(Word Count 4,817 without figures)

BNSF Memphis Intermodal Facility

Trent Hudak, Director of Engineering

BNSF Railway Company

4515 Kansas Ave., Kansas City, KS 66106

Phone 913.551.4435 Fax 913.551.4077

Ross Thomas, Manager of Engineering

BNSF Railway Company

4515 Kansas Ave., Kansas City, KS 66106

Phone 913.551.4410 Fax 913.551.4077

John White, P.E., Civil Engineer

Hanson Professional Services Inc. Hanson-Wilson Inc.

1001 East 101st Terrace, Suite 250

Kansas City, MO 64131

Phone 816.941.2178, ext. 7120 Fax 816.943.4029

Scott Lesovsky P.E., Resident Engineer

Hanson Professional Services Inc. Hanson-Wilson Inc.

1001 East 101st Terrace, Suite 250

Kansas City, MO 64131

Phone 816.941.2178, ext. 7128 Fax 816.943.4029

© AREMA 2009 ®

ABSTRACT Design of the BNSF Memphis Intermodal Facility expansion began in 2005, adding 185-

acres and incorporating innovative European technology. This enabled BNSF to initially

double the facility capacity with the ability to increase to over one million lifts annually

in the future.

To accomplish the increase, five 260-foot overhead production cranes and three 169-foot

ground stacking cranes - nearly nine stories tall - are being used. A new state-of-the-art

automated gate system (AGS), using high resolution cameras and automated kiosks to

check containers into and out of the facility, also increases efficiency. The AGS system

allows automatic processing and inspecting of the trucks, containers, chassis, trailers and

drivers. There are six 7,500-foot-long intermodal tracks that are accessible by the

production cranes.

Good environmental stewardship was an objective of the project. The new crane

technology at the site reduces the carbon footprint of this facility compared to similar-

sized facilities by using electrically-powered cranes instead of typical diesel-powered

gantry cranes. Also, concrete foundations and asphalt were recycled in an effort to reuse

resources available on site.

Strict compliance with state erosion control guidelines posed several challenges. Eleven

temporary sediment basins pre-treated storm water prior to its being discharged into three

permanent detention ponds during construction.

A 3,332-foot retaining wall minimized excavation quantities to 1,700,000 cy and reduced

earthwork waste from 1,000,000 cy to 450,000 cy while retaining valuable space for

parking.

© AREMA 2009 ®

Other notes of interest included coordinating among seven prime contractors, acquiring

31 permits, obtaining 39 parcels of land, relocating three major industries, modifying a

major state route, designing and constructing a 3-span 104-foot x 570-foot arch structure

under the proposed facility, and constructing six buildings.

1. INTRODUCTION

With the accelerated growth of intermodal traffic in early 2001, BNSF Railway

Company identified the Memphis area as a prime location for expansion and

development of a new intermodal facility. BNSF reviewed multiple options from

expansion of the existing facility, to moving the facility to other sites within the

Memphis area. The preferred option was to expand the existing facility into the

property located west of the existing yard. This area consisted of mixed use

industrial parcels, bounded by the existing BNSF mainline track on the east side

and major roadways on the north, west and south sides (Figure 1).

2. PLANNING AND OPTIONS

2.1 Growth Projections

From 2001 to 2003 volume at Memphis increased 73%. Plans were made to

expand the existing facility in the short term with a long term goal of providing

facility capacity to accommodate one million lifts annually.

© AREMA 2009 ®

2.2 Site Location

Several locations for a new facility in the Memphis area were looked at and

evaluated based on accessibility, availability, functionality, efficiencies and cost.

The existing facility was chosen over the other sites because it offered the best

location for the existing customer base while meeting the other criteria listed above.

2.3 Crane Selection

The new facility design started out as a typical intermodal facility that would utilize

multiple rubber tired gantry (RTG) cranes over single tracks. It was apparent that

this type of design would greatly increase the space needed to reach a design

capacity of one million lifts per year. Wide-span cranes had already been under

evaluation by BNSF and presented a solution to meet the capacity criteria within

the proposed site. This concept allowed a much narrower footprint for the number

of tracks needed to accommodate the desired capacity. The wide-span cranes also

could be used for stacking containers, thus reducing the space required to

accommodate a given number of containers (stacking vs. parking). This concept

utilized a space two-thirds the size of an RTG concept and still provided the desired

one million lifts per year capacity.

3. DESIGN

3.1 Yard layout

The footprint of the proposed intermodal facility expansion was constrained both

horizontally and vertically by the mainline track grade on the east, the existing

© AREMA 2009 ®

Highway 78 (Lamar Avenue) on the west, the Perkins Street overpass on the north

and the Shelby Drive at-grade crossing on the south (Figure 1). The initial layout

included the incorporation of a 3,332-ft.-long retaining wall (Figure 2) separating

crane loading/unloading operations from trailer parking to reduce earthwork waste.

As design continued and further communication occurred with interested crane

manufacturers, a wide-span crane was selected, consolidating the unloading

operations over eight tracks (six current and 2 future) at 20-ft. track centers (Figure

3). The wide-span crane also increases the efficiency of the facility because the

cranes operate at a higher speed than typical RTGs. The layout of the yard

incorporated previous parking lot expansions (21 acres of additional parking was

completed in 2004) at the midpoint of the proposed facility. Multiple bid packages

were awarded in phases to reduce impacts to the existing intermodal operation and

to commence construction while simultaneously acquiring property.

One of the first challenges for the proposed layout of the yard was Johns Creek.

The creek flowed across the south end of the proposed facility, crossing under a

previously constructed truck bridge (2002 expansion project), through future

parking expansion area and running transversely across the proposed tracks and

crane rail foundations. The final design to cross Johns Creek incorporated a three-

cell arch structure with a 31 ft.-6 in. span and 10 ft.-10 in. rise. The total length of

the structure was 570 ft., with an overall width of 104 ft. The arches were designed

to accommodate the loading of the wide span crane live loads and Cooper E-80

railroad live loading.

© AREMA 2009 ®

Public funding sources were identified through the City of Memphis’ Economic

Development Department for work that met their specific drainage improvement

requirements. A drainage improvement project on the south end of the new facility,

known as Lateral B, met the requirements. The existing drainage structure

consisted of two 13 ft.-6 in. by 9 ft. double-arch structural-plate pipes and was

extended 370 ft. to provide an access point from the existing intermodal facility to

the proposed facility. This provided the space needed for the track lead off the

main line into the new facility. It also met a funding requirement that the City of

Memphis had to bid and monitor construction. The City was able to separately

manage this remote portion of the project with minimal impacts on other

construction activities.

3.2 Crane rail foundation design

Three foundation designs were evaluated. They included a spread footing with a

stem wall, a spread footing, and a concrete tie system. The initial concept of the

crane rail foundations used a spread footing with a stem wall. This concept,

initially supplied by the crane manufacturers, was modified to a rail-mounted

spread footing, eliminating the stem wall due to reduced requirements for frost

depth. Consideration was given to using a special 6 ft. concrete tie with a single

crane rail fastened in the center of the tie, but this approach was ultimately

discarded due to the expected higher maintenance cost of a tie structure compared

with a fixed concrete footing structure.

© AREMA 2009 ®

3.3 Automated Gate System

The Automated Gate System (AGS) provided proven efficiencies in other BNSF

intermodal facilities. These efficiencies included the elimination of manual

inspections at the checkpoint by utilizing high-resolution video cameras at both

inbound and outbound portals to provide detailed photos of the inbound

truck/container, which are reviewed by a gate technician before the vehicle enters or

departs the facility. This reduces the time for each inspection from three to four

minutes per unit to less than 90 seconds for inbound and less than 60 seconds for

outbound inspections. The AGS photos are stored electronically to defend against

possible future damage claims. The system also utilizes truck driver biometrics to

provide added security for the site. With a limitation of inbound queuing length off

of Highway 78, and projected inbound traffic of over 700,000 vehicles per year, an

efficient system was required to reduce impact on the state route. Reducing the

time spent in line for queuing has the added benefit of reducing emissions due to

truck idling. Current configurations include eight inbound lanes and seven outbound

lanes, with room to expand in the future for a second inbound and outbound portal,

and three additional lanes for both the inbound and outbound gates.

3.4 Wheel-changing crane

A first of its kind, the wheel-changing crane (WCC) (Figure 4) was custom built

specifically for this site. The purpose of the WCC is to change bad-order wheels on

a car without having to switch the car onto another track. The WCC can efficiently

change out a wheel set on any of three tracks while driving over the center track.

© AREMA 2009 ®

The WCC also provides the ability to perform minor on-track repair of cars. The

crane, traveling on 10 ft. wide concrete strips, allowed the track centers to be

reduced to 20 ft., further minimizing the footprint of the rail side of the facility.

3.5 Power Distribution

This project proved to be unique in that the wide-span cranes are powered entirely

by electricity. The demand for electricity, along with the critical nature of continual

operations, required the use of redundant power supplies. Two substations were

placed in the yard, located a sufficient distance from each other so that in the event

of a natural disaster or human error the probability of both substations being

damaged simultaneously is minimal. The substations are fed by separate electrical

circuits from the power company and contain automatic switching, with either

substation able to carry the entire load of the facility. Electrical power is fed into the

yard at 23,000V and stepped down to 12,470V for distribution through the yard.

All buildings and telecommunication systems, including the AGS, have backup

generator power in the event of total power loss.

3.6 Site Lighting

The lighting supplier, in coordination with the design engineer, provided the layout

for the high-mast lighting network. Their lighting method proved to be an

economical system compared with conventional poles with lowering rings. The

design uses 1500W metal halide lamps. In addition the lighting supplier provides

10 years of maintenance for the lights as part of the purchase price. Thirty-six high-

© AREMA 2009 ®

mast poles light the entire new facility and mainline track. The wide-span cranes

provide supplemental lighting to the track unloading and container stacking areas,

since no poles could be placed within the footprint of the area where the wide span

cranes operate. Half of the poles in the new facility also accommodate video

cameras and telecommunication equipment that support the inventory management

system.

3.7 North Lead

The layout of the facility required that any switching take place on the north end of

the new yard to avoid switching across a heavily congested city street (Shelby

Drive) on the south end. This required the addition of a new 8,000-ft. lead track

called the North Lead. Work included using soil nail walls at two highway

overpasses to allow the removal of the header banks as needed to place the lead

track between the bridge abutment and the first pier. A through-plate-girder

railroad bridge was also constructed over a major city street. This new lead allows

switching of the new facility without interference with main line traffic.

4 PLANNING AND DESIGN CHALLENGES

4.1 Property Acquisition

Part of the challenge with expanding the existing site included relocation of several

existing businesses, over 30 property acquisitions, three city street vacations and the

vacation of a portion of a former state highway. Each parcel acquired had its own

unique challenges. The owners of an existing 12-story grain elevator had to

© AREMA 2009 ®

construct a new elevator off-site before demolition of the existing elevator could

commence. Numerous small businesses were accommodated in their relocation

efforts prior to the demolition of those facilities. Several property owners were

allowed to salvage their own buildings as part of the acquisition process. The

acquisition of property was coordinated with the construction process and was

designed to proceed from the south end of the facility to the north. This allowed

construction and property acquisition to occur simultaneously.

4.2 Environmental and Permitting

Environmental assessments and permitting activities were initiated before or during

the early stages of design so that construction could proceed on schedule.

The site includes several streams that were required to be bridged or enclosed in

culverts. These water bodies are regulated as waters of the United States and the

State of Tennessee. The stream impacts required permits from the United States

Army Corps of Engineers Memphis District (USACE) and the Tennessee

Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Environmental

assessments included wetland delineations, endangered species habitat assessments,

and cultural resources investigations. Permits issued for the project included two

individual permits and five nationwide permits, as well as corresponding TDEC

Aquatic Resource Alteration Permits (ARAPs).

Mitigation measures required by the USACE and TDEC permits included three

payments to the Tennessee Stream Mitigation Program, riparian corridor tree

plantings along Johns Creek, and bank stabilization.

© AREMA 2009 ®

Land-disturbing activities require coverage under storm-water discharge permits for

construction activities and development and implementation of a Storm Water

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Due to the size and phasing schedule of the

Memphis Intermodal Facility project, TDEC agreed to cover the construction under

nine separate storm-water permits. This proved to be a benefit to the project.

TDEC rules limit the amount of land that can be disturbed at any one time to

50 acres, which would have seriously impaired the construction schedule.

However, with the limit applied to each storm water permit issued, the large-scale

earthmoving project could proceed.

The SWPPP requires design and implementation of best management practices

(BMPs) to prevent erosion and control sediment runoff. A variety of BMPs were

utilized based on the specific needs of each area, including design and construction

of 11 temporary sediment basins (varied in capacity between 0.78 ac-ft and 4.85 ac-

ft), sediment traps, silt fence, rock check dams, fiber filter tubes, flocculent

application, applied liquid soil stabilization products, broadcast seeding, and

hydraulically-applied seed/mulch materials. TDEC-certified construction observers

conduct twice-weekly inspections of the project.

In addition to these site development permits, certain facilities and equipment

required environmental permits and pollution-prevention design criteria. The

facility includes several diesel generators for emergency power generation. Air

emissions estimates were prepared and concurrence was obtained from Shelby

County that the generators were exempt from air-permitting requirements. Oil-

filled transformers were designed with containment sumps and oil-retention

© AREMA 2009 ®

manholes to prevent discharges of oil spills. Fuel and oil tanks and the intermodal

equipment maintenance area were designed with multiple layers of containment to

prevent discharges of oil spills.

5 CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Past Projects

The construction of the Memphis Intermodal Facility started as a series of smaller

projects going back to 2001, with all of these projects eventually being incorporated

into the final effort. The first project involved a truck bridge crossing Johns creek.

The truck bridge connected a leased parking lot with existing parking while

allowing the hostler traffic to remain on-site. In 2003, the original 3,000-ft. strip

tracks were lengthened to 7,000 ft. and 20 acres of additional parking was added.

In 2005 and 2006 21 acres of additional parking was added west of the main line,

which required a main-line track underpass for access to the existing yard. These

parking lots allowed the existing facility to expand and the underpass allowed

hostler traffic to travel safely between the intermodal facility to the east of the main

line and the parking to the west of the main line. All of these projects have been

incorporated into the final yard layout in some manner.

5.2 Demolition

Demolition started in September of 2006 and was completed in November of 2008

and consisted of 44 structures located throughout the site and removal of 252,000

sq. yards of asphalt and concrete. The structures ranged from 126 sq. ft. to 190,000

© AREMA 2009 ®

sq. ft. The most notable structure was the demolition of a 12-story grain elevator.

The grain elevator was demolished by crane and wrecking ball and demolition was

successfully accomplished next to the BNSF main line without interruption to train

traffic (Figure 5). All the concrete and asphalt accumulated by the demolition was

transported to two locations onsite and crushed to provide 78,000 cy of reclaimed

aggregate base for the project.

5.3 Grading and Drainage

The grading and drainage began in April 2007 and was completed in February

2009.

Facts on the grading and drainage project:

• 1.7 million cy of dirt moved with tractors and pans and dump trucks

• 34,000 ft. of reinforced concrete pipe installed with sizes ranging from 18 inches

to 72 inches in diameter

• 50,800 ft. of under drain

• 34,000 ft. of electrical and telecommunication duct bank

• 3,332 ft. soldier pile retaining wall consisting of 1,447 - 2 ft. x 8 ft. panels and

391 piles ranging from 10 ft. to 46 ft. in length (Figure 4).

• 21,000 ft. of silt fence

All areas under pavement were stabilized to a depth of 9 inches with cement at 9%

by weight. This equated to over 15,500 tons of cement used for stabilization

efforts.

© AREMA 2009 ®

Due to Memphis’ wet climate and the 21% average soil moisture content at the site,

18,200 tons of lime was used to dry and treat the soil to keep the project on

schedule.

5.4 Arches

Construction of the arches began in December of 2006 and finished in January of

2008. The project included a three-span 104 ft. by 570 ft.-long arch structure

constructed at the southern end of the facility (Figure 6). This enabled Johns Creek

to be covered to provide an additional 700 ft. of strip tracks and crane rail

foundations. Bridge 496.0, immediately downstream from the new arch structure,

required an additional 33-ft. span on both ends of the existing three-span bridge

while raising the existing structure almost two ft. This was done to add capacity to

the structure and to reduce erosion at the abutments due to the discharging flow at

the arches.

Facts on the arch project:

• 11,000 cy of concrete were used in the floor slab and walls

• 198 precast arch units

• 11,500 lineal ft. of piling driven

5.5 Paving

Notice to proceed on the paving package was given in April of 2008 and paving

was completed in June of 2009. The work included over 456,000 square yards

© AREMA 2009 ®

(255,000 tons) of asphalt paving ranging from 4 to 12 inches thick. In addition,

37,000 square yards of 18- to 21.5-inch-thick Portland cement concrete pavement

was placed to accommodate the wheel-changing crane. The contractor placed

concrete through the winter months to keep the project on schedule. The asphalt

paving took a break in January and February due to temperature constraints but

ramped back up in March to involve as many as three crews to recover the lost

production from the winter months and get back on schedule.

5.6 Crane Rail Foundations and Crane Rail

The bid package for this portion of the project consisted of forming and casting the

concrete for the crane rail foundation and the installation of the crane rail on to the

foundation. The crane rail construction started in April 2008 and was completed in

June 2009. The four crane foundations were each over 7,500 ft. long, varying from

7 ft. to 9 ft. 6 in. wide and from 2 ft. 6 in. to 2 ft. 9 in. thick. Variations on the

width and thickness depended on which leg of the crane was being supported and

which type of crane, either production or stacking.

Facts on crane rail construction:

• 24,000 cy of structural concrete

• 2,580 tons of reinforcing steel

• 10,800 sole rail plates grouted

• 21,600 anchor bolts

• 52 expansion joints

• 450 GPS transponders

© AREMA 2009 ®

The contractor chose to construct the foundations utilizing a slip-form method,

which greatly increased production over conventional cast-in-place concrete

utilizing reusable forms. In order to keep up with the required production rates and

to provide a consistent concrete mix the contractor installed a portable concrete

batch plant onsite.

Crane manufacturer guidelines required the rail to be installed within a tolerance of

10 mm, both vertically (cross level) and horizontally (gage). In order to meet the

specification on both cross level and gage the contractor established a high-

precision base line meeting first order of accuracy. Each base plate supporting the

rail was shot for elevation a minimum of nine times to establish the correct

elevation prior to placing grout for final alignment. The contractor then proceeded

with lining the rail, again using the baseline to establish the correct line (gage).

5.7 Cranes

The first two production cranes arrived on the site in June of 2008. Parts for the

cranes arrived from all over the world. The majority of the structural steel was

shipped from overseas to the Port of Houston. The parts for the two cranes were

transloaded onto 24 railcars for shipping to Memphis. Once in Memphis they were

unloaded in the existing intermodal yard and using extendable trailers moved to the

erection site in a 30-hour around-the-clock operation. The crane erection team

spent the next 60 days preparing the cranes for erection. The cranes were then

stood up over a span of seven days using two, 500-ton cranes. Once erected two

© AREMA 2009 ®

additional cranes were scheduled to arrive and the cycle was repeated until all eight

cranes were on site (Figure 7).

5.8 Track Construction

Material for the track structure began arriving on site in July 2008. Switches were

welded in place in August and the leads were constructed in the fall of 2008. All

eleven turnouts are No. 11 self-guarded frogs and use solar-powered switch stands

to reduce the risk of back injuries while lining the switch. The track construction

included over 51,000 track ft. of 136-lb. continuously welded rail (CWR) for six

unloading tracks and one bad-order track. The tangent portions of the unloading

tracks used second-hand rail on second-hand concrete ties. Sliding point derails

were installed at the clearance points and are also solar-powered. A modular

precast-concrete platform grade-crossing type system was selected for use at each

end of the yard across all six tracks to allow access for the wheel-changing crane.

6 CONSTRUCTION CHALLENGES

6.1 Phasing

The greatest challenge during construction involved phasing and multiple

contractors with specific projects on site at the same time. Each portion of the

project was issued in a separate bid package and separate contract beginning in

early 2007 to the last package in mid-2008. In the height of construction there were

as many as 16 separate projects and contractors on site, which with all of the

subcontractors proved to be a logistical challenge. In the middle of 2008 there were

© AREMA 2009 ®

in excess of 200 people per day working on site. Given all the different work

activities going on, the contractors worked well and safely together towards final

completion. Job briefings were held with multiple contractors at the beginning of

each work day. Each contractor was aware of the others’ work for the day, which

made coordination much easier. Contractors also held individual job briefings as

the work progressed during the day. Weekly progress meetings were attended by

all contractor superintendents. Safety items were discussed openly and safety

information was passed between contractors, which contributed to a safer work

environment. The weekly meetings were used to coordinate and schedule future

work to avoid any issues and delays among work groups.

6.2 TLM Construction

BNSF’s Track Laying Machine (TLM) was used to construct approximately 95% of

the track. The biggest challenge with laying the track was that the TLM needed to

work within a 10 ft. slot, with an 18 in. concrete wheel-changing slab or a crane rail

foundation on either side. This left about four inches on either side of the track

loader pulling the machine to navigate through the track slot. Rail had to be

positioned on the concrete pavement, which is considerably higher than normal for

the TLM process. Adjustments were made to position the rail on the concrete and

to keep the ties from dropping farther than normal. Everything ran smoothly, with

production running from ¾ to 1 mile of track per day.

© AREMA 2009 ®

6.3 Slip-Form Pouring Crane Rails

The crane-rail foundation contractor chose to slip form these foundations due to the

aggressive schedule. Given the amount of reinforcing steel within the foundations

and the fact that the foundations are 2 ft. 6 in. tall, with about half of that distance

below grade, this was a challenging operation. The contractor constructed a

concrete form on both sides of the foundation location, about one foot wide by three

to four ft deep, by using a trencher to remove the material and then back filling the

slot with concrete. The soil was excavated between the new forms to about four

inches below the bottom elevation of the crane rail foundation and a mud seal was

cast to provide a dry bottom that allowed the reinforcing steel to be installed

without significant weather delays (See Figures 8, 9). The contractor poured the

bottom portion with a slightly higher slump to ensure the concrete consolidated

around the reinforcing steel and the slip form portion with a lower slump. This

process was coordinated tightly to make sure a cold joint did not develop. The

contractor managed this effort with little difficulty. This type of value engineering

contributed toward the project staying within budget.

6.4 Utility Relocations

Relocation of utilities provided quite a challenge. The final layout required

relocation of a major city water main, four sanitary sewer mains, overhead power

distribution lines, phone lines, gas mains, and cable lines. Each utility had to

remain in service until it was time to cut over to the new relocated utility, which

required planning weeks in advance of the cutover dates. The largest and most

© AREMA 2009 ®

complicated relocation involved five major natural gas distribution lines and a

transfer station. The five gas lines ranged in size from 26 inches in diameter to 42

inches in diameter and had to be relocated and lowered across the new yard. The

gas company suggested, and BNSF approved, directionally boring the new lines

under the proposed facility and the existing BNSF main line, as opposed to a

traditional trenching-and-shoring method. The bore for each line was over 1200 ft.

long. Pulling the new lines back through the bore, which required tremendous

effort by their contractor, was accomplished without incident. The new lines are

now more than 30 ft below the surface of the new yard.

7 Conclusion

The facility was completed in June of 2009 with the AGS being the first portion of

the facility to go into service (See Figure 10). The cranes were to be completed in

August with plans to begin loading and unloading operations in September. Utility

relocations were a major obstacle in progressing the schedule, as many different

work activities had to be adjusted to accommodate the utilities until relocation was

completed. Due to the large number of contractors, working side-by-side,

tremendous time and effort was required by all to manage their respective work

schedules effectively and efficiently to meet the project schedule. Looking back, it

would have been beneficial had property acquisitions and utility relocations been

able to start earlier in the project. Construction time and complexities could have

been reduced significantly had negotiations with land owners and utility companies

been able to start earlier. If an earlier start on these items had been possible, the

© AREMA 2009 ®

entire project could have been combined into fewer construction packages, or even

one package, eliminating multiple contracts and the inherent coordination

challenges.

Acknowledgments

Hanson-Wilson, Inc.

BNSF – Engineering, BNSF – Telecommunications, BNSF – Marketing

Ames Construction, Burnsville, MN

Chris Hill Construction Company, Memphis, TN

APAC Tennessee, Memphis, TN

Kinley Construction Company, Arlington, TX

Haines Electric Co. Inc., Memphis, TN

Tri-state Armature & Electric Works, Inc, Memphis, TN

Nascent, Charlotte, NC

Konecranes, Finland

Texas Gas

Memphis Light, Gas, and Water

City of Memphis

Tennessee Department of Transportation

AT&T

© AREMA 2009 ®

FIGURES

Figure – 1 Site Location

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure – 2 Retaining Wall

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure – 3 Site Cross Section

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure – 4 Wheel Changing Crane

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure – 5 Elevator Demolition

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure – 6 Arches

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure – 7 Cranes

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure – 8 Crane Rail Foundation Slip Forming

Figure – 9 Crane Rail Slip Form Paving Detail

© AREMA 2009 ®

Figure 10 - Site Aerial from June 2009

© AREMA 2009 ®

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location

Figure 2 – Retaining Wall

Figure 3 – Site Cross Section

Figure 4 – Wheel Changing Crane

Figure 5 – Elevator Demolition

Figure 6 – Arches

Figure 7 – Cranes

Figure 8 – Crane Rail Foundation Slip Forming

Figure 9 – Crane Rail Slip Form Paving Detail

Figure 10 – Site Aerial from June 2009

© AREMA 2009 ®