Appendix C: Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements Analysis
Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative
Restoration of Second Track
January 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...... 1
1. Project Limits and Work Components ...... 1
2. Study Approach ...... 1
3. Data Collection ...... 2
3.1 Base Mapping...... 2 3.2 Structure Inventory ...... 3 3.3 Environmental Resources ...... 4
4. Concept Design ...... 4
4.1 Track Design Criteria ...... 4 4.2 Proposed Track 1 Alignment ...... 5 4.3 Embankment -Typical Sections ...... 6 4.4 Undergrade Bridges ...... 7 4.4.1 Bridge Assessment Methodology – Rehabilitation vs. Replacement ...... 7 4.4.2 Assessment Process ...... 8 4.4.3 Assessment and Findings ...... 10 4.4.4 Special Case: Rehabilitation vs. Replacement of Woodbury Viaduct ...... 14 4.4.5 Stations ...... 15 4.4.6 Existing Conditions ...... 16 4.4.7 Station Design Criteria ...... 17 4.4.8 Prototypical Station Layouts ...... 18 4.4.9 Freight Accommodations ...... 19 4.4.10 Site-Specific Station Layouts ...... 20 4.4.11 Sloatsburg ...... 21 4.4.12 Tuxedo ...... 21 4.4.13 Harriman ...... 22 4.4.14 Station Layout Recommendations ...... 22 4.5 Train Control and Grade Crossing System ...... 23 4.5.1 Existing Conditions ...... 23 4.5.2 Train Control Design Criteria ...... 23 4.5.3 Interlocking Locations ...... 24
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page i
4.5.4 Grade Crossings ...... 24 5. Impact Assessment ...... 24
5.1 Environmental Impacts ...... 25 5.1.1 Waters and Wetlands ...... 25 5.1.2 Cultural Resources ...... 26 5.1.3 Right-of-Way ...... 27 5.1.4 Permit Requirements ...... 28 6. Cost ...... 29
6.1 Cost Methodology ...... 29 6.2 PJL Cost Estimates ...... 29
Technical Memorandum 1.1 ...... 30
TABLES
Table 1: Key Design Criteria for PJL Capacity Improvements ...... 5
Table 2: Condition Summary Ratings of Bridge Girder Structures and Recommendations ...... 12
Table 3: Condition Summary Ratings of Culvert Structures and Recommendations ...... 13
Table 4: Estimated Wetland Impacts ...... 26
FIGURES
Figure 1: Extent of Proposed Second Track Restoration and Location of New “Middletown” Passing Siding ...... 2
Figure 2: Methodology for Determining Appropriate Typical Section ...... 7
Figure 3: Structural Configuration Assessment Process ...... 9
Figure 4: Structural Configuration Assessment Process ...... 10
Figure 5: Woodbury Viaduct ...... 14
Figure 6: Proposed Viaduct Alignment ...... 15
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page ii
Figure 7: Sloatsburg Station Platform ...... 16
Figure 8: Tuxedo Station Platform ...... 17
Figure 9: Harriman Station Platform ...... 17
Figure 10: Typical Side Platforms Station Configuration ...... 18
Figure 11: Typical Island Platform Station Configuration ...... 19
Figure 12: Schematic Illustration of Options for Freight Accommodation ...... 20
Figure 13: Side Platform Layout for Sloatsburg Station ...... 21
Figure 14: Side Platform Layout for Tuxedo Station ...... 22
Figure 15: Side Platform Layout for Harriman Station ...... 22
Figure 16: Preliminary Proposed Universal Interlocking Locations ...... 24
Technical Memorandum 1.1 – Typical Sections
Table 1.1- 1 – Locations of Typical Section Treatment within the Limits of Infrastructure Improvements ...... 34
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page iii
Introduction
This technical memorandum describes the analyses conducted for the Double Track Alternative for Metro- North Railroad’s (Metro-North) Port Jervis Line (PJL) Capacity Improvements. It describes the geographic limits, the major work components, the potential impacts, and the order-of magnitude capital cost estimates of the proposed improvements. 1. Project Limits and Work Components
The limits of infrastructure improvements for the Double Track Alternative extend from MP 34.4 to MP 54.7 and from MP 72.5 to MP 74, as shown in Figure 1. The Double Track Alternative includes the following major work components: Restoration of the second track (Track 1) and embankment improvements Upgrading undergrade bridges, culverts, and the Woodbury Viaduct Improvements at Sloatsburg, Tuxedo, and Harriman stations Operational and system improvements to signals, interlocking, and grade crossings Construction of a new passing siding west of Middletown/Town of Wallkill Station The restoration of Track 1 would occur on the same alignment as originally constructed, since historically the PJL was a two-track railroad. It is assumed that most of the work would occur within the existing right- of-way (ROW). 2. Study Approach
The PJL Capacity Improvements Study consisted of four key steps, each of which is discussed further in subsequent sections: Data Collection – identify existing conditions and develop base mapping Project Work Components – identify and quantify infrastructure improvements required to construct the passing sidings Impact Assessments – identify possible impacts to environmental resources and property Cost Estimate – develop order-of-magnitude construction costs based on the estimated quantities and unit costs of the project work components
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 1
Figure 1: Extent of Proposed Second Track Restoration and Location of New “Middletown” Passing Siding
3. Data Collection
Data was collected in order to:
Create base mapping and identify the location and elevation of the existing PJL track. Identify and locate the existing overhead and undergrade bridges, culverts, and viaduct structures. Identify and locate the major environmental resources (wetlands, bodies of water, large habitats, and threatened and endangered species). 3.1 Base Mapping
Base mapping was developed to determine the existing track alignment and to create plan and profile drawings. Data for the base mapping was compiled from the following three sources: PJL Restoration Work Survey (Sloatsburg to Harriman): Information was obtained from the field survey conducted for the PJL Restoration Work1 efforts from south of Sloatsburg Station to north
1 The PJL Restoration Work refers to the restoration efforts completed in November 2011 after the PJL sustained severe damage to 14 miles of track after Hurricane Irene in August 2011. Restorations included restored track with new ballast, debris removal, new culverts, scour repairs, riprap replacement, embankment repairs, and slope protection.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 2
of Harriman Station (approximately MP 34.4 to MP 44.8). The survey information included locations and elevations of the main features along the PJL and the location and elevation of the existing track.
Metro-North PJL Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) Study (Harriman to Moodna Viaduct): Data from LIDAR system utilized in Metro-North’s Positive Train Control (PTC) project was also used in this study. The information provided the location and elevation of the existing PJL track and existing features (including existing ground elevations, tree lines, major bodies of water, roads, buildings, and bridge structures) similar to the survey data obtained during the PJL Restoration Work. This information was utilized to create base mapping from North of Harriman Station to the south end of Moodna Viaduct (MP 44.8 to 54.7) and from MP 72.5 to MP 74.
ROW Valuation Maps: ROW data was added to the mapping to define the approximate parcel property limits of the PJL. This information was based on the most recent available ROW Valuation Maps2 provided by Metro-North. 3.2 Structure Inventory
The Structure Inventory was compiled using aerial photographs and Metro-North’s track charts. This inventory focused only on the undergrade bridge structures that exist within the limits of infrastructure improvements. The overhead bridges within these limits were identified but not considered; as these bridge structures already span the entire ROW width, which includes the former Track 1. It was therefore assumed that (1) these bridges met the required horizontal and vertical clearances to accommodate restoration of Track 1, and (2) their structural integrity is maintained by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). A total of 33 undergrade bridges and culverts were identified, including: Six - Through Girder Bridges – (Open and Closed Deck) Eight - Deck Girder Bridges – (Open Deck) One - Concreate Double Arch Bridge One - Concrete Deck Bridge 16 - Culverts – (Stone Masonry, Concrete, Box, Arch, and Abutments/Beams) One - Viaduct Structure (10 Spans)3 – (Woodbury Viaduct) The undergrade bridge structures varied in their type and configuration. Some are single contiguous bridge structures carrying both tracks, while others are comprised of independent structures with one track on each bridge. The culverts identified within the project limits were of different types and lengths. Eleven are concrete arch construction type, two are stone masonry, two have stone abutments with concrete roof beams, and one has stone abutments with a concrete encased rail beam roof. All culverts were found to be as long as originally constructed to support a two-track railroad. This data was compiled from Metro-North’s bridge inspection reports and is also summarized in Tables 2 and 3 in Section 5.4.
2 ROW and Track Map, Erie Railroad Company, 1960. 3 Metro-North track chart identifies two undergrade structures for the Woodbury Viaduct at MP JS 50.17 (Woodbury Creek) and JS 50.20 (Route 32). However, the bridge inspection report considers these two structures as one contiguous viaduct of ten spans carrying one bridge with identification number JS 50.17.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 3
Four of the bridge structures and five culverts located within the limits of infrastructure improvements currently support two active tracks. Although these structures were considered for evaluation, it was agreed not to include them in the cost estimate since they were assumed to be part of a separate Metro-North Capital Program that would bring these structures to a state of good repair. 3.3 Environmental Resources
Major ecological resources (e.g., wetlands, bodies of water, streams, etc.), that may lay adjacent to the PJL ROW within the limits of infrastructure improvements were identified and made part of the data inventory. The following describes the type and source of information collected within the limits of infrastructure improvements. For this study, the environmental resources data collection and analysis focused only on the north (east) side of the PJL – the only side in which the restoration of Track 1 could trigger impacts. Bodies of water and Wetlands: Mapping and classifications (Class I-IV) was obtained from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). In addition, mapping of all federal wetlands (identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) was obtained using the National Wetlands Inventory mapping program. Large Habitats: Information on natural large habitats utilized by a variety of fauna and flora was obtained from the NYSDEC EnviroMapper.4 Threatened and Endangered Species: Information on threatened and endangered species were obtained from the NYSDEC EnviroMapper. However, since the NYSDEC EnviroMapper only identified the general locations of the rare plants and species, it would be required to contact the New York State Natural Heritage Program for more accurate data in future design phases. Historic Resources (Section 106): Data from the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) was obtained to determine if the infrastructure improvements would have a direct or indirect effect on any cultural resources listed in, or eligible for, listing in the National Register in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 4. Concept Design
Concept Design included the formulation of guidelines and criteria that were used in the development of track alignment, typical sections, stations, and signaling systems. It also considered the development of methodology to determine whether undergrade structures should be rehabilitated or replaced. 4.1 Track Design Criteria
Design criteria were developed with Metro-North to establish the guidelines and parameters of design, based on both industry and Metro-North Standards5 which defined the guiding principles for developing the infrastructure for PJL Capacity Improvements. The key design guidelines are outlined in Table 1. All design criteria used for conceptual design of the PJL Capacity Improvements can be found in the “Commuter Rail Design Criteria Memo,” dated May 23, 2012. The criteria for track centers (the distance between the centerlines of existing Track 2 and proposed Track 1) and for clearances between proposed track and other fixed objects, such as station platforms and
4 EnviroMapper is a Web-based interactive mapping tool for viewing and querying environmental information. 5 The design criteria is based on Metro-North’s MW4 Part III Standards, Metro-North Station Standards, and the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 4
overhead bridges, were key factors in providing appropriate clearances for freight trains, which are active on the PJL. Freight trains are wider and require larger clearances than standard passenger trains. Consequently, the proposed high-level station platforms require a minimum clearance from the edge of platform to nearest alignment of seven-foot, six-inches (7’-6”) for freight trains, but for passenger trains, it requires a clearance of only five-foot, seven-inches (5’-7”).
Design Criteria Summary* ALIGNMENT AND CLEARANCES Max. Design Speed (where applicable) 90 MPH Wayside Clearances High passenger platforms 5’-7” Min. freight clearance at high-level platforms 7'-6” Low passenger platforms 5’-1” New Structure 25' Vertical Clearances High passenger platforms 4’-4" Low passenger platforms 8” New Structure 23' TRACK CENTERS Adjacent Main Tracks 14’-6” STATION PLATFORMS Platform Length 700' Minimum Island Platform Width 25' Minimum Side Platform Width 12'
*This table summarizes only key specific track design criteria and is not comprehensive. For the full Track Design Criteria and assumptions, refer to WHRTAS Track Design Criteria Memo dated May 23, 2012.
Table 1: Key Design Criteria for PJL Capacity Improvements 4.2 Proposed Track 1 Alignment
To define the alignment of the proposed Track 1, it was essential to establish the alignment of existing Track 2. The Track 2 alignment was based on data obtained from LIDAR performed in 2010, Metro-North Track Charts (2012), and Metro-North Track Design Criteria. These sources were used to define the existing Track 2 in the base map by location points along the track curvature and to create a “best fit” alignment using computer design and analysis software. While Metro-North track charts provide the degree of curvature for all tracks based on historic data, it is often the case that the curvature determined by the “best-fit” method may differ slightly from the track charts due to shifts in lining caused by heavy equipment operating on the tracks over the period since publication of the track charts. The base mapping also included the existing elevation contours and corridor features such as tree line, bridge structures, water bodies, roads, buildings, and fences.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 5
In accordance with the established track design criteria, the new proposed Track 1 alignment was positioned with an offset of 14’-6” from the established existing best-fit track alignment. This alignment was later adjusted at certain stations to accommodate freight activity through new high-level platform upgrades described in Section 5.4.8 of this technical memorandum. A vertical profile showing the elevation of the proposed Track 1 was created by matching the elevations from the existing Track 2. The “best-fit” vertical profile was then used to calculate a cut depth and fill height based on typical sections described in Section 5.3. Some portions of Track 1 already exist at certain locations within the project limits. Therefore, the work which includes new ballasted track, the upgrade of existing track, and removal and replacement of existing track. The work was considered as follows: Construct new Track 1: MP 34.40 to MP 44.70, MP 47.88 to MP 54.68 and MP 72.56 to MP 73.66 (18.2 Miles) Remove and Replace Track 1: MP 44.70 to 44.78 and 47.78 to 47.88 (0.18 Miles) Upgrade Existing Class 3 Track 1: MP 44.78 to MP 47.78 (3.0 Miles) The existing Track 2 would require realignment at select locations to facilitate reconfiguration of interlockings and within the limits of the three existing stations under the gauntlet track approach to accommodate freight clearance requirements. Section 5.4 provides further detail. 4.3 Embankment -Typical Sections
The embankment and track bed which formally supported Track 1 would need to be restored to support the restoration of the track. Based on established track design criteria, the embankment and track bed were developed using the following key assumptions: Use a 2:1 (2 Horizontal: 1 Vertical) side slope as the preferred typical section Remove four inches of existing embankment (fouled material) Provide minimum ballast depth below tie of 12 inches and minimum sub-ballast depth of eight inches Provide three-foot wide shoulder for MOW access No vehicular access is provided (except at interlockings) due to ROW constraints Based on discussions with Metro-North, a prime consideration was to minimize impacts on environmental resources and encroachment outside the ROW. Based on the varying terrain conditions along the limits of infrastructure improvements, eight typical sections were considered with the objective of avoiding or minimizing encroachment outside the ROW. These eight typical sections were as follow: 1. Meet existing terrain (No cut or fill) 2. 2:1 slope in fill 3. 2:1 slope in cut 4. 1.5:1 slope in fill 5. 1.5:1 slope in cut 6. Retaining wall in fill 7. Retaining wall in cut 8. Grade crossing Additional details are also provided in the complete design drawing set titled “West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study – Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements – Double Track MP 34.5 to 54.7)” dated
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 6
February 27, 2013. These typical cross-section details were also used to evaluate earthwork and infrastructure requirements, potential ROW impacts, and support development of a conceptual cost estimate.
Methodology for determining appropriate Typical Section The selection of a typical section type for a given segment of siding track was based on the segment’s terrain and the required earthwork to minimize environmental impacts or encroachment outside the ROW. The approach to determine the appropriate typical section to be used is illustrated in Figure 2 and as follows:
If Slope Extends If Slope Extends Use 1.5:1 outside of ROW Use 2:1 Side Slope Stabilized Side outside of ROW Retaining Wall Slope
Figure 2: Methodology for Determining Appropriate Typical Section
A 2:1 slope was preferred and considered first. If the application of the 2:1 slope resulted in either an impact to a significant environmental resource or an encroachment beyond the ROW limits, a steeper 1.5:1 stabilized slope was considered. If using the steeper 1.5:1 stabilized slope still resulted in similar impacts, then a retaining wall was applied. Based on this methodology, most of the proposed improvements would be implemented within the ROW limits. However, to minimize cost, it was assumed that at certain locations where encroachment beyond the ROW limits may occur or would trigger minor impact to an environmental resource, an easement would be obtained from adjacent property owners instead of constructing retaining walls. The identification of such locations was not part of this analysis. 4.4 Undergrade Bridges
A key element in the assessment process to determine the required structural bridge improvements was the understanding of the current condition of each structure and its ability to carry the additional track load. The existing bridge conditions were compiled from bridge inspection reports provided by Metro-North. Most of the inspection reports focused on the portion of the structure that supports the currently active Track 2. The condition of the structure or portion thereof that previously carried Track 1 was not fully documented in the inspection reports.
4.4.1 Bridge Assessment Methodology – Rehabilitation vs. Replacement The approach to bridge improvement included the development of a methodology to assess the condition of each structure and determine if rehabilitation, upgrade, or replacement would be required to accommodate the proposed second track. This approach was based on the guidelines that were developed to make well informed decisions regarding required structural upgrades and to provide the technical assessment needed to support a conceptual cost estimate. The following steps were used to assess the suitability of existing structures to accommodate future double tracking and to determine the order-of-magnitude work required to bring the structures up to a state of good repair:
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 7
1. Review bridge inspection reports 2. Review load ratings and fatigue analysis (where available) 3. Determine the level of repair and upgrade required to bring the typical bridge into conformance with the established capacity and fatigue criteria 4. If the rehabilitation cost would be greater than 80% of the total replacement cost for a given bridge, total replacement would be recommended
Capacity and Fatigue Criteria
The following capacity and fatigue criteria were provided by Metro-North: The acceptable condition rating criteria is “5” or higher (maintenance required but functioning as designed). Bridges with condition rating of “4” or less require significant component repair or full superstructure replacement. The desired bridge capacity must meet the Cooper E806 load rating. Any bridges currently not meeting the Cooper E80 rating are assumed to require significant component strengthening or full superstructure replacement. The standard remaining fatigue life will be 20 years. Any bridges currently not meeting 20-year fatigue life are assumed to require either significant repair/strengthening or full superstructure replacement.
Key Assumptions
In addition to the established criteria, the following assumptions were considered in the bridge assessment process: As the condition of the structure or portion thereof used to carry Track 1 was not fully documented in the inspection reports, the condition of the structure that would accommodate the second track (Track 1) was assumed to be similar to the reported portion that supports the current active track (Track 2) and no site-specific bridge analysis was performed as part of this analysis.
The vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed second track will parallel the existing track. For locations that require major upgrade or complete bridge replacement, all new bridge superstructures will be closed-deck, pre-stressed concrete girder bridges with ballast. No site-specific design for repairs or for new structures is to be developed. Cost configuration would be based on prototypical bridge configurations and details. All new or rehabilitated structures should satisfy Cooper E80 load rating and 286 kips wheel loads.
4.4.2 Assessment Process As indicated by the inspection reports, the bridge structures consisted of different bridge configurations. In some cases, the bridges consisted of a single superstructure while in other cases the bridges consisted of
6 Cooper E80 is the current train load rating standard established by the American Railway Engineering Association for rail bridges. It defines the design level for bridges to safely withstand 80,000 lbs./per driving axle loads exerted by a train on a bridge.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 8
two separate superstructures with room for one track on each structure. In each case, a consideration was given to the geometric features of both the superstructure and the supporting substructure of the bridge. A two-part assessment process was developed to evaluate the bridge structures:
Part 1- A Structural Configuration Assessment, considered if a new superstructure or substructure is required based on the geometric configuration of a particular bridge.
Part 2 - A Structural Capacity Assessment, determined whether repair, upgrading or replacement of the superstructure and substructure is required.
Part 1 - Structural Configuration Assessment process
The structural configuration assessment process, as illustrated in Figure 3, was used to determine whether an existing structure is geometrically configured to accommodate the proposed second track (i.e., the existing bridge superstructure is wide enough to support two tracks or if the bridge consists of two superstructures – one for each track). If it is configured to accommodate the proposed track, both the existing superstructure and the substructure were then considered for capacity assessment in Part 2. If the existing bridge had a superstructure that is not wide enough to support a second track but included a
Figure 3: Structural Configuration Assessment Process substructure that is wide enough for both tracks, a new superstructure would need to be constructed to support the proposed Track 1. In such case, the substructure would enter into the structural capacity assessment process in Part 2. If the existing substructure is not wide enough for a second track, then both new superstructure and substructure would be constructed to support the proposed second track.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 9
Figure 4: Structural Configuration Assessment Process
Part 2 - Structural Capacity Assessment process
The structural capacity assessment process, as illustrated in Figure 4, was used to evaluate the structural state of the bridges, determine their capacity and fatigue condition (in accordance with established criteria described in section 4.4.1.1), and to recommend an action. In this process, if the superstructure did not meet the capacity and fatigue criteria, then based on cost considerations the superstructure would be recommended for rehabiliation or replacement. If the superstructure meets the capacity and fatigue criteria, then the substructure’s condition would be reviewed to determine if repairs or replacement7 are required for the substructure.
4.4.3 Assessment and Findings The structural assessment process and the load rating values included in the inspection reports were used to determine whether a rehabilitation or replacement of the structure would be recommended. These ratings were compiled based on the defects indicated in the inspection reports. Most of the bridge structures do not currently meet the Cooper E80 load rating or the fatigue criteria. In cases where no fatigue life cycle ratings were available, it was assumed that such structures do not meet the fatigue life cycle criteria. The
7 The inspection reports did not include sufficient data to determine if the existing substructure meets the established capacity and fatigue criteria. Therefore it was agreed that, for the purpose of cost estimating, the substructure would be considered for rehabilitation only (no replacement) and address only the visible defects reported in the inspection reports such as cracks and spalls. Additional in- depth analysis would need to be performed to determine the substructure’s condition. At this conceptual planning level, such analysis was not considered.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 10
recommendation to replace rather than rehabilitate a bridge superstructure was done in accordance with the stated criteria, and based on the comparative costs for a new superstructure. Four separate bridge structures and four culverts located within the limits of infrastructure improvements currently support two active tracks. Although a condition assessment was performed, no course of action was proposed for these structures as they were part of the Metro-North’s State of Good Repair Capital Program.
Bridge Structures Table 2 summarizes the inventory of the bridge structures, including the characteristics of the structures, the current condition ratings, and the inspected versus as-built Cooper rating. The table also includes a recommended course of action to bring the structure to a state of good repair and upgraded to Cooper E80 load rating. Based upon the assessment process and the established criteria, four bridge structures are recommended to be rehabilitated and eight are recommended to be replaced. One bridge at MP JS 48.51 requires a new superstructure as presently it is wide enough to support only the existing Track 2. Although the recommended action for the Woodbury Viaduct (MP JS 50.17) is a replacement, a rehabilitation of the structure was also considered and evaluated. For details see Section 4.4.5.
Culvert Structures Table 3 summarizes the characteristics and condition ratings for the culvert structures. All of the culvert structures appear to be in acceptable condition but require rehabilitation of elements that are rated less than five (<5).
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 11
TG = Thru Girder DG = Deck Girder CA = Concrete Arch CD = Concrete Deck * Active 2 Track Bridge ** See Section 3.4.5
Cooper Rating Criteria
Notes: 1. Based on discussions with Metro-North, bridges at MP- JS 72.81 and 73.44 are assumed to meet the E80 loading criteria. 2. The general rating criteria is a standard used to represent the general condition of the structure relative to its as-built condition. Metro-North uses the New York State Department of Transportation bridge inspection rating standards. Table 2: Condition Summary Ratings of Bridge Girder Structures and Recommendations
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 12
Note: Culverts lengths were compiled from Metro-North’s bridge inspection reports. These reports presented culvert lengths from two different orientations. Therefore, it was assumed that lengths of less than 30 feet reflect the “width” of the culvert (a measure taken parallel to the track) and lengths greater than 30 feet reflect the length of the barrel (a measure taken perpendicular to the tracks.) All culverts were of sufficient barrel length to support two tracks.
Table 3: Condition Summary Ratings of Culvert Structures and Recommendations
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 13
4.4.4 Special Case: Rehabilitation vs. Replacement of Woodbury Viaduct The Woodbury Viaduct is a 100-year-old steel trestle, spanning the Woodbury Creek Valley and New York State (NYS) Route 32 along the PJL (Figure 5). The overall structure is 590 feet long with nine bent structures and a maximum height of approximately 57 feet. The existing structure was originally constructed as a two– track, open-deck, steel trestle with a maximum span length of approximately 70 feet. The second track ties and rails were removed at some point, but the deck girders remain. Two approach options with their associated costs Figure 5: Woodbury Viaduct were considered to upgrade the Woodbury Viaduct to Cooper E80 capacity load rating and support two-track operations.
Rehabilitation Option Metro-North had previously evaluated the structural improvements needed to bring the viaduct to a state of good repair under its current single track operations. However, to allow the viaduct to accommodate both the proposed and existing track, these improvements will need to be more robust to carry greater load in the future. Additionally, the unused second track will need to be replaced and the girders supporting the second track would be included in the rehabilitation. As the structural inspection and rehabilitation design for this bridge were not part of this planning effort, the recommended improvements with their respective costs were derived from material provided by Metro- North. For the purposes of this study, the rehabilitation assessment and a conservative cost estimate of approximately $61.5 Million ($2012) for two-track operations was extrapolated from the analysis performed by Metro-North to bring the viaduct to a state of good repair for its current single track operations.
Replacement Option The second option analyzed would be to construct a new two-track viaduct. The realignment of the two- track corridor would be approximately 3,400 feet long, with the new Track 1 located about 30 feet west of the centerline of the existing Track 2 as shown in Figure 6. This 30-foot distance was assumed to allow for construction of the proposed viaduct while the current viaduct is still in operation. Once construction of the new viaduct is complete, both tracks would be realigned to the new viaduct and the demolition could begin on the existing Woodbury Viaduct. Aligning the track to the west eliminates the need for reverse curves and provides a more desirable final configuration, including a flatter curve with a larger radius. Two different approaches for the proposed replacement viaduct were originally considered: steel and pre- stressed concrete. The pre-stressed concrete method was eliminated from further evaluation after preliminary analysis indicated that span lengths would be limited to approximately 75 feet for the Cooper E80 structural loading requirements.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 14
End Realignment Begin Realignment
Proposed New Alignment
Existing Alignment
Figure 6: Proposed Viaduct Alignment
High-level conceptual cost estimates indicated total order-of-magnitude costs of $59.3 million for constructing a new viaduct as a steel superstructure with concrete piers. This preliminary cost estimate was based on recently completed bridge projects, and from other cost estimating work completed for the PJL Capacity Improvements Project. Net Present Value The comparison of these two options also required careful consideration of long-term life cycle costs, which will include regular inspection and recurring maintenance costs. These costs must be evaluated over a reasonable period of time, which for a structure of this type should be between 50 and 100 years. These recurring maintenance costs are then added to each option’s initial capital costs to determine the Net Present Value (NPV) of total costs over the study period (in discounted $ 2012) for each option.
The resulting analysis indicates that the replacement viaduct is a less costly option with respect to both the initial capital expenditure and the net present value of initial construction costs and long-term life cycle costs. However, the cost variance between the two options is less than 10% and is based on very conceptual level designs. Therefore, the cost of the Woodbury Viaduct replacement option was assumed. The relatively small variance between costs under the two options and the significant capital expenditures and potential impacts associated with either approach warrant additional studies to more accurately establish viaduct rehabilitation and replacement costs.
For additional details of Woodbury Viaduct two approach options see a separate Technical Memorandum, “Woodbury Viaduct Options”, dated April 25, 2013.
4.4.5 Stations Three Metro-North stations along the PJL are located within the limits of the double tracking: Sloatsburg, Tuxedo, and Harriman. Each of the stations currently has a low-level side platform that serves customers
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 15
on existing the Track 2. The three stations will need to be upgraded to high-level platforms to accommodate the proposed restoration of Track 1 and to comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Station platform improvement concepts were developed for each station to be able to serve both tracks. In addition to passenger service, the station concepts also considered freight service operated on the PJL by Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). At this planning stage, only a high level assessment of infrastructure requirements and impacts was performed, relying primarily on aerial imagery as the basis for site-specific evaluation.
4.4.6 Existing Conditions The three stations differ from one another in terms of existing platform configuration and passenger amenities.
Sloatsburg Station Sloatsburg Station is located along the east side of Mill Street in Sloatsburg, New York. It consists of one concrete platform and one open side waiting shelter but no station building. It has a low-level side platform that is approximately 200’ long by 12’ wide. The station has a grade crossing to the north where Municipal Plaza meets Ballard Avenue. While there is no exclusive parking facility for commuters at this station, many commuters at this station use an approximately 80 space off-site lot located south of the station off of Mill Street.
Figure 7: Sloatsburg Station Platform Sloatsburg Station Platform
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 16
Tuxedo Station Tuxedo Station is located along the east side of NYS Route 17 in Tuxedo Park, New York, and consists of its original station building and newer platform canopies. It has a low-level side platform that is approximately 350’ long by 12’ wide. The original station building from 1885 was renovated by the Town of Tuxedo Park in 2009 and contains a waiting room with restroom facilities and a community room used by town organizations. This station building is a National Register-listed historic structure.
The station has at- Figure 8: Tuxedo Station Platform grade crossing to the north where East Village Road crosses the PJL. Tuxedo Station has on-site parking of about 65 spaces located north and south of the station building. Additional parking spaces are located off of East Village Road to the north of the station building.
Harriman Station Harriman Station is located to the east of NYS Route 17 in Harriman, New York, adjacent to Harriman State Park. The station has several waiting shelters and a canopy approximately 375’ long. It has a low-level side platform that is approximately 700’ long by 12’ wide. The station also has a mini high-level platform for ADA accessibility. The station is double-tracked and has a slight curve on the north end of the platform. Harriman Station includes a drop-off and pick-up curb lane fronting the station and 986 parking spaces, including spaces for ADA parking. Figure 9: Harriman Station Platform 4.4.7 Station Design Criteria The design process to assess the infrastructure requirements for a station reflected the conceptual planning level of this study. The key criteria and design approaches employed are outlined in this section. Two platform configuration arrangements - an island and a side platform - were developed to support the conceptual engineering, impact assessment, and capital cost estimating efforts. Track plans and profiles were developed throughout the limits of infrastructure improvements, but site-specific station designs were not developed for each location. However, as required, closer attention was given to some site-specific locations to address critical feasibility concerns. The key criteria for the design of station improvements were as follows:8 Station platforms would accommodate a full train consist length of about 670 feet (one locomotive and seven coaches) plus 15’ excess on both ends, for a total of approximately 700 feet Full-length, high-level platforms would be used
8 For the comprehensive Station Design Criteria, see separate “Station Configurations Memo” dated 08/21/2012
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 17
Island platforms would be a minimum of 25 feet wide, exceeding Metro-North’s guidelines of a minimum width of 17 feet Side platforms would be a minimum of 12 feet wide Pedestrian overpasses would be used and would be similar in design to the one recently completed for Metro-North’s Tarrytown Station Minimum platform edge clearance would be 7’-6” to accommodate NS Freight traffic Stations will comply with the ADA and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines Stations will include amenities such as waiting areas, ticket vending machines, etc.
4.4.8 Prototypical Station Layouts The high-level platforms at these stations would improve accessibility and reduce dwell times. Station redevelopment also includes the addition of a pedestrian bridge overpass, served by stairs and elevators to provide access to the high-level platforms. Clearance between top of rail and underside of bridge structure would be 23 feet as per Metro-North standards. Prototypical station layouts for side and island platform options were developed for consideration at each station in accordance with the established criteria.
Side Platforms The high-level side platforms would be full-length and would include separate waiting area and ticket vending machines. An up-and-over pedestrian bridge structure would span over the side platform to provide access to trains operating in each direction. The entire length of each platform would be covered with a canopy. Figure 7 depicts the general concept layout and the spatial requirements of a side platform configuration.
Figure 10: Typical Side Platforms Station Configuration
Side platforms offer direct access to trains from each platform, less wear and tear on elevators and stairs due to lower usage, and in emergencies offer more efficient evacuation to areas of safety away from the tracks. Side platforms also facilitate the possible reuse of existing platform canopy structures. In most cases, side platform arrangements would not require the realignment of the existing Track 2. The proposed Track 1 would generally follow the alignment of Track 2 and all work would remain inside the ROW with minimal impacts on surrounding areas. However, side platforms require greater overall station depth, longer pedestrian overpass bridge span, and multiple enclosed platform shelters. Side platforms
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 18
require higher maintenance costs and do not facilitate customer ease when there are last-minute track changes.
Island Platforms A single full-length, high-level platform would include platform shelters and ticket vending machines. The entire platform would be covered with a canopy. Access to trains operating in each direction would be provided by constructing a pedestrian bridge structure that would span over the existing platform and canopy structures. Figure 8 depicts the island platform configuration with its spatial requirements.
Figure 11: Typical Island Platform Station Configuration
In general, a single full-length, high-level Island platform offers a more compact design, less overall station depth, a shorter pedestrian overpass bridge span, easier access to both mainline tracks, and lower construction and maintenance costs. However, the island platform concept would require track realignments that would both reduce the allowable track speed on each side of the station and shift track and embankment construction outside the ROW. In most cases the work outside of the ROW could cause impacts to adjacent wetlands or encroach on the Ramapo River alongside the PJL.
4.4.9 Freight Accommodations NS operates wide-load freight service on the PJL. To operate through stations with high-level platforms, freight service requires an offset of 7’-6” from centerline of track to the adjacent high-level platform. The standard offset for Metro-North commuter service is 5’-7” from centerline of track to the adjacent high-level platform. To accommodate freight service, the following three options were considered to provide the required operating clearances in either the side or island platform configurations, for Sloatsburg, Tuxedo, and Harriman Stations. 1. Retractable platform edges (flip up panels) 2. Gauntlet track (an extra set of rails offset the required distance from the platform edge) 3. Freight bypass track (a third track with no platform)
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 19
Freight operations would be limited to a single track so the retractable platform edges or provision of a gauntlet track would only be implemented on one platform track. Further operational analysis and coordination with NS would be required to reach agreement on the preferred approach for wide freight clearance and to confirm that the planned new interlockings (see Section 5.5) installed as part of the PJL Capacity Improvements would support limiting freight access to a single track through the stations. Figure 9 illustrates the three options to accommodate freight service through stations for the side and island platform configurations.
Figure 12: Schematic Illustration of Options for Freight Accommodation
4.4.10 Site-Specific Station Layouts Each of the two platform configurations (the side and island platforms) were applied and evaluated against each of the three freight accommodation options (flip up edges, gauntlet tracks, and bypass tracks) at each station location: Sloatsburg, Tuxedo, and Harriman. The following criteria were considered in the evaluation process: Pedestrian Accessibility Property Requirements
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 20
Track Geometry o Speeds/Track Curvature o Special Track Work System Requirements o Interlocked/Hand Thrown Switches o MOW Requirements Capital Cost
4.4.11 Sloatsburg The proposed high-level platforms and other station elements would require realigning portions of Mill Street to accommodate the station’s vertical structure and provide for drop-off area and limited ADA parking on the northern edge of the west platform, as shown in Figure 10. The realignment of Mill Street would not affect the existing nearby houses located to the west and north of the station. The existing parking lot would be reconfigured to meet the existing realigned Mill Street. Construction of additional parking spaces may be considered on the parcel located south of Ballard Avenue and to the west of Mill Street, and alternatives that provided dedicated parking facilities should be investigated to provide more of a station presence. The Sloatsburg Station upgrade would also require updating the grade crossing at Municipal Plaza. The new platform may extend outside the existing ROW and a retaining wall may be required on the south (west) side of the station to avoid encroachment on the Ramapo River.
Mill St.
Figure 13: Side Platform Layout for Sloatsburg Station
4.4.12 Tuxedo The most significant issue at Tuxedo would be impacts to the parking area due to required reconfiguration of both existing parking spaces and the access drive as shown in Figure 11. The parking spaces would be separated by a barrier to improve safety given the close proximity to the intersection of Mill Street and Ballard Avenue. The potential impact to Tuxedo Station, a historic architectural resource, would require development of context-sensitive designs as mitigation measure in coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO).
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 21
Figure 14: Side Platform Layout for Tuxedo Station
4.4.13 Harriman The existing canopy at Harriman Station and the mini high-level platform would need to be removed to provide for the new platform, canopy, and vertical circulation. The new platforms could impact the ROW as shown in Figure 12 and may require a retaining wall on the north (east) side of the station to avoid encroachment on the Ramapo River.
Figure 15: Side Platform Layout for Harriman Station
4.4.14 Station Layout Recommendations All three platform improvement options would allow Metro-North to meet the required standards for wide load freight passage at each of the three proposed PJL stations (Sloatsburg, Tuxedo, and Harriman). The evaluations indicated that the side platform configuration with a retractable platform edge along Track 2 would trigger fewer impacts at the three stations and would minimize any additional track-related work. However, the ongoing maintenance costs associated with a retractable platform and the personnel required to manually raise the platform edge in advance of planned wide load freight movements makes this option less efficient and less desirable. Under the island platform concept, Track 2 would require realignment on both sides of the station, which would cause a reduction in speeds. This realignment would require shifting the embankment to areas outside the ROW. In most cases, the work outside the ROW would cause impacts to adjacent wetlands or encroachment on the Ramapo River running alongside the PJL. Implementing the third track configuration under the side platform option would require widening the distance between the main tracks, would push the proposed platform outside the ROW limits and could impact the wetlands or the Ramapo River. Under the Island platform option, the third track, would in most cases, run on the edge or outside the ROW and very close to the Ramapo River.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 22
Side platform arrangements largely eliminate any realignment of existing Track 2 and the proposed Track 1 would generally follow the alignment of Track 2. All work would generally be implemented inside the ROW with minimal impacts to surrounding areas. Although the gauntlet track option would require some upfront costs associated with special track work and systems upgrades, it offers the most efficient and cost-effective freight accommodation option. It is therefore recommended that the side platform configuration with gauntlet track option be the preferred choice for the three stations.
4.5 Train Control and Grade Crossing System
4.5.1 Existing Conditions There are nine existing interlocking control points (CP) along the PJL – (track arrangement and signal apparatus that allow trains to safely switch between tracks). The interlocking CP’s are remotely controlled by NJ TRANSIT at its Rail Operations Control Center in Kearny, New Jersey.
Three of the nine are located within the proposed double track limits:
1. CP Sterling – MP 34.49
2. CP Harriman – MP 44.80
3. CP Central Valley – MP 47.80
The existing interlockings located between Suffern and the new CP “BS” proposed at the end of double track at MP 54.5 may not be in the optimal locations to serve the needs of increased service on the PJL. The interlockings must provide flexibility for the intended train operation in the event that one of the main tracks is out of service due to emergency, for routine maintenance or to accommodate freight.
There are also four grade crossings locations (places where the rail crosses over a roadway) within the proposed double track limits:
Municipal Plaza – MP 34.60
Washington Avenue – MP 35.30
Contractors Road – MP 36.85
East Village Road – MP 37.31
These crossings are signaled with gates and flashers for warning of approaching trains.
Metro-North is in the process of upgrading signaling on its PJL to NORAC Rule 562 Signaling. All trains operating on the Line will have Automatic Train Control (ATC) once the new signaling is implemented. The new signaling is part of the railroad’s implementation of the Positive Train Control (PTC) program.
4.5.2 Train Control Design Criteria Expanding the train control systems is a major infrastructure component required to accommodate a second track and increase service along the PJL. The number and specific interlocking locations required to efficiently support daily train operations is dependent on the train schedule under future service plans
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 23
and on the train operating speeds. For service plan details and discussion of MPY locations see Appendix B: Mid-Point Yard Analysis.
4.5.3 Interlocking Locations Based on the evaluation of the proposed future train schedules, it is recommended that a minimum of two new universal interlockings initially be provided in the new double track section between the present CP Sterling at MP 34.5 and the new CP “BS” at the end of the new double track section at MP 54.5. An optional third new universal interlocking may be required in the future. These locations would include an upgraded CP Sterling and CP Valley, a potential option at location MP 39.8 (CP Southfields) plus upgrades to CP Harriman with the addition of a MPY at that location. Figure 15 illustrates the preliminary proposed universal interlocking locations. (For further details and technical notes see separate Discussion Paper “Recommendations - New Interlocking Locations for the new Double Track Segment of Metro-North’s Port Jervis Line between MP 34.5 (present CP Sterling) and new CP “BS” (MP 54.3)”, dated June 18, 2012).
Figure 16: Preliminary Proposed Universal Interlocking Locations
4.5.4 Grade Crossings The four existing grade crossings identified in Section 5.5.1 require an upgrade from single to double track full-depth rubber grade crossings. All grade crossing systems are proposed to be full-depth heavy duty rubber crossings, which are durable, long lasting, and require low maintenance.
5. Impact Assessment
The assessment of impacts considered impacts on:
Environmental resources Property
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 24
In a final step, capital cost estimates were developed based on collected data and the concept designs material considered for the implementation of the Double Track Alternative.
5.1 Environmental Impacts The proposed addition of the second tack is anticipated to have limited impacts related to: Waters and wetlands Cultural resources Property outside of the existing ROW The construction of the second track may also require obtaining permits and approvals from federal and New York State agencies as well as from Orange County or the relevant local municipalities.
5.1.1 Waters and Wetlands As discussed in Section 5, numerous bridges and culverts crossed by the PJL are within the limits of the project. These bridges may need to be widened to accommodate the proposed Track 1 and provide MOW access. The widening and construction of these structures could impact water resources and adjacent wetlands near the crossings. Though culverts are assumed to be sufficiently wide to accommodate Track 1, it is also assumed that work near and around culverts may have an impact on water resources. While a full wetland delineation has not been conducted in this phase of study, it is estimated at this initial planning stage that a combined total of approximately 155,000 square feet (about 3.5 acres) of water resources and wetlands could be potentially impacted by the construction of Track 1 (not including station- area wetland impacts). Table 4 provides a listing of estimated wetland areas potentially impacted within the limits of infrastructure improvements by these construction activities. Based upon a required mitigation ratio of 1:3 (impacted acreage to mitigated acreage) it is assumed that approximately 11 acres of mitigation could be required.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 25
Area of Milepost Bridge Feature Crossed Location (NY) Wetland (JS) Type Impacts (SF)
33.94 Pond Brook Sloatsburg Thru-Girder Open Deck 2,500 38.03 Ramapo River Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 38.18 Ramapo River Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 38.98 Cattle Pass Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 39.16 Wildcat Run Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 39.55 Stream Tuxedo Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 41.14 Stream Southfield Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 42.77 Ramapo River Arden Thru-Girder Open Deck 2,500 44.54 Ramapo River Arden Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 45.40 Ramapo River Arden Thru-Girder Open Deck 2,500 50.17 Woodbury Creek/ Rte 32 Highland Mills Deck Girder- Open Deck 2,500 34.49 Mill Rage Sloatsburg Stone Masonry Arch 2,500 34.93 Culvert Sloatsburg Stone Box Culvert 2,500 35.51 Local Waterway Tuxedo Stone Abut's, Concrete Bms 2,500 37.01 Local Waterway Tuxedo Box Culvert 2,500 44.30 Local Waterway Harriman Arch Culvert 2,500 44.80 Stream Arden Stone Abut's, Concrete Bms 2,500 46.78 Farm Road Woodbury Arch Culvert 2,500 47.19 Farm Road Woodbury Arch Culvert 2,500 47.28 Stream Woodbury Arch Culvert 2,500 47.90 Woodbury Creek Woodbury Arch Culvert 2,500 48.23 Stream Woodbury Arch Culvert 2,500 51.33 Stream Highland Mills Concrete Arch 2,500 52.01 Stream Cornwall Arch Culvert 2,500 52.89 Stream Cornwall Arch Culvert 2,500 53.91 Stream Cornwall Culvert 2,500
Total 65,000
Other Miscellaneous Wetland Impacts (Approximate) 90,000 GRAND TOTAL 155,000 SF Table 4: Estimated Wetland Impacts
5.1.2 Cultural Resources The Tuxedo Station building is a historic structure and is listed as Tuxedo Park Railroad Station on the National Register. The PJL itself is also a part of the National Register-eligible New York & Erie Railroad Company alignment. The single-story Tuxedo Park Railroad Station is historically and architecturally significant as a late-19th century railroad station. It was constructed in 1886 to provide a station stop for Tuxedo Park, an exclusive resort community developed in 1885 by Pierre Lorillard IV, and designed by architect Bruce Price. As built, the station followed a standard plan for late-19th century stations, and incorporated an amalgam of Late Victorian-era design elements, such as scroll-sawn woodwork, colored glass, exaggerated eave brackets, and interior narrow-beaded wainscoting. The interior also featured
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 26
waiting and baggage rooms and a station master’s office. Although the architect is unknown, it is attributed to Bruce Price because of his role in the design and layout of Tuxedo Park (Bonafide, 2000).9 The station remained in use until the mid-20th century. In 1965, it was acquired by the Town of Tuxedo for use as a police station. In 2000, a new police station was constructed, and the town opted to restore the station for community use (Bonafide, 2000).10 In 2009, the station was restored to its 1886 appearance, funded in part by state grants and private contributions (King, 2009).11 It is currently comprised of a waiting room with restroom facilities and a community room used by local organizations. In recent years, canopies were added to low-level platforms south of the station. Although changes have been made to the station over time, it appears to retain a high degree of integrity as a late-19th century railroad station. Based on preliminary designs, it is not anticipated that the proposed addition of a second track would physically alter the Tuxedo Park Railroad Station. Therefore, direct effects are not anticipated. However, the proposed double tracking and platform reconfigurations would indirectly affect the station. The introduction of an additional track, new platforms, and a pedestrian overpass would diminish the station’s integrity of setting and feeling as a small-scale, late-19th century train station. Metro-North should initiate consultation with NYSHPO and other consulting parties. The purpose of the consultation would be to devise methods to avoid the adverse effect, or if unavoidable, develop appropriate mitigation stipulations. In accordance with Section 106, such stipulations would be included in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) developed by Metro-North, NYSHPO, and other consulting parties. In this case, it is anticipated that the adverse effect would be unavoidable, and that potential mitigation may include, but not limited to the following: Documentation of Tuxedo Park Railroad Station according to Historic American Buildings (HABS), or comparable state-level standards prior to proposed improvements
Development of interpretive displays/signs which provide a written and illustrated history of Tuxedo Park Railroad Station
Development of a brochure for distribution at Tuxedo Park Railroad Station that provides a written and illustrated history of the station
Development of context-sensitive design of platforms and other improvements, in consultation with NYSHPO, and other consulting parties
The consultation process may yield alternative or additional mitigation measures.
5.1.3 Right-of-Way In areas where the side slopes of the proposed Track 1 would extend outside the Metro-North ROW, a slope easement would be required for minor work outside the ROW. A slope easement allows for a slope required between two properties at different elevations to be constructed and maintained. In review of the typical sections applied throughout the limits of infrastructure improvements, the limit of disturbance generally stayed within the ROW or extended beyond the ROW by only a few feet. It is anticipated that in
9 Bonafide, John. (2000). National Register Nomination Form for Tuxedo Park Railroad Station. 10 Bonafide, John. (2000). National Register Nomination Form for Tuxedo Park Railroad Station. 11 King, Matt. (2009, May 26). "Town applauds restoration of Tuxedo station.” Times Herald-Record, recordonline.com. Middletown, NY. Retrieved October 2017, from http://www.recordonline.com/article/20090526/NEWS/905260314
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 27
a later stage of design when an accurate definition of the ROW line is available, the limit of disturbance can be shifted to avoid these minor encroachments outside the existing ROW. However, in two locations, at Sloatsburg Station and Harriman Station, the limits of disturbance extend beyond the ROW. At Sloatsburg Station, there are four locations where a total of approximately 0.1acres of land may need to be acquired. At Harriman Station, there are three locations where a total of approximately 0.17 acres of property may need to be acquired.
5.1.4 Permit Requirements Approvals could be required at the federal, New York State, Orange County, or local municipality level. The approvals could be required because of regulations related to activities that include: Environmental resources Socioeconomic resources Land use Impacts to existing infrastructure.
The following is a list of potential approvals that may be required during PJL Capacity Improvement work: Federal Approvals: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): The USACE regulates the placement of fill material in waters of the U.S. pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All of the sites have wetlands that have been identified based upon existing USACE mapping. An in- field delineation of bodies of water and wetlands on these parcels is required, followed by confirmation of these delineations by USACE staff. Impacts to regulated bodies of water or wetlands will likely require the submission of an application for a Section 404 permit.
State Approvals: NYSDEC regulates impacts to regulated freshwater wetlands pursuant to the Freshwater Wetlands Program (Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law [ECL]). The proposed PJL Capacity Improvements are unlikely to qualify for coverage under a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit, and therefore will require an individual permit for stormwater discharges from construction activity.
Orange County Approvals: Issuance of a Sediment and Soil Erosion Control Permit is required when clearing and grading for a proposed project would exceed 20,000 square feet (roughly 1/2 acre); an Erosion Control Plan must be submitted for approval to the Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District. A land disturbance permit must be obtained before any land disturbing activity begins (including timbering, demolition, clearing, or grading, etc.).
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 28
6. Cost
6.1 Cost Methodology
An order-of-magnitude cost estimate for the PJL Capacity Improvements program was prepared. These estimates were prepared for (1) the major elements required to reconstruct Track 1 within the limits of the double track construction, between CP Sterling (approximately MP 34.5) and a point just south of the Moodna Viaduct (approximately MP 54.8), and (2) the construction of new passing sidings in Middletown between MP 72.5 and MP74. The following should be noted: These preliminary project planning level cost estimates were based on the development of typical concept-level elements with no site-specific designs. Cost estimates for site work were based on typical embankment cross-sections that are projected to be required for the reconstruction of Track 1.
Cost estimates for the replacement or rehabilitation of structures were based on conceptual designs and unit costs for typical bridge structures. As agreed with Metro-North, these estimates considered only the portion of the bridge that would actively support Track 1 (i.e., if a bridge consists of two superstructures each carry one track, the replacement cost would only reflect the cost of the superstructure that would carry the reconstructed track). Cost estimates for station upgrades were based on conceptual design of a typical side platforms station and applied to all three stations. No station-specific details were developed. The complete methodology, including key assumptions and other factors considered in developing these capital cost estimates, is presented in “Capital Cost Estimation Methodology Report Phase II – Update” report dated September 2012. 6.2 PJL Cost Estimates
All costs developed and presented are in 2012 dollars and are not escalated to a future mid-point of construction. The preliminary order-of-magnitude total capital cost for the Double Track Alternative is estimated at $334M. These costs assume (1) construction of the preferred gauntlet track configuration to accommodate freight clearance requirements, and (2) the reconstruction of the Woodbury Viaduct.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 29
Technical Memorandum 1.1
Typical Sections
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 30
Typical Sections
Eight typical cross-sections were developed to represent the reconstruction of the second track based on the existing conditions within the limits of infrastructure improvements. The typical cross-sections details were developed to help evaluate the earthworks and infrastructure requirements, the potential impacts, and support the development of conceptual cost estimates. It is important to note that site conditions vary along the alignment and specific locations may not be represented by the typical sections. Therefore, the development of site-specific design may be required during the implementation stages of the study.
For locations of typical section treatment within the limits of infrastructure improvements see Technical Memorandum 1.1, Table A1-1. For station locations see the complete design drawing set titled “West of Hudson Regional Transit Access Study – Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements – Double Track MP 34.5 to 54.7” dated February 27, 2013, available separately.
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 31
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 32
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 33
Table 1.1- 1 – Locations of Typical Section Treatment within the Limits of Infrastructure Improvements
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 34
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 35
Combined lengths by section type
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 36