Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Engineer's Report - Ludlowville Road
TOWN OF LANSING TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK December 11 2021 ENGINEER'S REPORT Possible Solutions to Reopen Portion of Ludlowville Road Presently Closed Due to Land Slides To Seneca Falls To Auburn :v�, 34 =iPi si 'c To Ithaca "Home of Industry,Agriculture and Scenic Beauty" PREPARED BY: T. G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors Ithaca, New York TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................2 2. HISTORY.............................................................................................................................................2 2.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES...............................................................................................................2 2.2 RECENT HISTORY...................................................................................................................2 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................3 4. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS...................................................................................................................4 4.1 REOPEN THE ROAD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.....................................................................4 4.2 PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE..............................................................................................5 4.3 WALKING PATH CONVERSION.............................................................................................6 5. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................6 APPENDICES Appendix A—Existing Conditions Sketch with Notes and Photos Appendix B—Sketch of Required Repairs Appendix C— Ludlowville Road Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix D— 1971 Stability Research on Tompkins County Route CR 159 (County Report) Appendix E— 1993 T.G. Miller Engineer's Report 1 1. INTRODUCTION A portion of Ludlowville Road, located south of Brickyard Road and north of the Lansing Schools, has been closed several times dating back as far as 1971 due to slope failures on both the uphill and downhill sides of the road. Slopes on both sides of the road have proven to be unstable and pose hazards to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In 1994, in response to one such closure, the Town issued a Request for Proposals for the design and construction of various drainage improvements, sheet pile retaining walls, road reconstruction, and associated repairs. Unfortunately, the road has been closed again due to slope failures along portions of the 1994 repairs as well as along the older 1900's concrete retaining wall. The objective of this Report is to determine possible actions to render the roadway safe. Actions and costs associated with both repairing the road and abandoning the road, in the event a determination is made that the repairs to the 1994 project are too costly, are presented. Information for this Report is based upon a collection of previous studies, repairs, and recent site inspections. 2. HISTORY 2.1 Previous Studies Four separate studies were performed on this section of road (previously County Route 159) in 1971 and 1972. Three of the four were compiled by students of Cornell University in 1972 and another in 1971 for the Tompkins County Highway Department ('County Report') Appendix D. The County Report was the most detailed and comprehensive and included conclusions based on soil testing, soil profiles, and ground water conditions. Conclusions of all studies were that the road required surface and subsurface drainage improvements, cutting back of uphill slopes, construction of retaining walls, and alteration of the road alignment would be necessary to solve the issue of frequent slides in the roadway. Furthermore, it was determined that the costs associated with these repairs would be so substantial that abandonment would not be an unwarranted option. 2.2 Recent History In June of 1993,T.G. Miller, PC was consulted to investigate the causes of landslides and potential repair options to mitigate the damages. Two separate site inspections were conducted, and observations about the condition of the roadway, embankments, and existing retaining walls were made. At that time,two separate sections of road embankment had given way, and a section of the slope uphill of the road had slid down the hill, covering about 200 feet of the roadway. It was also noted that the existing concrete retaining walls were structurally sound, but were beginning to show signs of minor spalling/flaking. An area of erosion just north of the northernmost concrete retaining wall was noted as an imminent danger to the failure of the retaining wall. Two alternatives were proposed. First, a series of retaining wall repairs, new retaining walls, drainage upgrades, and a complete rebuild of the roadway pavement section. Alternatively, measures that would need to be taken to close the road were evaluated. The conclusion was that the cost and effectiveness of repairing the road outweighed the option for abandonment for the benefits it provided to the community for keeping the road open. 2 Stemming from the 1993 engineer's report (Appendix E), a Request for Proposals was solicited by the Town in June of 1994 to secure professional engineering and construction services to reconstruct Ludlowville Road. It should be noted that the cost of this project was offset by special emergency funding from New York State in the amount of$209,000. Orchard Earth & Pipe of Solvay, New York, in conjunction with JDI, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services of Rome, New York were awarded the contract at a price of exactly$209,000. The project was completed in early 1995. It included several hundred linear feet of sheet pile retaining walls, tree clearing and cutting of the uphill slope, several hundred linear feet of culvert and drainage upgrades, and several hundred cubic yards of excavation and backfill. 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS In January of 2021, The Lansing Highway Department was made aware of some potential failure with the Ludlowville Road embankment and retaining walls. Representatives of TG Miller, PC and the Highway Department performed a joint site inspection shortly after the issue was reported. A detailed sketch of their findings from this inspection is attached as Appendix A. In the vicinity of the house at #63 Ludlowville Road, additional storm piping and structures were connected to the 1994 drainage system, effectively increasing the watershed area and introducing additional flow through the system. It is believed that all of the drainage pipes, weeps, and underdrain that penetrate the sheet pile retaining wall have either completely sheared off, or had the inverts compromised by movements in the sheet pile, roadway embankment, or both. It is asserted that the combination of these conditions created a situation where runoff and groundwater introduced hydraulic loading on the embankment at the base of the sheet piling. As a result, multiple sections of the sheet pile retaining walls have either failed, or are in the process of failing. At these failure points, the embankment immediately downhill of the sheet piles has given way and slid down the hill toward Salmon Creek, leaving a deep washout. In some areas, the depth of this washout either meets or exceeds the embedment depth of the sheet pile. Areas of sheet pile with large amounts of corrosion were also observed. The southernmost concrete retaining wall had an erosion issue that was noted in the 1993 report which has worsened to the point where it is beginning to undermine the northern buttress. If left unchecked, it will more than likely continue to undermine the foundations of the wall until it eventually fails. The corrugated metal pipe culvert (CMP) that penetrates this wall has had the invert completely rusted away, most likely causing settlement of the roadway embankment above it. All of the steel pipes that serve as weeps for the retaining wall appear to be in a similar condition. The flaking and minor spalling observed in the 1993 report appears to have worsened slightly and several areas of the wall have spalled to the point where some reinforcing steel is visible. The northernmost concrete retaining wall has weeps, a CMP culvert and concrete in a similar condition to the southern wall. These concrete retaining walls are believed to have been built in the early 1900's with evidence of square steel reinforcing visible is a few areas. The southern retaining wall also has a safety fence that has failed and is partially suspended from the structure. The cut slope from the 1994 project (uphill side of Ludlowville Road) appears to be relatively stable with no indication of pending slope failure but has little sustained vegetation growth and signs of rill erosion. This condition appears to have caused some of the cross culverts under the road to become partially 3 silted in. The ditch at the toe of this slope also has some areas that require regrading due to siltation, as evidenced by the growth of reed grasses and standing/ponding water. 4. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Three possible options have been identified for planning purposes.These options include reopening the road for vehicular traffic, closing the road permanently and lastly converting the roadway to a pedestrian path.These options are further outlined below. 4.1 Reopen to Vehicular Traffic At a minimum, the repairs itemized below should be implemented to facilitate reopening the road. A detailed sketch showing the locations of these repair items can be found in Appendix B. • Repair Washout Areas: In the three areas where washouts of the downhill slope have occurred, the compromised sheet piling should be removed by torch cutting or some other means which will cause minimal disturbance to the road embankment. The U-shape sheeting that has failed should be replaced with a system of Z-shaped sheeting with walers and tie-backs, similar to the repairs that were made in the 1995 project. Slopes downhill should get additional sheeting with auxiliary weeps and drainage, per the "Typical Washout Repair Detail" shown in the sketch. Easements may be required, as some of this repair may need to take place beyond the highway boundary. The cross culverts that have been partially sheared off by the sheet pile will be removed and replaced. • Stabilize Retaining Wall Buttress: The buttress at the north end of the southernmost concrete retaining wall requires stabilization. This could be accomplished by driving Z- shaped sheet pile around the exposed footing of the buttress and tying it into the nearby sheet pile retaining wall from the 1995 project. Once this is completed, the foundation of the buttress can be backfilled in a similar fashion to the washout repair details. Some Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM), or "flowable fill" as it is commonly known, may be required to ensure that gaps and irregularities at the base of the buttress are adequately filled in. An easement may be required for this work. • Storm Piping and Underdrain: A system of storm piping and underdrain should be installed below the centerline of the existing ditch along the uphill side of the road. This underdrain should be at a substantial enough depth and shall be adequately sized to cut off and carry away any ground water and infiltrated surface runoff from the nearby slope. The depth of this underdrain should be determined based on further geotechnical investigation. In order to prevent shearing of the pipes at wall penetrations, as is currently the case today, the storm piping and underdrain should be run parallel to the retaining walls and be daylighted to the ditch beyond the affected area. The ditch will then be shaped and graded to provide optimum drainage.Alternatively, cross culverts could be replaced but this condition would further contribute hydraulic loading to the steep slopes and contribute to the ongoing erosion issues. • Replace Existing 72" Steel Culvert: The steel boiler pipe culvert near the Brickyard Road intersection should be replaced due to significant corrosion and age. For the purposes of this report, a replacement with a 72" CMP culvert was assumed. However, it should be noted that this culvert crossing should be evaluated for hydraulic capability and possibly increased in size. • Repair Existing Concrete Retaining Walls: In an effort to extend the life of the existing concrete retaining walls on Ludlowville Road, some concrete repairs should be made. 4 Repairs will consist of sounding the surface of the concrete; defining deficient concrete for removal; sawcutting the perimeter of deficient areas; removal of concrete; surface preparation of concrete and any exposed rebar; and patching with NYSDOT approved vertical and overhead patching material. These measures should serve to significantly extend the life of the structure. For the purposes of this report, it is estimated that roughly 60 percent of the surface area of the wall will require repair. Actual quantity of repairs may vary. • Abandon Existing CMP Storm Pipe: The CMP storm pipe which penetrates the southern concrete retaining wall has had its invert rusted away. The lack of invert appears to be causing settlement in the roadway directly over the culvert. To prevent future settlement, it is recommended to excavate the culvert, remove it, backfill, and repave the area. Alternatively, grout injection techniques could be evaluated to reduce deep excavation within the roadway. Patching of the hole was assumed to be factored into the patching of the retaining walls. • Stabilize Existing Ditch: The ditch line downstream of the proposed storm and underdrain system, which carries surface runoff to the 72" culvert near Brickyard Road, should be cleaned, reshaped, and regraded. After the geometry of the ditch is brought back to standard, it should be stabilized. For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that the stabilization would be provided with light stone fill. However, a series of stone check dams and possibly vegetative practices could be used. • Upgrade Channel to Creek: Stormwater that is conveyed through the 72" culvert at Brickyard is not well defined from the culvert to the creek. To facilitate the conveyance of stormwater, a channel should be excavated from the culvert outlet to the edge of Salmon Creek. The channel closest to the culvert outlet will receive some light stone fill to help dissipate water velocity exiting the culvert. The balance of the channel could be lined with vegetative practices to prevent erosion. Easements will likely be required for this work. • Guiderail Removal and Replacement: Due to the nature of the work, a large majority of the guiderail in this area will need to be removed prior to the start of work, stored for the duration of construction, and then reset at the end of construction. These repairs should serve to alleviate all of the concerns with the roadway and prolong its serviceable life span. The above recommended repairs are largely based on field observations, assumptions, and past history. As such, the actual costs of both engineering and construction could be higher. As presented in Appendix C, the opinion of total probable project cost associated with this repair is approximately$1,940,000. It should also be noted that both concrete retaining walls have likely exceeded the designed lifespan and that the repairs suggested herein will only serve to slightly prolong the life of the retaining walls. The sheet piling that remains intact from the 1995 project is also noticeably corroded in some areas. Considering the seasonal presence of de-icing salts in a roadside environment, one can assume that the degradation of the sheet pile to continue at a constant rate. To effectively repair and/or replace all of the deficiencies with the existing wall systems will involve additional technical investigations and add significant cost above the value of the repairs that have been identified above. 4.2 Permanent Road Closure The County Report in 1971 and the three studies done by Cornell Students in 1972, and the 1993 TG Miller report all elude to the fact that the repairs necessary to keep the road in a safe condition for 5 public travel are extensive and very costly. If not for the emergency funding received from New York State in 1994, this section of road may have been closed. Considering that there are several alternative routes available, along with the fact that lands adjacent to this area are (and probably will remain) undeveloped, the possibility of leaving this portion of road closed becomes a pragmatic solution. Certain measures will undoubtedly need to be taken to make this a viable option. The residence at 63 Ludlowville Road, adjacent to the southernmost concrete retaining wall, will require continued access to their property that the road provides. As a result, some of the repair measures above may need to be implemented. The concrete retaining wall will need to be stabilized in some fashion, some of the stormwater and ground water will need to be managed, and the failing road and sheet pile may require removal. In addition, adequate barricades and signage will need to be installed. The costs associated with these measures may still prove considerable, but can be assumed to be substantially less than the repair option explained above. In additional, long- term maintenance and future replacement cost of infrastructure along this stretch would be reduced. 4.3 Walking Path Conversion The possibility of leaving a portion of the road open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic may also be considered as an alternative to a complete closure of the road. It is likely that many of the repairs outlined in section 4.1 (above) would need to be implemented to make the walking path safe for maintenance vehicles and pedestrian traffic. Sheet pile repairs; stormwater management and drainage upgrades; the stabilization of the concrete retaining walls; and appropriate signage and barricades will more than likely be required to make the conversion of the road into a viable walking path a viable option. In this scenario, the western lane of the road may be closed but still needs to be protected from further degradation. It may still be necessary for the Town to maintain the walking path utilizing some combination of wheeled vehicles and motorized equipment, so certain repair measures and maintenance considerations will need to be implemented. It can also be assumed that the residence at 63 Ludlowville Road will need to be provided long term access to their property as outlined above. Similarly to the road closure option in section 4.2, the costs associated with these measures will more than likely be fairly substantial, but may prove somewhat less than the complete repair option outlined above. Once again, further exploration into the legal obligations of the Town would need to be conducted before refinement of a plan for converting the road into a walking path can be adequately assessed. 5. CONCLUSION The repairs necessary to return this portion of Ludlowville Road to a satisfactory condition that is safe for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic will be both extensive and costly. All previous studies and reports have concluded that when the benefits of this road to the public are weighed against the associated costs of repairs and ongoing maintenance, the permanent closure of the road should be considered. It should be noted that even the complete closure of the road will require some amount of time, effort, and funding. At this point it should be considered that no matter what course of action is taken, further planning, engineering, and analysis will be necessary as the findings of this report should be considered preliminary. 6 .. .... ... .. ... . . .... .. . .. ................. - --- ..._____ ___ _ ____. .............................. . ... ........... ........ ...... . ..... . i T.G. Miller photo inspection and notes. 1 /11 /2011 f f �•: . ' , MACKETIC WOOF LEGEND f. �' z 7 g ` i ... 4 ' •'r.T•L. PROPERTY LINES OF t PRORTY L --E - - I� r.�• .: ,_'� , ;, +�.... . R.O.W. ► 9 _ RIGHT OF WAY _ait ��k � EDGE NEW PAVEMENT ;` non stabilized slope EG PAVEMENT SHOULDER RpDING A REA OF S'-O'pE R TION, SEED _ - — --"—' - EXISTING €71 TCH Road/culvert settled and sheared off p,�1D SLOPE S� A$1L12A # culvert at wall. Water appears to be seeping behind wall, sheeting • • PROPOSED DITCH starting to bow out. Large scour hole SHED (APPROX. at face of wall. 4" wall drains sheared LOCATION) and plugged. I CORRUGATED PLASTIC CULVERT p gg ❑ CLEARING LIMIT i net and added- piping GUIDERAIL, NOT INSTALLED AS OF 9 2/4/94 lam; '"� to the north. Possible ; .. .• ,' } r �� change in watershed? - , , RETAINING WALL fit; r. r r'� Owl .• ~• � F 1 srn BENCHMARK , t eroded ditch C/) Dry stacked rock wall f ASSUMED C° 1 ELEV. 500.00 4�� HOPE pert 63 HOUSC (NUT Dfv' ; partially silted in pipe • - _r ;. � �❑ (APPRQX. E HYD.} �piV� _ -- -- sLDCA TI N} f �" w 6 STONE' E LINED SLOPE DRAIN owl open roadside ditch 12+00 need to verify if this is 00 - - � _ _ -- - " R•p.W_ working ' '``'`• '' STONE LINED DITCH .' NO, 1 I - _ � END OF PROJECT STA. 13+00LA i ^ EXIIS NG TIMBER WALL •� '0 r''' �'�'' - , EXI G CONCRETE - RETAINING WALL ❑ E D AT STA. 11 +60 E `� `` ' - `'• I �xs NEPILINGBA FILL WASH—O Road settling, appears to ! Conc. wall 15'-20' tall, s� STEED SHEET 1+75t U AREA STA. 1 TO STA. 12 , 00t be over the old rusted ' ? .tfll spalling, weeps drains CMP. Water ponding along - - rusted CMP culvert p� COI NECT TO EXISTING CONC ETE EXI STIN R� a,�„�€a �L S A 6 5 road shoulder adjacent to I 5� E' d l 1 T rusted out �4 ,�f„ , wall w/ reed grass. �! t, .,� COIF C ,_ ._L - STEEL SHE • ! pr - � � 01 .F. NEW SEE T PiLIIt�=..; E AS BUILT D TAIL SHEETS ,� 1l STEEL SHEET PILING Steel waler w/ anchor rods ,+ 20 tall conc. retaining wall. 1 along face of sheeting. 4" Conc. spalling, rebar exposed, wash out/land slide to perf HOPE weeps have North wing wall servilely t f weep holes appear partially bottom of slope. been sheared off and undermined with channeled possible excess water partially plugged. water from road shoulder blocked, safety rail/fence failed. I z� n from diverted directed to this area. I '•' i ; �' / watershed? Evidence CD ©j �' �� f / of water seep at toe of sheeting.4. �~ir c•. 5 '� �•� � ---�tAi• f•�!w 1��:vt;�- ^+•,..`• ) �-:� 4-f„ .... .- - _ , j" '+' !� - - _ I Road/culvert settled and sheared off =3 noun culvert at wall. Water appears to be seeping behind wall. Large scour hole at face of wall. 4" wall drains ' c _ -.4 Nil sheared and plugged along entire y,� •t. , length, north of conc. wall. �' ;�^. .. ��d\ .'f �..A ,.f ���. '* _ � _ 1, � `..�" 49 , •.�; � � :.Ap `y,y l �':�•,ry. •; �• '�'V `.�, .�� � •.°Y•�/•�'•• �.�.,.r/�, y �+.�• .':,< '~ yam•- • - v.`� n !' ) .1 i • • „ '� �d' � .� .s ]` � -•:��3i�• 1:.�:. e � ,S- .� Y �Y�v� � .f _ `..� - rl,; f<'��' Y• '�'`--.'fr {.`�L s f .� v..Jii� �� � � � k •.S�e.y���'�{'�.f+�` :A � :L i _ t.:� :M: w .�' L .-- v..�, .r ra+. .1.` �r. _ ir. -' S ..o s WASH—OUT AREA • yyy, �.•� �'. r•:<` � cQ ��i �' : 'w `� � Ste♦ ' - f [' ,' � i Red/brown colored -' �' . ' STA. 3+20t TO 4+05 r i. w � "� r water w/ sheen. �F ! ` t;°'a i�► Consider further f r �. r investigation. OUT REPAIR WASH .� SEE AS BUILT DETAIL SHEETS dry�r' - 'L Q 6" PVC underdrain w/ �!^ • " � ' �❑ - �' i� ,_ `I \w�-- -, .`,.r r .-•fit,.• - I , r, ':• �x ` flowing water. ter_ i •_... , '° ' .�~- :::�. 4 =` i EXISTING 72,f CULVERT � ..., (\\ •r � �tr S K J, '�1 v• - ^ , n /f :Sl i �,..�:• / i�i - _ f �� t ✓` .c� .ems a —_ �. .. i :w-- .1 y«Z,• '.+�! ). " � _ . ' . BEGINNING OF T STA. � : .. ...' s.r _ � � PROJEC 1+DD i, 1`e1G1, .• , �. r ,��;, ;.�vy r ■' sheeting separated ^`` -u• ' � rusted culvert, joints , - � starting to separate ,:.- �, approx. 2-3 s= ti .::-� r deformed, inv. appears to have been poured w/ � ► , . r;` .: .;�•� conc. shoulder s• t: . ', �- conc. at one time, most) eroded away = y dd y' "�`• i- guide rail posts 0'r�t.•ii' �- `.. . , T1 �• r-•'qi r ` x � ~ vow '.y -/ � - '• steel member .j-�' �'r ��•`l�` - Appendix A NO. DATE REMSIONS ITT, v �>� :��:"' -ti;- €)A7 DRAWNG "i�; GRAPHIC SCALE s��s�s� � cor�ruc €0u �400rlvrs, r� misTMH ngineerig ar4 C� srt , •�-� + GENERAL CONTRACTOR L�DLQWVILLE ROAD �121A194 rM" PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE REHABILITATION AUGUST 994 3cs g s� 100 ssn 2 12l41$4 AS BUILT THROUGH _ a1I �-d TM � '"' ORCHARD, EARTH & PIPE CORPORATION TOWN OF LANS�NG PRO�`CT "°. :- IN FEET SOLVAY, NEW YORK 1 of 1 t in�I 0 tt _. NEW YORK STATE 9410, OEP .. .... ... .. ... . . .... .. . .. ................. . . ...._____ _ ____. .............................. . ... ............ ........ ...... . ..... . REPAIR OPTION #1 : _. I -REPAIR WASHED OUT SHEET PILING -STABILIZE RETAINING WALL BUTTRESS -UNDERDRAIN AND/OR STORM SYSTEM BELOW DITCHLINE -STABILIZE LOWER PORTION OF DITCH -CONCRETE RETAINING WALL REPAIRS f -72" CULVERT REPLACEMENT -IMPROVE CHANNEL FROM CULVERT TO CREEK ' l • ...� MAcNFrrc ; LEGEND f i --�- ---- PROPERTY LINES j R.0.W. RIGHT OF WAY EDGE NEW PAVEMENT PAVEMENT SHOULDER EGRAniNG AREA OF S{�C�PE R �10 � SEED -- '— -- — w EXISTING €71 TCH p,�1D SLOPE S� Ag1L12A RECENTLY ADDED DI AND 12" STORM • • PROPOSED DITCH SHED (APPROX. SYSTEM I LOCATION) CORRUGATED PLASTIC CULVERT ❑ TIE INTO EXISTING STORM PIPE. CLEARING LIMIT BEGIN STORM PIPE AND ' rile I 'GUIDERAIL, NOT INSTALLED A5 OF 9 2I4194 UNDERDRAIN BELOW DITCH� DRY STACKED STONE ,c1 STA 1,0+50 r RETAINING WALL. OPEN DITCH (TYP) RETAINING WALL rig DEMO/ABANDON EXISTING STORM PIPING. REMOVE 1 OPEN DITCH (TYP) i m BENCHMARK EXISTING SHEETING AND REPLACE WITH NEW PZ-27 ASSUMED EXISTING GRADE (TYP) SHEETING. WASHOUT REPAIR (SEE DETAIL) CIO ELEV. 500.00 " • ` [ HODS (NUT ON ❑ (APPRQX. FIRE HYD.} R_d-A-- _��--_ _• _ �� STONE i-INED SLOPE DRAIN te .- - - - � + . �OI owl 12+00 R.O.W. .. --- --- STONE LINED DITCH � �� •• � �: N •� ��'' - -- ,.- _ --•w� END OF PROJECT STA. 13+00 i FACE OF SHEET ;;° � CONCRETE REPAIRS TO PILING (TYP) EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING CONCRETE - RETAINING WALL f �• : �° ABANDON AND FILL O EXISTING CMP I �x BA FILL WASH—OUT AREA STORM PIPE ! I;• s� STEEL SHEET PILING STA 1 i 1+75t T T O STA. 12-ODt STORM PIPING �.�• CONNECT TO EXISTING CONCRETE � EXISTING R'~T,a 65Y STEEL I- AM WITH i CON C. llsf�n s r "` ` 'ti'"�` i,�A�! STA a . ' '` E TC S :2 - C ANCHOR B LTS UNDERDRAIN CONCRETE REPAIRS TO T' EXISTING RETAINING WALL ' DAYLIGHT STORM AND pr _ !;• 6 0I S STEEL SHEET I✓' LING; f .F. NEW SEE AS BUILT DETAIL SHEETS STA 6+50 TO STA11 +50 t STA 6RD0RAIN TO DITCH '• l �� STEEL SHEET PILING TYPICAL STORM AND UNDERDRAIN SECTION (N.T.S.) f: INSTALL NEW PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING FROM ' EXISTING SHEETS AROUND THE BASE OF THE j REMOVE, STORE, WALL BUTTRESS. BACKFILL WITH � n AND RESET HPBO LRIG TI STO E FILL AND BANK UN GRAVEL AND STABILIZE DITCH © " `� �� �a (APPROXGUIDERAI 750 LF) INSTALL DIP WEEPS. (SIMILAR TO DETAIL BELOW) STA 6+50 TO STA 2+25 (01 .:.• �" r } TORCH AND REMOVE FAILED SHEETING r. 5 00 AT/BELOW EXISTING GRADE (TYP) i _____________ - ------------------ *' 1 . f � ' PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING, 1 1 BANK RUN GRAVEL t ' THREADED ROD, AND I-BEAM TIE-BACKS (TYP) WASH—OUT AREA LIGHT STONE FILL (TYP) �0 STA. 3+20t TO 4+05� 1 EXISTING SHEETING TO REMAIN (TYP) f WASH T OU REPAIR , SEE AS BUILT DETAIL SHEETS REPLACE EXISTING CULVERT LIGHT STONE FILL (TYP) x EXISTING 72" CULVERT k • BEGINNING OF PROJECT STA. 1+00 FILTER FABRIC INSTALL NEW PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING EXISTING GRADE (TYP) DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE A��4v glen�o UPGRADE CHANNEL TO CREEK SHEETING(TYP) "- REMAINING EXISTING SHEETING TYP c PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING (TYP) Li ru� TYPICAL WASHOUT REPAIR DETAIL (N.T.S.) SITE.DWG Appendix B NO. DATA v�sforas � T Inc. GENERAL CONTRACTOR DATE DRAWNG GRAPHIC SCALE � PREPARE CONTRUCMN DIDCUM NTS, FIELD EDITS TMx Pngineering an4 Construction Services LUDLOWVILLE ROAD AUGUST 1994 a ,z/ Asa As BUILT T Ro G 12/4«4 rM YORK ORCHARD, EARTH & PIPE CORPORATION PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE REHABILITATION TOWN OF LANSING � ��`� "° :- IN lEET SOLVAY, NEW YORK 1 OF 1 t ins 1 � tt _ NEW YORK STATE 9410, O E P T . G . MILLER , P . C . E N G I N E E R S A N D S U R V E Y O R S APPENDIX - C LUDLOWVILLE ROAD REPAIRS - OPINION OF PROBABLE COST TOWN OF LANSING, NY 9/27/2021 REOPEN ROAD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC NYSDOT ITEM # DESCRIPTION CITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL REPAIR WASHOUT AREAS 552.11 PERMANENT STEEL SHEETING 6700 SF $62.04 $415,668 620.03 STONE FILLING (LIGHT) 700 CY $62.71 $43,897 203.07 SELECT GRANULAR FILL 650 CY $60.75 $39,488 XXX W12x30 STEEL WALERS,THREADED ROD, & HARDWARE 5400 LB $1.75 $9,450 207.20 GEOTEXTILE BEDDING 300 SY $4.35 $1,305 203.02 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL 190 CY $30.45 $5,786 204.01 CONTROLLED LOW STRENGTH MATERIAL (CLSM) 100 CY $229.20 $22,920 XXX INSTALL DIP WEEPS 6 EA $200.00 $1,200 589.01 REMOVAL OF EXISTING STEEL 7000 LB $3.25 $22,750 $562,463 STABILIZE RETAINING WALL BUTTRESS 552.11 PERMANENT STEEL SHEETING 1000 SF $62.04 $62,040 203.07 SELECT GRANULAR FILL 20 CY $60.75 $1,215 620.03 STONE FILLING (LIGHT) 700 CY $62.71 $43,897 204.01 CONTROLLED LOW STRENGTH MATERIAL 10 CY $229.20 $2,292 XXX INSTALL DIP WEEPS 3 EA $200.00 $600 207.20 GEOTEXTILE BEDDING 50 SY $4.35 $218 203.02 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL 10 CY $30.45 $305 $110,566 STORM PIPING AND UNDERDRAIN 203.02 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL 578 CY $30.45 $17,593 623.12 CRUSHED STONE (IN-PLACE MEASURE) 530 CY $97.51 $51,680 XXX 12" HDPE CULVERT PIPE 400 LF $35.00 $14,000 605.1502 PERFORATED CORRUGATED PE UNDERDRAIN, 61N DIA 400 LF $25.04 $10,016 520.09000010 SAW CUTTING ASPHALT CONCRETE 120 LF $4.33 $520 621.5100002 GRADING CLEANING AND RESHAPING DITCHES 400 LF $1.53 $612 402.198904 19 F9 BINDER COURSE HMA, 80 SERIES COMPACTION 20 TON $109.31 $2,186 203.07 SELECT GRANULAR FILL 361 CY $60.75 $21,938 $118,545 REPLACE EXISTING 72" STEEL CULVERT 203.02 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL 250 CY $30.45 $7,613 XXX 72" CMP WITH 2 GALV. END SECTIONS 50 LF $325.00 $16,250 203.07 SELECT GRANULAR FILL 175 CY $60.75 $10,631 620.05 STONE FILLING (HEAVY) 20 CY $87.99 $1,760 520.09000010 SAW CUTTING ASPHALT CONCRETE 40 LF $4.33 $173 1 T . G . MILLER , P . C . E N G I N E E R S A N D S U R V E Y O R S 402.198904 19 F9 BINDER COURSE HMA, 80 SERIES COMPACTION 30 TON $109.31 $3,279 $39,706 REPAIR EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS 582.07 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE-REPLACEMENT 3000 SF $142.61 $427,830 WITH VERTICAL AND OVERHEAD PATCHING MATERIAL $427,830 ABANDON EXISTING CMP STORM PIPE 203.02 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL 20 CY $30.45 $609 203.07 SELECT GRANULAR FILL 20 CY $60.75 $1,215 520.09000010 SAW CUTTING ASPHALT CONCRETE 40 LF $4.33 $173 402.198904 19 F9 BINDER COURSE HMA, 80 SERIES COMPACTION 10 TON $109.31 $1,093 $3,090 STABILIZE EXISTING DITCH 621.5100002 GRADING CLEANING AND RESHAPING DITCHES 425 LF $1.53 $650 207.20 GEOTEXTILE BEDDING 283 SY $4.35 $1,233 620.03 STONE FILLING (LIGHT) 94 CY $60.84 $5,746 $7,629 UPGRADE CHANNEL TO CREEK 203.02 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL 333 CY $30.45 $10,150 610.16 TURF ESTABLISHMENT- PERFORMANCE 500 SY $4.35 $2,175 620.03 STONE FILLING (LIGHT) 20 CY $60.84 $1,217 $13,542 GUIDERAIL REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT 606.66 REMOVING & STORING HPBO CORRUGATED BEAM GR 750 LF $4.40 $3,300 606.58 RESETTING HPBO CORRUGATED BEAM GUIDE RAIL 750 LF $35.02 $26,265 $29,565 OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $1,312,936 CONTINGENCY 30% $393,881 ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PERMITTING 15% $196,940 CONSTRUCTION ADMIN/INSPECTION 3% $39,388 ROW/EASEMENTS/LEGAL 4% $52,517 OPINION OF TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT COST $1,943,145 2 WIN APPENDIX - D x ' 1971 Tompkins County Highway .T. .5,. +7 :�:;:.. �'.�?at'.:.; n ;'-.'•-fie:'-• ^v,. Lam•" }, ." �:,+',_..;•.n,:''ir:s.,isi�.:C:.i='= �s'=:1-:._t:-v{:'•,s•Y_:::%•�i:::c•tl'imp,1...:;(:,. _';�':...ilt-l:.:i:-.r. r��..._.... ... f - ',�•.::::.. ..:'':� --r.. emu:: ::':':::., i a.- ....-. .....fie:..... .. E II. STABILITY RESEARCH ON TOMPKINS COUNTY ROUTE CR 159 ACKNOWLEDGE TENTS The writer is indebted to the Tompkins County Highway Department for allowing him to work an this " project and for the mechanical and man-power assistance_ givene More personal thanks are due the following individuals wno� by their sweat and good nature let the writer learn without: too much pain that nothing is "A piece .of cake.". Bob D'Andrea, Wayne Pollard, and Bill Sawbridge,: thank you. once again, special debt is felt for Professor D. A. Sangrey for his physicAl and mental assistance, not. to. mention his tolerencei, which was instrumental, in the. presentation of this report. (23) ! r i j =-� ��, .a';;z� ��; .� :r... :> :•• x _ n.. - x >� a..rrr' Fi :� . wanks,.'-,.`� `�.s./ r• - .yam yam:$'• x. ...1"� •'I...a r. �... r•"r -w^ h S r `0 7 e��- ki'ns _�vunt�' i f 9 l `' .th �oRi` Y' g Y P P .....:... .:,... Department requested assistance in analyzing the stability ' of a section of County Route 159 which had been closed earlier in the year. The road had been closed for two reasons. First, this section of the road was considered dangerous because its width and sight distances were below the minimum requirements and secondly, because the roadbed was unstable and although this instability had been present for some time, the road was i finally closed when a major crack developed in the pavement. This crack was in the -down-hill lane and had a circular shape indicating that a major landslide was quite possible. The scope of the analysis was to specify the required soil construction to both bring the road to minimum safety levels and to insure long term stability of the improvement. The economic constraints on the project'were quite severeaa an adequate, alternate route 3 existed making 'the closed seetion . of road unnecessary. B. SITE DESCRIPTION & HISTORY. The section of road: i# question is located on the east side of Salmon Creek, one-half mile north of Route 34b and extends north to the intersection of OR 159 and the Brickyard Road. This route was originally part of the major transportation artery between Ithaca and. Auburn, New York and as such follows ' s the path of Salmon Creeek traversing the valley wall from' its top at the south end. to its bottom at the north end of the problem area. From a brief visual inspection of the site it . . is. evident that the road has evolved from► a narrow cart trail • �Z4� +'�;. y ''; •• �4..,, -a.e.L.^-vim .. yqq ..tip•..• :'!-`^..•i.:: •ee` n'�the; ener_al .�;,,. : �-;, • ,:�:;, v.- K s instable .:. . Lap of ham:ty . t area: sae::;road avementOR :shows` `man atched . s %ections and aome of these patches are several layers thick indicating that the patching process has been repeated often. In addition to these patches, the posts on the down-hill side of the road are tilted toward the slope. In places, the line of post tops dips and in one such dip, an inspection of the slope reveals remedial cribbing of concrete posts. The up-hill side of the road is no better off. The brim of the hill over the road shows exposed roots over its length which means that the slope has continually sloughed material into the rather in- adequate drainage ditch on that side of the road. In addition, there are two areas of sliding, one minor one which is better called deep sloughing and one major one that will be discussed in detail later. It should be mentioned here that the evidence of movement above. is confined to a small portion of the closed section . 'The . area of concern is bd rdered north and south by w . two. large ret.aining .walls and tote study will be directed at this section only. Also. important to the site description is its geologic history. From a geologic viewpoint, the area is similar to the previous: study in that the Salmon Creek Valley was filled with drift by the last glacier. Zz�:o sion by the creek waters left valley walls composed of glacial till. This area, however, has a more complex soil profile than the Beebe f Lake site because the area was covered by still water as the # glacier receeded causing clay- deposit 's to form. Further, this i particular elevation corresponds: to the 460 foot lake level that existed for some tuna before the establishment of the present (Zg E Cw [� "K�?,:.��`�`•�ks. �}, ��:. ..� •� y� �._ .��621d:�:the•, �a�9•� r:`:gate - �`�s x,:„x -.-�. . �.-- , ........-. ,. via no. Capp:ng' the clay; layer- ` ' 'Me"'down=cutti of Salmon Creek exposed these deposits of sand and clay and because these are easier to excavate, the road, where possible, was constructed above the glacial till in the softer material. f The expected problem was to find that the unstable portions of the road were those above the till layer but in *the valley where water running down the valley wall on top of the im- pervious till was weakening the clay and causing it and the sand to move. It will be seen that the above description is accurate except that an additional geological problem exists in the major slide area. C. . RESEARCH: 1. Soil Profiles: After the visual inspection of the site, the initial task was. to . find the Soil profiles along the unstable portions of road. Profile data was collected in three ways. First, s test pits.were dug by the County Highway Department at the points shown in .Figure(l). The pits showed the expected layers of sand :on clay on. glacial till except in test pits 4&5 at the northern end of the study area. This location is also that of the major slide area. In test pit 4, no clay layer was found and the till surface was about five feet below the road sur- face.' In test pit .5, at the extreme northern end of the area, neither sand nor clay was found which was not surprising as the road became stable at •this ;point. It was evident that this stability was a result og the placement of the road directly :on .the glacial till.. It . remained `to be seen why the sand and • (26) r i' �+;ar' 'ma's•:+:.-'C^c.�-G:?�.� - .:iX- _ ;. w y `�i+:w:i. 5...�,.,z Y.r_..i�:'�`�• Y�.::c!i':::. -:r.Es.:,:•-. :,.,,,c:. z.. r" k'•' 5$ C. i;eA o a) ly SCAa ArCENT�iQJ� 44 r Qz `.'� RCN of OF ! tj /�.. 4'LACI44 7144 ------- P � ) I M INCo 3 Prr-3 )Y _rle-44 DAnzAi ecm W4.44 c � � cf IC4 r .$. ��. �1^&. .:stir'-._1 �:.�$ =J�-':i:i~ �^`�.3, �.•c.+]•Y.."�:'�"...•.::.1..: sayV t z � s'"2!'� sii _ {': v:.-; •�:�. .;Y �.''"-".�r7•.`a.• ..:fir. .rr' :-`` +.s. •{.. .::�`.'�.'.:�.. _ ry:r;:'... :•.S%':ti..-- E PLAN SCHEMATIC CF f COUNTY ROUTE 159' T©MFKINS COUNTY, N.Y. • S L�Cf FIVl3 ❑ 15MIC .Scta2� ' .5��7 rION-5 ' ❑ �sr �;r� Lo�,�r�or�.s z_or4z rz_4 hV SAIV4 Note: see appendix for rod-stadia survey data & reductions. L �2 � � ►4PP.��G�1AT wr :7Z)R dam' ZVOAC o ID !D $v 40 60 i (27) .. . ....... . .. y Sl lx may. Yam✓••,a - .sue;.. !'`.!�.:+ !:.'^.-::.;:....: Y-• M: q fit'- th. h.. �.:= hags=;;o, sdi research'was p . aM sea.smi - - ' n t f sure orm 'of A reverse traverses at the top of the unstable area. The lo- cation is shown in Figure(l), and the computed profile in Figure(2). The profile shows the expected layered system for most of its length but shows that the clay layer- butts against the glacial till at its northern end. It is plausible to think that a till knob existed at the bottom of the glacial lake t which prevented clay from being deposited here. The dip in the F i clay layer as it meets the till can be explained by the fact E that the level of the glacial lake was not constant but varied f s - seasonally. In the Minter months the lake dropped causing in- creased WrIOCI /and this, in turn, caused er vision. The most vulnerable path for this water was between the till and clay and this interface was erroded more quickly than the adjacent area.' The fluctuation in water Level and wind caused the sand to fill in this chapel and present a level ground surface. This :e-bsion channel explains why the soil profile varies in the test its and is the source of the need for the northern P e retaining wall. . A. further inspection of the down-hill slope and a correlation of test pit layer data (which showed dips in the clay.) indicate that this er:-paion process was not con- 'I fined tb the clay-till interface. . The dips in the clay and ` the existence of several gullies on the dorm-hill slope show that the a osion had occurred,, although to a lesser degree, along the entire unstable area. . Next, holes were augered at several locations to back up the seismic data and to map soil I profiles between the top and bottom of the slopes.. It was found that the auger holes could not be used to support the seismic �`5: ;�-tii�Cn 3` ;',a=i kF � .,�. - �'�:=2.;e.N3.• _a� 5- •.. Tr `.7�-:,;3•. �''k:�=�'Yf•'-.� ::s.i�•':;.:r:;=,'Yf`:.. a 1. er , 1 ' howev in r,h., feria dzc' t s' at`Y l ��" - the sand was water sorted during deposition and the larger � particles should be at the bottom of the sand layer. Further, i water flow on top of the less permeable clay would wash out the smaller sand particles leaving gravel above the clay. The final research was done using a level and tape to map the slopes above and below the road. The pieces of data collected were tied together in plan and elevation by a rod-stadia survey. The final result of the profile research is shown in Figures � (3) through (5) which show typical profiles. It should be I noted that these are very rough approximations based on a minimum amount of data. The position of the layers under the road and in the slopes where auger data was not taken, wasc.. # determined by 'test pit data and by the assumption that the , clay and till, layers had relatively constant slopes within the area. These: slopes were found in ,section 'C' where auger data was available and used in sections 'A'&'S' . This assumption is thought. reasonable as the surface of the till and clay were formed by the. lake waters 'and the 'subsequent down-cutting by Salmon Cxeek,. both. of which. should produce uniform slopes. 2. Water Surface: As. in the previous study,. water surface was diffucult to obtain in the dry, . summer months when this study was under- taken and final information is not. yet available.However.much was learned by visual inspection. First, in the major slide area, water or reed greys was .prevalent. This indicates an ' abundant water supply at the surface of the ground on a �33) .. . ... _•tw:r I (fie I& •� �t t,rt� '_�. 6AND L A Y zv_ - 7 loa go SO 4(7 SCALD 13 • .- � :� ':!�1?. fie;: A w:f tr; n q �s' a W aAV FMGNT Sj + Is, VIEW II/aRTA1) •S;i�f�T t= ►o xa .o qa rp . >r. �i LAY �. PA v�ME�►r TILL . vF►e?tCAVATU L . ♦ ..... .y vlk1 11Ca�e Thy r• V . .. ... ... .. 41 .. .. ' .` AND y i Aft 1y... . . .. ... r i..LAY wr..... r. . pi ._.- • TILL a w�� r � ■ � ' --. vt�T1 CAL�.; DArur; &ce-7 soar V)EW MDt7N) s � Ierr*vAoo#A14 ;rr wAcc Sa T 1 0 is to 30 � `'.�•.4." trn .y'r 1'.6'1 •V .L �.�.• : �.`.': � tip:'..• �-�� ... . ;:. ep ,.� p n:.s�c - a .:a�., oo r'-� In , c ,:•:.:-..:,..�... - sus a '.ytA _ , .�._ .{ f 1cut- 'of the .slv pe` •ard`�.b` : the'`nfaet`��.'th"-:>a- � . hi wa� ch s d at the Y, at teat px.t 4 w dug � bottom of thissfarea, .collapsed shortly after its creation due to the high volume of water flow. It is the writer's feel, ng that this large amount of water in the slope and the slide itself is a direct result of the collecting effect of the er osion channel between the clay and till knob. The second observation of note was that there was a water stain on the , i road leading from below test pit 3 to the lower end of the nor- there retaining wall. This fact indicates that the road was cut into the impervious gUcial till at this location and this situation prevents water from seeping under the road. This assumption is shown in Section 'S' which' show4s excavation into the till. The next observation supports the contention that the collecting effect of errosion channels i$,-not confined to i the mayor slide area and poses an alternative explaination to the cause of the water stann. , This observation was that water was seeping out of, the fissured clay in test pit 3. This high volume of water in a concentrated area indicates the presenc.e. of some collecting influence. Also, this high amount of water could exceed .the: level that the fill under the road can transmit arid, thus, cause water to flow on top of the road even though the road. is .not constructed on top of the till. There' is evidence, however, that there are other colleting channels along the road and because these are not accompanied by stains, it is concluded .that the profile of Section 'HI ie correct. The. last observation Was that although there were O ... <r..7w.,,rr:ana ar..cc:rre,.�s�&m�'�x�'�<C'&C:.r..�;fiti` .... - • ,.n..:a:7 �:a,t�:%}:; :-aa• ;.x-.=_Y.•a`:,s .i: :'� "c-•-a' : - y::-sr z:;,.i.�r. ',::rcr �4• .,�ir:s�a; :��;.. ^�s,.:;'��--- :'u:,. t?`�=' '- .'w-:" �°- �'�'r,�','C•'"-'�1-.:>s'`'�;. a;. 'Y'�i.,_..�;.-»,;:o•:.;x.. a�e�4 .•.3, -e & '""" '. .,.;. � . dm::L•",.�.s'Sy:-jY:;:. r-i`.lt• C�.c.=� �.:;twa ' :r�.'S'o.�' .:�..n.. 7'• flown r r f th em._::• It th Ista��t sc w o.. due" th fa tv e c t� ha . t t the' i p S. are` install.edr too• far -(both above and be-low). from the top of the till layer where most of the run-off water is traveling. Therefore, the water is run- ning across the walls at the top of the till layer and is seeping t through the slopes on either side of the walls. Although there i are no apparent problems caused by this situation, it must be : kept in mind that there is much water in the slopes below the I road and that an improvement in drainage through the retain- ing walls could im rove the r� g p area stability. Although the visual f information gathered was significant, an attempt was made to i gather more definite-, information using piezometers. These I were constructed by fitting a pointed tip and pipe thread adapter to either end of a hollow, cylindrical poros stone. This assembly was screwed on the end of 1j" pipe sections and lowered or pushed into existing auger holes at points of in- terest. The location of these piezometers is shown in Figure(1) and the soil layer whose piezometric head they measure is noted. The piezometers. measuring water in the clay layer were sealed by dropping bentonite. balls around the pipe after the assembly I had been installed. Although some readings were taken, these did not add to the:visual information and are not included here. f Readings taken during the spring run-off, however, may prove more interesting .and toward that end the following non--sequential, remarks are offered., First, it should be noted that a problem ' exists in getting readings in the piezometer pipes. The pipe sections were oiled. inside to prevent rust. This oil coats the annode and electrode surfaces in the water sensor used for measuring water. levels.. Although the pipes were swabbed in an �" i,�'' :S'ti 1� =T;;.yrti_•.[.::`•, ..„-...��i�?•:•ir;ss i.r...: �u. ;1•^�•,,ry;': .-�. .'�vim.•-:�� .-:,-?}„sr- i�, �o�:la�tA•''e. WN r�:•' read s ;te � �or �head after aac in �an I continue swabbIng the pipes after taking a reading. The other piece of information to note is the piezometer top elevations which are included in Figure(1) ando'k referenced to the hor- izontal datum shown in the soil profiles. 3. Soil Characteristics: a) Glacial Till: As this material was not considered important in the stability problem, no samples were taken. However, experience shows that the till in the area is likely 1 to have the following -properties: f 1) Friction Angle: 400 j 2) Unit Weight: 130 pcf b) Clay: A one cubic foot block sample was cut from teat pit 3 and waxed and stored after the Atterberg Limits were determined as shown in Figure(6). The other properties are also anticipated from local knowledge: 1) Friction Angle 270 (C=0) 2). Unit.: Weight: . 25 pcf (assuming S=100 0 c,) Sand: . Because of the high water table, it would have been very difficult to obtain unit weights for this ma- terial and, therefore,. a mechanical analysis is provided in- stead. in Figure(7). The friction angle was determined through a dry; .direct shear test (see Figure(8)), which gave a value r of 37.5°. d) Fill: . Because the- majority of the fill operations were probably done using hand equipment and because there is evidence of .excavatfon .in. the sand above the slope, it was as. sumed that the fill material. is the same as the sand and no 06 H `t:: `.�ea '; �,y,r�i,,.r�- •� � „"`k. rah::::: � .. _ n� . ,m � �a'`' r .� -,:�:.:...,•.. 4,k"�^4q�u�r,:- `i?r.rrs NOR _ f 1 V I N R E kL FN� u::�� ARP >r. 5 1.E C? T>I H': -- ' 5� HAN IDS L C � I •MEIr LA$OR L' TI�RY - '�`��� ATTERRERC LIMITS Ti�i~WCIAN J MHOLIE DEPTH pAT [ TAt 0N9 1% 840. 014t %OIL aces 5" w w e0. 2 i m i i63 tat 8 1"47 pA 9 e a ae L rk f Rf q s � y wry " AT Oval-W Z6.3 ZI.7 t i'"F?(iV f�7bA�$RC+PE ®l ir'9 2 R+Fa3 i53 �d�daW� $ E t'•Ra B�ard�%1 pd E9 o Sw *[T StteG IN Map '�+'�1a• IN ej, tl dA asS OawT-1 W 914 z Wm 4 eRs 'SIR w RmS! 5a � Wet Twe e I fi �Twosomple NY s. � ate. Waler rw Toeq Container A r p ovssure cant-rat 0% 9 s Val, conlainef v Vol Dry sail Pal V. N , shfmmole Val. Y-V, 'S3ar�raktTges �,9��1 � .s� �g• � . e � RESULTS NAT M.C. d L � i LIQUID LIMIT REMARKS PLASTICITY INDEX 94.. � � �� IM ' LIQUIDITY INDEX � � zi LIMN' m `" 0 AM ONw WITIAL MOISTURE CONVENT �� -a g�Wa.;c•'�•r.�; �v^ ::c' F's � _ ass-:=',r:z.:-v,.,:r;: _ 'ems��Y.-� ���.'' d'•P 6�' ��^ ":�';:.'y{-,:,•:K�+� `+7,.� i:C. �' t::,y.:v:Y_l'• _ :'" a•- .S^. Ye `.°534 =:i2..aT .=T.:-:.::.H...-��:. .�1c'u:C^-"`n�'. L`.. � ¢ a fl • o, IE A QN V 1Y D 4 4 � O N N x J ci 4 ta Z A. Q z w W Q iA _ Z Stl Z N d dw G H 4 D 10 Y o IMOINA •AS MUNi s r pq tit tad fov gipiks (38) �•5�'�.. ar�'- •��.i.:-1�"i . _ �„ '3, "l,:r-_� ,rr-,` r�:� ,.f'+:.�-. ;�.,,�::::,=91. ;.emu= ��:s-�]a:i'r ::�`-'' ;?5. .•r,.n:. r�.. Y`�✓ rXj VM �w�•:'-n.. .i '�i �a4:;:;y,5.�_ `"-sue x•.: b. .r. Kr .. ...-.... .. .. .. ...... ..r..,.....Y..-.. y. ... ..1.. ........ .......-.- ^`fir !s�;�'`-'3';' ON SAMPLE S .FRS M TE S ST PIT #4 COUNTY ROUTE 159 E f f r i . { i �V { j .. a:ShA40 E E 0 0.2 o.f o.6 o.g r,4 NDkN1S;P�WS6 clL ores IFr Note: see appendix lor data and computations. (39) 'a s. _ l a ' .:�.a:. tea:.•,..;.._..-... r ` Early in the process of gathering profile data for thi2. study it was evident that the slopes above and below the road were oversteepened and that a vastly improved drainage system E was required. The general feeling was that the improvement r project was not feasible as there was an adequate, alternate J r traffic which meant that little money could be 'us- route for tra is x.c y 3 � tified for the project. With this realization, the emphasis of the study turned toward the more academic goal of explain- ing the geologic origin of the complex soil-water situation at the site. These results have already been stated. The only remaining comment to be made is a general estimation of what would have been required had the redesign work been completed. . First, it can be seen from the profiles that widening the road some 20 feet (the minimum requirement) would put the up-hill. side of the pavement in the till if no concurrent horizontal realignment wA^. made. . This situation would be advantageous because the drainage system provided could intercept all run- 4 off. from above .the road .es it would have an impermeable bot- tom. This draina ee system would Consist of a filtered drain, excavated into the till which would run from the southern end of the study area to a point across from the northern retaining walk. At this point, because of the fact that the wall does not have drainage through it, a .cuivert would have to be in- stalled- to carry the water to the lower side of the road. Care would have to betaken to insure that the outflow from this culvert would. not undermine the retaining wall. A lined (40) r• r • �downwhill` slopes, there is a possibility that the present i slopes would become stable with little modification. More 7, soil data and a more accurate Profile would be nece r assess this ossibilit and to insure that no water ld i under the pavement in he ertQ inn chap entioned. As with the lower slopes, more data would be required to designi cut above the road. Some comment, however, can be made now. The present slopes, surprisingly, do not show the clay layer as a major contributor to instability. Rather, in general, the slopes suffer from sloughing and the granular material is the major problem. With a cut, however, which would heighten the slopes and increase the depth of the clay layer in the stability problem, the clay layer might become an important factor and might- control the design. The major slide area would have to be considered as a seperate problem and the conditions there are so severed unstable that some kind of retaini structure might be required in order to avoid moving large amounts of material and to insure stability in times of very high run-off. The writer would take, as a first estimate, : a maximum of a two on one slope in the uprhill cut. This figure is given because the present slopes are near a one-and- . a-half on one slope and;.•becatise�.of'-,the,treasons*,,stated,-••-the'-,.• new cut would be even less stable. As a final remark regard- ing this report, the writer must say that the major learning experience of the project, other than academic knowledge, was the application of field research equipment and the task of creating profiles from a limited amount of information. (41) •[: rs •,�c�"ti ?H'.."cs"��-' �%��: a _��!r.�-.��' ;,�' _ �-,.< :�•�-:,wc.�5_f�c:s:,.Y�'x�'.�<' -'.•-�t-���,x,'--r�f� .:}vas ..,y5.��. -�:?.:.:s� .�t�'. 3a� .� .�'.�a4:;k r�::�:- }��y* -_;;,;,�..-,.:.::��.�::�::..i.::.:' '•/•-: - "fir:"-T.s•.. ,."�1X'•�a .,k.,, .fir. .,y��7.; ..n,..- ..Y�:w`'::^�ry� ��-- ...,Sy- s,,,� '.'� ":-..�:�:�-�:,_':.:•.'�:•ivy-� �sVN.t r c- APPENDIX Il COUNTY ROUTE 159 CONTENTS: A. Mechanical Analysis Data .Pg. 43 B. Direct Shear Test Data . . . . . . .Pg. 44 C. Rod-stadia Survey Skctch #Pg* 45 D. Rod-Stadia Survey Data & Reduction .Pp. 46-47 E. Seismic Traverse Data. . . . . . . .Pg. 48 F. 5e1emic Traverse Reductions. .Pp. 49-52 (42) .... :'. '...:... ...:..........—.__.�-..'...-..:._.:�..:i.....,,...r:.,-......_..�.-r•r......�.d ... rr'R.s n.. tr Yl' .-.... s - - .-. � - �....-�.�e�'•.:+��. r�:a•�?��':•'�..-`,-.'�-�: ,���+•> �ram�.;y •';���_�.:...y ,�L:-. ?"F.r ..: .'S. a:(� "s''vy',•` ..5"-v3' k'.4 :i•S: +x5:•iif�i'z .." ; 777. Time Deflect I Pr.Ring Load ;Vol. Ch4 plume PWP PWP Dial Dial. Reading Change Reading ❑ U si vim wr .��..� ,!g 3 �' FAQ r S��'vE �Dl�- ', 149. Z. f d156 - 7 95-Z_ q9� 7 Q S- S. 3 •5 30. Z 5�7o70. 3 S'e,. 14 • !. P. A1 3 . 9 70 , 1 n o r 7 rs tl (4J I�>ie y - C v���7ii]i' ^�� :r '..ram=�lA:.�•.I'� 'w�'..a�.c'=;S`i..-: .iir.,.:ln..' _•r'!G i-• :i _4s-.-..fir, y, f..�.R G--• �''si"@;'.:'�' �. u U - :.:c•..,tee...."t:-.:..a.c.. ..rj.... Y u .� ... �..-..�.....ice..........:': .F..- '�,1;-' 're�. c -r- :�r: ri i C� ,i .s 7= i. 1� f =; -- '�� .C. � �3�2,� �• ' �`/� !.s.is� a �.� r r � .r � •' i I 49. C + Al Ll 7• Q17. 9 ! j •J 7' 3; VAIZZ 1z7. r`oA! p -$76- 01 €/N L 74]ram- 17. 0 or el 17. 'IL O-J ; i f= 1"• u. _ '�".`,•'�."-...may?. 'f •:y.._.iv ;.�.).fir:.., •`D. R - '•a N:Y a 4 04 Ux VI Ar c. C3- 1 d tWool ` � vrY a �n M ii NS} •: 1:'✓',i{,�a.�,i`^Y:;` :�.c •`3 L. Y �:J'� .:E�'=s.•_.s� f.`._ �' �•'�r'�... mac':• 9,,.'S•. ....: ....:.:.:... µ Y.. s.... A Ris• S f' D I - 1< COS E H i V r •y vEreT CC3 i 40, �� I 90. r 4 0 -�r1 ; + i } i Gy m4 .85 as, zS ! qz S7,5 to o 1+36.4 '3oo° „' *ay°31' Pi 0► �}5 ; �y•7D 3fD•z9 ' 3j RS ;}��v•S ;►�7I's7 PZ 6163 (o•77 S'? A4 P � �� g• is, ; tea,3 z /o z..3 J R 3 �. 1 %-3a5 3y, .`J3 Q F. i`'.� 1. � a9�3° ��� . �` �►r' . TP� 1•$9 55� 3 E35',�$' ' 1 d `� a91 °2 1l° Z // i �If d . 1 , •1 f ' Iof k. o t I s9 og 13 ya ; f F I I F i I (47 i �J r ; _.....-�+a.........-'awti:..�vn..r.v..�nr�eR:.,.fr't'iiifiYx-,r;•7�i'd:C^Y`YYtYI��:'-1,y-..'::':!?RY.�•':"'!'.. .;.�r�•-•r..:.....�.,�.,. ., s- :-a :����: _ .,?�<.• ,,,//Wes - _ - ti.�• '�._�:: YO x --t— (29 Ct i mS. ad 1 y.2 7 Iq 11,715 { 15-0 1ZI 63 . 9. 40 3, 41 .0 1 [mod 3 . ;+ A V�1YPaC Mir D �7 C�• r ? ,$ D Noy ; �. 97 ! .s ' 570 i 7- 61 3. 2-9 12. 4 � `fir ST .DGCA/ Ti N}G � (a � • 3S Id• 4 WO el4lARkA1r- wee Gcw; ir j Pi9n1,5 �CI rc"tiD /7/71 " � •: z• - - .K .... ... ... 'sy_ - Ell s. J:G� j kz I ti ti AVakA4 C T.Zc vEzo 0 D A IV'[r 7a Ci '4lIff4IAJcr ?-77) 173) 17,ev 4-S = ,37 ��� •�rt-i �r 3rr� 6.2 77): ,J �tFt cr w 3 s 4 r� !,•�;F•;�, r.'.4��:.:�4�.n`ay'.p•:5�` _ �-.,(..- .[Z?''- iC:_;vim.•.,,� ''a ti.�f�f::�:n_ 1��� �. `�j1::..•:'T'- .�C.�.roa.�• ^El 'SS• - v:C=Y.�c �c''�S^f _ .�s:x, a'A t_ :��.:✓n�.'v .;SAS: -��r... .,�s:;�;' ..�- L�S�' .� -'.,'a_- .a"'.�:: ..f. •'t. i'�i::...V-. _�t�=.C'�:•S. S.Y J•x ,3=`: SS`.:1 ..tiS'': �: �'w�.'-.'.:� :i.r .v^.;•.. �. .XR•- Y.Y.;yx�''.�.., � -ial�.- .NS: ..,i3�'--''' s-t. .r-1. .�, _1. ,y z:rv---•::': .•r �- =4 +o - •.�;�:.r .,�'s ":ter. t ens,.z +-�:'.s:'` �a;i�;°�• ,s, ;:��- 40 e c i r1 C�6�PlUE1] �'/ RCS GC[75 'l `1 Ka +2 D -DI-57-4 IIICE Tv cl dp11O 14!5 e 50) :�Wpincr_- Yu .:2 ..i�i .�:.:c.:-•'ma's:.-rs:' - { cam: �:•Y,;< .^.....• 6 _ Z4 6271] 6 .5 cR tr/(A L Dim= S1 (. ;.�� `73 ` f� 3Q 17. 1 + 23 -4 IZ i • 'o 00 so 60 70 MID P7- Or Tie4I/4� - 2 sa 7 lJ pOoA l � $a arts �rsrA►�� = �7 f,� a - 47 6 .. -w 1..��tiLC-'4'�y i',x'"'r��:x�:`.?°S"�-•;E- -.'."v:i::n....i:.::::,3w'::�.C:e_...-......,Yrtiii�nwKitiSf3b' ".Y�yn`l`Fl+':t''SFe"�"2'R'•i:�}' .. ..:'1:,... n�_. ..-.. N.-.•. --. ". �i ;e .. ... .. -.-- ...t... ... rb S.. y J �a [ b e:::. '•::y....:.: k- � _ v ..0. 000 14 is i yca, L .:'3 .l�~r" �,a i� ,'�•=. �G'_r'�'�T. vj:.i,.,, ..'.� =��" _:3. ..gr:?r r.. r /� sx - max. ........ :• i a s "u �r �T Yl I BLIDGRAPHY 'ff 1. A. W. Bishop & N. Morgenstern, Stability Coefficients for Earth Slopes, Geotechnique; 'Vol. X. No. 4' Dec. ' 1 2. E. Spencer, A Method of the Analysis of the Stability of Embanla,� Assumin P lIel Inter-slice Forces, Geotechnique, Vol. 17, No. 1, March, 1967,, Pp. 11- 5. 3. D. D. VonEngitln, The Fi er Lakes Region: Its Dri in 3 and Nature, Cornell University ss, Ithaca, New Yor i E r-- 53 r.A t: a. des. -.�...: ..,::..£.: .- . ...:•.:..:.:.:.:::..:... •:yam APPENDIX - E June 8, 1993 ENGINEER'S REPORT POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO REOPEN PORTION OF LUDLOWVILLE ROAD PRESENTLY CLOSED DUE TO LANDSLIDES INTRODUCTION A portion of Ludlowville Road south of Brickyard Road and north of the Lansing Schools in the Town of Lansing has been closed several times since at least 1971 due to landslides along approximately 1100 feet of roadway. Slopes on both the uphill and downhill sides of the road are unstable and pose a hazard to the use of the roadway in this area. The objective of this study is to determine possible remedial actions and associated costs to render this portion ❑f roadway safe for vehicular traffic. Actions and costs associated with abandoning the road are also reviewed in the case that remedial actions are considered too expensive. Information for the study has been obtained from reports by five previous studies conducted in 1971 and 1972, and als❑ from information collected during two recent inspections of the site. PREVIOUS STUDIES Three of the reports reviewed were produced by students at Cornell University for a course in agricultural engineering during the fall of 1971. Another report was produced in the spring of 1972 by Lloyd Sharpsteen for the Tompkins County Highway Department. The other report reviewed for this study is a summary of findings produced by William Mobbs for the Tompkins County Highway Department and dated March 5, 1972. The study by Sharpsteen is the most extensive of those reviewed and includes soil test information, estimated soil profiles, and ground water information. Solutions proposed in the previous studies include improvement of the surface and subsurface drainage, cutting back of the uphill slope, construction of retaining walls, and changing the road alignment to avoid the problem area. Most of the studies have concluded that the cost of implementing any one or combination of these solutions would be prohibitive. The reopening ❑f the road has not been considered imperative since alternate traffic routes exist and since the lands immediately adjoining this portion of roadway are almost impossible t❑ develop due to the very steep Slopes. Information obtained during the recent site visits tends to agree with the soil information provided in the Sharpsteen report. _2_ The soils which have recently slide onto the roadway from the up- hill side are the primarily sandy soils as discussed in this previous report. The location of Vround water seeps and the mode of failure of the existing slides on both the uphill slope and the roadway tend to confirm the soil profiles and ground water flow patterns discussed in the Sharpsteen report. EXISTING CONDITIONS In general, the site has remained largely unchanged since the previous studies. There are presently two failures of the roadway embankment; one just to the north of the concrete retaining wall at the south end of the problem area and the second one located approximately 250 feet north of the concrete retaining wall at the north end. Between the times of the two site inspections, at the beginning of April and the end of May, a major slide from the uphill slope has covered approximately 200 feet of roadway with soil, trees and debris. The existing concrete retaining walls appear t❑ be structurally sound although the exposed concrete has begun to flake off. One smaller wall on the downhill side which is made from structural steel sections and steel sheeting appears to be heavily corroded. Approximately 100 feet of an existing railroad tie crib wall located on the uphill side of the roadway near the north end of the area appears to be in imminent danger of failing. Erosion has begun immediately north of the northern concrete retaining wall where an existing culvert outlets. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Two alternative solutions to the problem are herein presented. The first solution would be to take the actions necessary t❑ make this portion of Ludlowville Road safe for public vehicular traffic. A second alternative, t❑ abandon the roadway, is presented in case it is decided that the first alternative is too costly to implement. Alternative one Based on the information presently available, the actions necessary to make this portion of roadway safe for public traffic is as follows: 1. Install a gabion retaining wall on the downhill side of the roadway t❑ remedy the failure of the roadway embankment at the south end of the area. The wall required would be approximately 50 feet in length and average approximately 10 feet in height. 2. Replace approximately 12❑ feet of railroad tie crib wall with a new gabion wall. This wall would vary from approximately 5 to 8 feet in height. _3_ 3. Replace the existing structural and sheet steel retaining wall with a new gabion wall. This wall would be approximately 65 feet in length by 5 feet in height. 4. Rebuild the roadway embankment with the addition of fill at the location of the failure at the north end ❑f the problem area. 5. Install a gabion retaining wall adiacent and to the north ❑f the existing northern concrete retaining wall and line the existing storm channel to prevent further erosion at the outlet of the existing culvert. 6. Remove the existing slide material from the roadway. 7. Cut back the existing uphill slope along approximately 200 feet of roadway to a stable slope of approximately 1 on 2. 8. Install a subdrain along the uphill side of the roadway into the till soil layer. The length of subdrain would be approximately 500 feet and the proper depth would depend on the actual profile ❑f the till soil. 9. Install approximately 1100 feet of guide rail 10. Rebuild the roadway base and pavement in the areas disturbed during installation of the other improvements. 11. Seed all exposed embankments. The amount of out on the uphill slope could be reduced with the addition of retaining wall structures but this option would probably be more expensive. Instead of cutting back the uphill slope, it would also be possible to remove the slide material periodically as it is deposited at the base of the slope. This however should not be considered due to the possible hazard from a slide similar to the one which occurred this spring. The additional cut on the uphill slope will also require acquisition of additional right-of-way or easements. Alternative Two if it is determined that it would be too costly to implement the improvements necessary to make this section of Ludlowville Road safe for vehicular traffic and it is decided to abandon the road, the following actions should be undertaken: 1. Remove all the existing guide rail and fence structures. 2 . Demolish and remove all asphalt paving. 3 . Demolish and remove the portion of railroad tie crib wall which is in immediate danger of failing. 4. Demolish and remove the steel retaining walls. -4- 5. Seed all exposed embankments. Additional measures may be advisable to prevent the possibility of any vehicles gaining access to this section of abandoned roadway. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS Alternative I Additional Soil Testing and Mapping: $10,000 Gabion Retaining Walls: 500 C.Y. @ $250/ C.Y. = $125,000 Roadway Embankment Fill: 300 C.Y. @ $10/ G.Y. = $3,000 Excavate and Remove Material From Site: 10, 000 C.Y. @ $7.50/ C.Y. - $75,000 Subdrain: 500 L.F. @ $20/ L.F. = $10,000 Guiderail: 1100 L.F. @ $10/ L.F. = $11, 000 Roadway Base and Bituminous Double Surface Treatment: 500 L.F. @ $45/ L.F. = $22, 500 Seeding: 4,000 S.Y. @ $1.00J S.Y. = $4, 000 Subtotal: $260,500 Engineering, Surveying and Contingencies (30%) : $78,200 TOTAL COST: $339,000 Alternative II Demolition and Removal of Existing Structures: $25, 000 Seeding: $5, 000 Subtotal: $30, 000 Construction Contingencies (15%) : $4,500 TOTAL COST: $34,500 _r5_ CONCLUSIONS The actions required to render this section of Ludlowville Road safe for public vehicular traffic (Alternative I) includes extensive earthwork and construction of retaining wall. structures. The estimated cost of implementing these required actions is relatively high and a comparison with the benefits to the community should be made before any decision is taken in this regard. It should also be noted that the cost estimates are based on very preliminary information and the actual costs of implementation may change considerably. DF A. G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors Ithaca, New York s aG60, L-•