HomeMy WebLinkAboutEngineer's Report - Ludlowville Road
TOWN OF LANSING
TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
December 1, 2021
ENGINEER’S REPORT
Possible Solutions to Reopen Portion of Ludlowville Road
Presently Closed Due to Land Slides
PREPARED BY:
T. G. Miller, P.C.
Engineers and Surveyors
Ithaca, New York
To Seneca Falls To Auburn
To Ithaca
“Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty”
1
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
2
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.
3
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
4
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.
5
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
6
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.
North wing wall servilely
undermined with channeled
water from road shoulder
directed to this area.
Road settling, appears to
be over the old rusted
CMP. Water ponding along
road shoulder adjacent to
wall w/ reed grass.
S
t
St St St St St
St
St
St St
St
St
?
Recently added storm
inlet and 12" +/- piping
to the north. Possible
change in watershed?
open roadside ditch
20'+ tall conc. retaining wall.
Conc. spalling, rebar exposed,
weep holes appear partially
blocked, safety rail/fence failed.
St
St
St
St
St
St
S
t
S
t
Dry stacked rock wall
Steel waler w/ anchor rods
along face of sheeting. 4"
perf HDPE weeps have
been sheared off and
partially plugged.
wash out/land slide to
bottom of slope.
possible excess water
from diverted
watershed? Evidence
of water seep at toe of
sheeting.
conc. shoulder
sheeting separated
approx. 2-3'
steel member
guide rail posts
Road/culvert settled and sheared off
culvert at wall. Water appears to be
seeping behind wall, sheeting
starting to bow out. Large scour hole
at face of wall. 4" wall drains sheared
and plugged.
eroded ditch
partially silted in pipe
non stabilized slope
Road/culvert settled and sheared off
culvert at wall. Water appears to be
seeping behind wall. Large scour
hole at face of wall. 4" wall drains
sheared and plugged along entire
length, north of conc. wall.
need to verify if this is
working
Conc. wall 15'-20' tall,
spalling, weeps drains
rusted, CMP culvert
rusted out
S
t
S
t
St
St
St
6" PVC underdrain w/
flowing water.
rusted culvert, joints
starting to separate,
deformed, inv. appears
to have been poured w/
conc. at one time,
mostly eroded away.
Red/brown colored
water w/ sheen.
Consider further
investigation.
St
?
4" HDPE perf
Appendix A
63
T.G. Miller photo inspection and notes. 1/11/2011
OPEN DITCH (TYP)
OPEN DITCH (TYP)
DRY STACKED STONE
RETAINING WALL.
RECENTLY ADDED
DI AND 12" STORM
SYSTEM
STEEL I-BEAM WITH
ANCHOR BOLTS
ABANDON AND FILL
EXISTING CMP
STORM PIPE
TIE INTO EXISTING STORM PIPE.
BEGIN STORM PIPE AND
UNDERDRAIN BELOW DITCH
STA 10+50
DEMO/ABANDON EXISTING STORM PIPING. REMOVE
EXISTING SHEETING AND REPLACE WITH NEW PZ-27
SHEETING. WASHOUT REPAIR (SEE DETAIL)
I I
4" DIP WEEPS
LIGHT STONE FILL (TYP)
BANK RUN GRAVEL
FILTER FABRIC
EXISTING GRADE (TYP)
INSTALL NEW PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING
DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE
REMAINING EXISTING SHEETING(TYP)
PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING (TYP)
PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING, 1"
THREADED ROD, AND I-BEAM
TIE-BACKS (TYP)
TORCH AND REMOVE FAILED SHEETING
AT/BELOW EXISTING GRADE (TYP)
EXISTING SHEETING TO REMAIN (TYP)
INSTALL NEW PZ-27 STEEL SHEETING FROM
EXISTING SHEETS AROUND THE BASE OF THE
RETAINING WALL BUTTRESS. BACKFILL WITH
LIGHT STONE FILL AND BANK RUN GRAVEL AND
INSTALL DIP WEEPS. (SIMILAR TO DETAIL BELOW)
LIGHT STONE FILL (TYP)
TYPICAL WASHOUT REPAIR DETAIL (N.T.S.)
REMOVE, STORE,
AND RESET HPBO
GUIDERAIL
(APPROX. 750 LF)
DAYLIGHT STORM AND
UNDERDRAIN TO DITCH
STA 6+50
EXISTING GRADE (TYP)
FACE OF SHEET
PILING (TYP)
STORM PIPING
STA 6+50 TO STA11+50
TYPICAL STORM AND UNDERDRAIN SECTION (N.T.S.)
REPAIR OPTION #1:
-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
-72" CULVERT REPLACEMENT
-IMPROVE CHANNEL FROM CULVERT TO CREEK
REPLACE EXISTING CULVERT
UPGRADE CHANNEL TO CREEK
(+/- 300 LF)
UNDERDRAIN
CONCRETE REPAIRS TO
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
CONCRETE REPAIRS TO
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
STABILIZE DITCH
STA 6+50 TO STA 2+25
Appendix B
63
LUDLOWVILLE ROAD REPAIRS - OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
TOWN OF LANSING, NY
9/27/2021
REOPEN ROAD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
NYSDOT
ITEM #DESCRIPTION QTY 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, 6IN 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
APPENDIX - C
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
APPENDIX - D
1971 Tompkins County Highway
APPENDIX - E