatly reduced at high lake levels near 11.5 msl, it was assumed not to be realistic to design for full pumping capacity without reconstructing bridge crossings. If roadways are not rebuilt above the expected canal water surface profile, floodwalls must be built across roadway bridges to allow traffic flow. Assuming floodwalls are constructed on either side of the roadway bridges, roller gates are installed across the railroad crossing, the existing pumping equipment is not upgraded, and the proposed 1000 cfs pumping station is constructed, stormwater in the canal is not expected to rise above elevation 11.85 msl, under hurricane conditions (computer run lB). Therefore, floodwalls should be built to elevation 13.85 msl, allowing 2 ft. of freeboard to protect against these conditions. Should existing pumping equipment be improved to pump under these high head levels, additional canal modifications would be required to continue to maintain near 2 ft. freeboard. (see computer run 4A). All structures crossing the canal would have to be rebuilt or removed. These bridge modifications can be done incrementally as pumping capacity is upgraded. The floodwall for the upstream 200 feet of canal must be raised higher than 13.85 msl to eliminate the necessity of rebuilding the railroad crossing and the 60" diameter pipe crossing just north of D.P,S. No.3. A floodwall height of 14.6 msl would be required for this 200 foot canal reach to account for additional headloss at these two crossings, and allow 2 ft. freeboard. As calculated by computer run 4A, the design water surface elevation just north of the railroad crossing is 12.l5 ms!. Therefore, a flood wall height from the railroad tracks to Lake Pontchartrain of 13.85 msl, would allow a freeboard of between 1.7 feet and 2 feet for this canal configuration. page B-l8 , -