Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternativeweb.mta.info/mta/planning/pjlstudy/pdf/Appendix C... · Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 2 Figure

Appendix C: Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements

Analysis

Technical Memorandum 1: Double

Track Alternative Restoration of Second Track

January 2018

Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page i

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 ii

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 iii

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 1

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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:

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:

2:1 Side SlopeUse 1.5:1

Stabilized Side Slope

UseRetaining Wall

If Slope Extends outside of ROW

If Slope Extends

outside of ROW


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.


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

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.

Figure 3: 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.

Figure 4: Structural Configuration Assessment Process


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).


TG = Thru Girder DG = Deck Girder CA = Concrete Arch CD = Concrete Deck

* Active 2 Track Bridge ** See Section 3.4.5

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.

Cooper Rating Criteria

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


Note:

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

different orientations. Therefore, it was assumed that lengths of less than 30 feet reflect the “width” of the culvert (a measure taken

parallel to the track) and lengths greater than 30 feet reflect the length of the barrel (a measure taken perpendicular to the tracks.) All

culverts were of sufficient barrel length to support two tracks.

Table 3: Condition Summary Ratings of Culvert Structures and Recommendations


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

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.

Figure 5: Woodbury Viaduct


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

Begin Realignment

End Realignment

Existing Alignment

Proposed New Alignment

Figure 6: Proposed Viaduct Alignment

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/NY-32.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/NY-32.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/I-87.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/I-87.svg


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.

Sloatsburg Station Platform

Figure 7: Sloatsburg Station Platform


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-

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.

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

Figure 8: Tuxedo Station Platform

Figure 9: Harriman Station Platform


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


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)


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


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.

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).

Mill St.


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.


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


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).

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

Figure 16: Preliminary Proposed Universal Interlocking Locations


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.


Milepost (JS)

Feature Crossed Location (NY) Bridge Type

Area of Wetland

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


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

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20090526/NEWS/905260314


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.).


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.


Technical Memorandum 1.1

Typical Sections


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.




Table 1.1- 1 – Locations of Typical Section Treatment within the Limits of Infrastructure Improvements



Combined lengths by section type

Documents

Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternativeweb.mta.info/mta/planning/pjlstudy/pdf/Appendix C... · Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page 2 Figure