BIN 1075752: Staten Island Expwy (I-278E) over SIRT PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/ FINAL ... · 2018. 1. 26. · PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/ FINAL DESIGN REPORT December 2017 Rehabilitation

PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/FINAL DESIGN REPORT

December 2017

Rehabilitation and Deck Replacement of Four I-278 BridgesBorough of Staten Island

Richmond CountyPIN: X731.47

BIN 1067821: Staten Island Expwy (I-278W) over Mosel Ave.BIN 1067822: Staten Island Expwy (I-278E) over Mosel Ave.BIN 1075751: Staten Island Expwy (I-278W) over SIRTBIN 1075752: Staten Island Expwy (I-278E) over SIRT

US. Department of Trmsportation

Federal Highway Administration

Mr. Richard Marchione

New York Division

January 11, 2018

New York State Department of Transportation Office of Structures 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12232

Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building 11A Clinton Avenue, Suite 719

Albany, NY 12207 518-431-4127

Fax: 518-431-4121 New [email protected]

In Reply Refer To: HED-NY

Subject: PIN X731.47, Rehabilitation and Deck Replacement of I-278 Bridges Borough of Staten Island, Richmond County

Dear Mr. Marchione:

In response to New York State Department of Transportation DCES December 21 letter, we have reviewed the December 2017 Final Design Report. Based upon our review, we concur with the Categorical Exclusion determination per 23 CFR 771 .117( c ).

Additionally, we concur with the non-standard features identified in this FDR. Therefore, we are hereby granting Design Approval for this project.

Previously, our office provided approval for X806.5 8 Rehabilitation of 79th St Bridge over Gowan us Expressway (BIN 1065260), Borough of Brooklyn as a NYSDOT delegated project. As this project will be constructed under PIN X731.47, and the total cost of the combined projects is greater than $25M, it will be included in this PoDI determination.

In accordance with our Stewardship and Oversight Agreement, this project is a Project of Division Interest (PoDI) Category III project. Further actions in design and award are delegated to NYSDOT. FHW A will be conducting a construction spot inspection to ensure compliance with all federal requirements. If you have any questions, please contact me at (518) 431-8896.

cc: J. Walters, FHWA R. Davies, FHWA L. Calderon, NYSDOT Rl 1 T. Bashir, NYSDOT Rl 1 M. Kuriakose, NYSDOT Rl 1

Sincerely,

Senior Area Engineer

December 2017 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN X731.47

iv

REHABILITATION AND DECK REPLACEMENT OF FOUR I-278 BRIDGES IN STATEN ISLAND –P.I.N. X731.47

COVER………............................................................................................................................................... ii PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET .................................................................................................................... ii ii LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................................. iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... iv

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1-11.2 Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2.1 Where is the Project Located? ..................................................................................................1-11.2.2 Why is the Project Needed?......................................................................................................1-51.2.3 Level 1 Load Rating ................................................................................................................1-101.2.4 What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? .................................................................1-11

1.3 What Alternatives Are Being Considered?.....................................................................................1-121.4 Environmental Review ...................................................................................................................1-151.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment?.........................................................................1-161.6 What are the Costs & Schedules?.................................................................................................1-17

1.6.1 BIN 1067821 SIE (I-278W) over Mosel Avenue......................................................................1-181.6.2 BIN 1067822 SIE (I-278E) over Mosel Avenue.......................................................................1-191.6.3 BIN 1075751 SIE (I-278W) over SIRT South Shore ...............................................................1-201.6.4 BIN 1075752 SIE (I-278E) over SIRT South Shore ................................................................1-211.6.5 Total Project Cost Summary ...................................................................................................1-21

1.7 The Base Construction Alternative ................................................................................................1-231.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?......................................................................1-23

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION...............................................................................................2-1

2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area ......................................................................................................2-12.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments...........................2-12.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ......................................2-1

2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations.......................................................................2-12.3.2 Complete Streets.......................................................................................................................2-72.3.3 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................2-7

2.4 Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................................2-182.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) ...............................................2-182.4.2 Other Miscellaneous Information.............................................................................................2-18

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................3-1

3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)......................................................................................3-13.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) .........................................................................3-13.3 Additional Environmental Information ..............................................................................................3-2

3.3.1 Land Use...................................................................................................................................3-23.3.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ...............................................................................3-23.3.3 Social Groups Benefitted or Harmed.........................................................................................3-33.3.4 School Districts, Recreation Areas and Places of Worship.......................................................3-33.3.5 Regional and Local Economies.................................................................................................3-33.3.6 Business Districts ......................................................................................................................3-33.3.7 Specific Business Impacts.........................................................................................................3-33.3.8 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................3-33.3.9 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ..................................................................................3-43.3.10 Navigable Waters ....................................................................................................................3-43.3.11 Floodplains ..............................................................................................................................3-43.3.12 Coastal Resources..................................................................................................................3-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS


v

3.3.13 Stormwater Management ........................................................................................................3-43.3.14 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................................3-43.3.15 Historic and Cultural Resources..............................................................................................3-53.3.16 Parks and Recreational Resources.........................................................................................3-73.3.17 Air Quality................................................................................................................................3-73.3.18 Energy .....................................................................................................................................3-83.3.19 Noise .......................................................................................................................................3-83.3.20 Asbestos..................................................................................................................................3-93.3.21 Contaminated and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................3-93.3.22 Construction Effects ..............................................................................................................3-10

Figures

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map………………………………………………………………………………....1-4

Exhibits

Exhibit 1.1 Bridge Data……………………………………………………………………………………………1-1Exhibit 1.2 Comparison of Alternatives………………………………………………………………………...1-16Exhibit 1.3 Project Schedule…………………………………………………………………………………….1-17Exhibit 1.4.A Project Costs……………………………………………………………………………………...1-18Exhibit 1.4.B Project Costs……………………………………………………………………………………...1-18Exhibit 1.4.C Project Costs……………………………………………………………………………………...1-19Exhibit 1.4.D Project Costs……………………………………………………………………………………...1-20Exhibit 1.5 Comparison of Alternatives’ Project Costs for Entire Project…………………………………..1-22Exhibit 1.6 Project Costs for Entire Project for Base Alternative……..……………………………………..1-22Exhibit 2.1 Classification Data………………………………………………………………………..…………..2-1Exhibit 2.2 Existing and Future Traffic Volumes………………………………..……………………..……….2-2Exhibit 2.3 Operating Speeds (85th Percentile Speeds)………………………..…………………….……….2-3Exhibit 2.4 Level of Service – Existing and Proposed………………………….……………………..………2-3Exhibit 2.5 Work Zone Traffic Control Summary………………………………….………………..………….2-5Exhibit 2.6 Collision Summary………………………………………………………..………………………….2-6Exhibit 2.7.A Critical Design Elements for Interstate 278 Staten Island Expressway…..………………….2-8Exhibit 2.7.B Critical Design Elements for Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South……………..2-10Exhibit 2.8.A Structure Data…………………………………………………………………………………….2-13Exhibit 2.8.B Structure Data…………………………………………………………………………………….2-14Exhibit 2.8.C Structure Data…………………………………………………………………………………….2-15Exhibit 2.8.D Structure Data…………………………………………………………………………………….2-16Exhibit 2.9 Existing Utilities Table………………………………………………………………………………2-17

APPENDICESA. Plans, Typical Sections and Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC)B. Environmental InformationC. Traffic InformationD. Structures InformationE. Cost Estimates for All Construction and WZTC AlternativesF. Non-Standard Features Justification FormsG. Complete Street ChecklistH. Historic and Cultural Resources Information


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

This project involves four bridges that carry the Staten Island Expressway (I-278) over Mosel Avenue and over Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT). The project extends along the Staten Island Expressway from Britton Avenue to Hylan Blvd. in the Borough of the Staten Island, Richmond County in the City of New York.

This project is intended to address structural deficiencies associated with the deteriorated deck, deteriorated concrete pier columns and capbeams, abutment backwalls and bridge seats, bearings, pedestals and other miscellaneous structural repair work needed as well as structural steel painting. Addressing the poor structural conditions will bring the structure to a state of good rehabilitation and will extend the life expectancy of the bridges.

This project proposes to improve the ratings of the below bridges by eliminating (jointless bridges) or replacing (link slab/armorless) all deck joints, replacing the deteriorated deck, bearings, and pier capbeams and abutment backwalls, and performing other minor repair work needed to upgrade the bridge condition. The decks of these four bridges have reached the end of their useful lives.

BIN 1067821 – Staten Island Expressway (I-278W) over Mosel Avenue BIN 1067822 – Staten Island Expressway (I-278E) over Mosel Avenue BIN 1075751 – Staten Island Expressway (I-278W) over SIRT South Shore BIN 1075752 – Staten Island Expressway (I-278E) over SIRT South Shore

This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771. Transportation needs have been identified (Section 1.2.2), objectives established (Section 1.2.3) to address the needs, and cost-effective alternatives developed (Section 1.3). The funding breakdown is as follows:

Design I-IV: 80% Federal; 20% State DB Contract: 37.1% Federal; 62.9% State CI, QA: 80% Federal; 20% State RRFA: 0% Federal; 100% State

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.2.1 Where is the Project Located?The project is located within the Borough of Staten Island, Richmond County in the City of New York. See Figure 1-1 for Project Location Map.

1.2.1.1 Bridge Data

Exhibit 1.1 – Bridge DataBIN Numbers 1067821 1067822 1075751 1075752Feature Carried I-278W I-278E I-278W I-278EReference Markers 278I X6M1 4068 278I X6M1 3068 278I X6MI 4069 278I X6M1 3069Feature Crossed Mosel Ave. Mosel Ave. SIRT SIRTCity/Village/Town Staten IslandCounty RichmondLength 177 feet 177 feet 150 feet 150 feetWidth (out to out) 112′-3″ min. and

varies112′-3″ min. and



variesNo. of Spans 3 3 3 3


1-2

BINs 1067821, 1067822, 1075751 and 1075752 are owned and maintained by the NYSDOT. All four bridges were constructed in 1965 under original Contract No. F.I.C.L.E. 62-3 (Contract 4). The four bridges consist of three (3) simply supported spans with a steel multi-stringer superstructure and a 7 inch reinforced concrete deck slab with a 2½″ asphalt concrete wearing surface. The bridges have original steel sliding bearings with a few replacement elastomeric bearings. The substructures consist of two (2) reinforced concrete abutments and two (2) reinforced concrete multi-column piers with a capbeam. The abutments and piers are supported on concrete piles. The bridges have two wingwalls at each abutment that retains the backfill. The transverse deck joints at BINs 1067821 and 1067822 are armorless joints. Meanwhile, the transverse deck joints at BINs 1075751 and 1075752 are either paved over, armored or armorless joints. Within the bridges, there is a longitudinal joint between the service roadway and the mainline roadway; and there is a longitudinal joint between the bridges’ mainline roadway and the Bus/HOV Lane bridge structure.

In the past, the bridges have had multiple maintenance repair/rehabilitation projects. The projects and repair work are the following:

Contract D253183 Rehabilitation of Seven Bridges on Various Expressways (Completed in 1989) BIN 1067821

Work included concrete repairs at Piers 1 and 2; replacement of deck joints at piers, painting of steel superstructure within three (3) feet of deck joints; and cleaning and painting of end diaphragms damaged by fire.

Contract D257216 Rehabilitation of 18 Bridges on the Staten Island Expressway (Completed in 2000) BINs 1067821 and 1075751

Work included replacement of existing asphalt overlay on bridge deck, concrete deck repairs, installation of membrane waterproofing system; replacement of existing asphalt overlay on approach slab, repair approach slab, installation of membrane waterproofing system; replacement of existing abutment and pier joints with armored joints; and replacement of longitudinal joint filler material.

Contract D259528 Rehabilitation of 12 Bridges and Construction of Median Bus Lane (Completed in 2007) BINs 1067821, 1067822, 1075751 and 1075752

Work included painting of steel superstructure

BINs 1067821, 1067822, 1075751 and 1075752A new one span bridge was constructed between BINs 1067821 and 1067822, and also between BINs 1075751 and 1075752. Construction of the one span bridge is composed of prestressed concrete box beams supported by concrete integral abutments on piles and MSES walls.

Contract D262696 Bridge Corrective Repairs and Preventive Maintenance Various Locations (to be completed in 2017) BIN 1067821

Work included concrete repairs at deck and substructure; masonry repair at End Abutment Wingwall; crack repairs at substructure; bridge bearing restoration at Pier 1; protective sealer on existing substructure surfaces; painting steel superstructure within five (5) feet of deck joints; sealing all existing deck joints and replacement of concrete joint header with elastomeric concrete; sealing all existing compression seals with liquid sealant; sealing center longitudinal joint with liquid sealant; and removal and disposal of bond breaker/Filler Asbestos Containing Material.

BIN 1067822Work included concrete repair at Piers 1 and 2.

BIN 1075751Work included sealing all existing deck joints and replacement of concrete joint header with elastomeric concrete; sealing all existing compression seals with liquid sealant; and sealing center longitudinal joint with liquid sealant.


1-3

Contract D262962 Bridge Maintenance Repairs XM14.51 (Active Work)

BIN 1067821Work included full depth deck slab and overlay repair at all spans; replacement of existing armored joints with armorless joints at both Mainline and Service Roads; and localized asphalt overlay replacement in all spans.

BIN 1067822Work included concrete repairs at underside of deck in Spans 1 and 2 and Piers 1 and 2; and replacement of existing armored joint with armorless joint at both mainline and service roads.

BIN 1075751Work included steel repairs at all spans; full depth deck slab repair; concrete spalling and crack repairs at Begin/End Abutments and Piers 1 and 2; replacement of existing armored joints with armorless joints at both mainline and service roads; bridge bearing restoration at Pier 2; replacement of bearing anchor bolts at End Abutment; applying protective sealer on existing substructure surfaces; and painting of steel superstructure within five (5) feet from deck joints.

BIN 1075752Work included concrete and crack repairs at substructure; replacement of existing armored joints with armorless joints at both mainline and service roads; replacement of median barrier guide rail at Spans 1 and 2; applying protective sealer on existing substructure surfaces; and painting of steel superstructure within five (5) feet from deck joints.


1-4

Figure 1-1


1-5

1.2.2 Why is the Project Needed?

This project is intended to address structural deficiencies associated with the deteriorated bridge deck, deteriorated concrete pier columns and capbeams, abutment backwalls and bridge seats, pedestals, bearings and other miscellaneous structural work needed as well as structural steel painting. Addressing the structural conditions will bring the structure to a state of good rehabilitation and will extend the life expectancy of the bridges.

A review of the latest inspection reports (2015, 2016, and 2017) was conducted. Visual inspections of each structure verified the conditions as documented in the Biennial Inspections Reports. At BINs 1067821 and 1067822, it was noted that most deteriorated conditions had been repaired under PIN XM14.51. A hands-on, in-depth inspection was performed on the abutments and pier columns of BINs 1075751 and 1075752 using a hammer. It was noted that the column repairs scheduled under PIN XM14.51 were not done. Appendix D contains copies of the General Photos from the Visual Inspection and Biennial Inspection Reports.

1) BIN 1067821 SIE (I-278W) over Mosel Avenue

According to the latest 2017 Biennial Inspection Report, the general bridge condition rating is as follows:

General Recommendation 5

The 2017 Biennial Inspection reflects the updated “National” and “State” practice for bridge inspection documentation which includes evaluating each element and assigning to it a condition state of “Good” [1], “Fair” [2], “Poor” [3], ‘Severe” [4] or “Unknown” [5] instead of the previously used bridge element rating of 1 [totally deteriorated] to 7 [new condition]. The Element Assessment(1) condition states, by span, are as follows:

1. Concrete Deck 1 (All Spans)2. Primary Members 1 (All Spans)3. Secondary Members 1 (All Spans)4. Steel Beam Ends 2 (All Spans)5. Bearings 1 (Begin & End Abutment); 2 (Piers 1 & 2)6. Abutment Backwall 1 (Begin & End Abutment)7. Pedestals 1 (Begin/End Abutments and Piers 1 and 2)8. Cap Beam 1 (Piers 1 & 2)9. Pier Columns 1 (Piers 1 & 2)

10. Joints 3 (Begin Abutment); 1 (Pier 1); 2 (Pier 2 & End Abutment)11. Sidewalks and Curbs 1 (All Spans)12. Paint of Steel Members 1 (All Spans)13. Bridge Railing 1 (All Spans)(1)The Element Assessment includes several condition state quantities for one element. The sum of the individual condition state quantities equals the total quantity for that element. The condition state shown above reflects the governing condition state which is based on the larger value of the quantities. The 2017 Biennial Inspection reflects the repaired structure under PIN XM14.51 Bridge Maintenance Repairs (Work Order No. 12). The completed repair work included full depth deck slab repair and replacement of all transverse joint systems with an armorless joint system. The underside of deck was not visible/accessible due to timber protective shielding at all three spans. Therefore, underside of deck spalls noted in the 2017 Biennial Inspection report and/or repairs noted in contract PIN XM14.51 could not be verified.

The steel superstructure and paint are in good condition. In Span 2, steel primary members have Category E/E’ welds at ends of bottom flange cover plates but they do not show signs of cracking. Hence, fatigue retrofit of bottom flange cover plate welds will not be considered.


1-6

Per 2017 Biennial Inspection Report, two Safety Flags were removed for this structure, which are the following:

PIA Safety Flag NB15M9W010: Pier 1 deck joint at westbound Service Road exhibits impact damage to steel armored joint angles and concrete headers with deterioration for approximately 25 feet long.

Safety Flag NB15M9W011: Missing junction box cover at Pier 1, Column C1, in Span 1.

The previously noted deteriorated concrete pedestals, pier caps and columns with deep spalls, delamination, hollow sounding concrete and/or cracks have been repaired under the contract PIN XM14.51.

Although the deck slab is scheduled for local full depth repairs or has been repaired, the deck slab has reached its useful life and will need to be replaced. The existing steel bearings will need to be replaced with elastomeric bearings which may require modifications to the abutment bridge seats, the pier cap beams, and/or stringer ends. The bridge railing at the north fascia is in good condition, but needs to be replaced with a vertical faced concrete parapet in order to meet current bridge standards. The bridge underdeck lighting will need to be replaced and also missing/damaged cover plates will need to be restored to junction boxes.

Vulnerability Ratings: Steel Detail Vulnerability Rating (performed in 1999) – 4.

Seismic Vulnerability Rating - None

Level 2 HS 20-44 Inventory Rating: 62 Tons and Load Rating (As-Inspected): HS 20-44 Operating Rating: 105 Tons

2) BIN 1067822 SIE (I-278E) over Mosel Avenue




1. Concrete Deck 1 (All Spans)2. Primary Members 1 (All Spans)3. Secondary Members 1 (All Spans)4. Steel Beam Ends 1 (All Spans)5. Bearings 1 (All Spans)6. Abutment Backwall 1 (Begin Abutment); 2 (End Abutment)7. Pedestals 1 (Begin/End Abutments and Piers 1 and 2)8. Cap Beam 1 (Piers 1 and 2)9. Pier Columns 2 (Piers 1 and 2)

10. Joints 3 (End Abutment, Piers 1 and 2); 2 (Begin Abutment) 11. Sidewalks and Curbs 1 (All Spans)12. Paint of Steel Members 1 (All Spans)13. Bridge Railing 1 (All Spans)(1)The Element Assessment includes several condition state quantities for one element. The sum of the individual condition state quantities equals the total quantity for that element. The condition state shown above reflects the governing condition state which is based on the larger value of the quantities.


1-7

The 2016 Biennial Inspection Report, in addition to inspection findings, included on-going concrete and crack repair work at the Piers under PIN XM14.51 Bridge Maintenance Repairs (Work Order No. 102). Scheduled repair work includes underside of deck spall repairs; replacement of all transverse joint systems with an armorless joint system; and concrete spalling and crack repairs at Piers 1 and 2. The concrete deck in Spans 1 and 3 is in good condition. The majority of Span 2 concrete deck is in good condition, except 20% of the deck is in fair condition. All steel sliding bearings are in good condition except two bearings at Pier 2 which are noted as in poor condition because one is missing an anchor bolt and the other exhibits a bent anchor bolt. The bridge railing at Spans 1 and 3 is in good condition, except in Span 2 there is 23 feet of bridge railing is in poor condition and a PIA Safety Flag was issued for this condition of the railing.

The steel superstructure and paint are in good condition. In Span 2, primary steel members have Category E/E’ welds at ends of bottom flange cover plates, but they do not show signs of cracking. Fatigue retrofit of bottom flange cover plate welds will not be considered.

Per the 2016 Biennial Inspection, two Safety Flags were issued for this structure. The flags are listed following:

PIA Safety Flag NB16KQW015: Eastbound Service Road - Span 2, the bridge railing at the south fascia exhibits impact damage for approximately 23 feet. The railings are pushed outward for up to 19″. Unpinned temporary traffic concrete barriers are installed in front of the damaged bridge railing in order to protect traffic.

PIA Safety Flag NB16KQW016: End Abutment Deck Joint at Eastbound Mainline exhibits a cracked, broken and deteriorated header near the longitudinal joint at HOV Lane.

During AECOM/URS’ Visual Inspection, the previously noted deterioration were verified and listed as: spalls at the underside of deck, the deteriorated deck joint system, and the deteriorated concrete pedestals, pier caps and columns with deep spalls, delamination, hollow sounding concrete and/or cracks which were repaired under XM14.51. It was also noted that PIA Safety Flag NB16KQW016 at the deck joint was repaired. However, PIA Safety Flag NB16KQW015 at the bridge railing remains outstanding, will need to be replaced with a vertical faced concrete parapet in order to meet current bridge standards.

Although the underside of deck has been locally repaired, the deck slab has reached its useful life and will need to be replaced. The existing steel bearings will need to be replaced with elastomeric bearings which may require modification to the abutment bridge seats, the pier cap beams and/or stringer ends. The bridge underdeck lighting will need to be replaced.

Vulnerability Ratings: No Steel Detail Vulnerability Review Recommended




1-8

3) BIN 1075751 SIE (I-278W) over SIRT South Shore




1. Concrete Deck 2 (All Spans)2. Primary Members 2 (All Spans)3. Secondary Members 2 (All Spans)4. Steel Beam Ends 2 (All Spans)5. Bearings 2 (All Spans)6. Abutment Stem Wall 2 (Begin/End Abutments)7. Abutment Backwall 2 (Begin/End Abutments)8. Pedestals 4 (Pier 2); 2 (Begin/End Abutments and Pier 1) 9. Cap Beam 2 (Piers 1 and 2)

10. Pier Columns 3 (Pier 2); 2 (Pier 1)11. Pier Wall (Crash Wall) 3 (Piers 1 and 2) 12. Joints 3 (All Spans) 13. Sidewalks 2 (Span 3); 1 (Spans 1 and 2)14. Curbs 1 (All Spans)15. Paint of Steel Members 2 (All Spans)16. Bridge Railing 1 (All Spans)(1) The Element Assessment includes several condition state quantities for one element. The sum of the individual condition state quantities equals the total quantity for that element. The condition state shown above reflects the governing condition state which is based on the larger value of the quantities.

Based on the 2016 Biennial Inspection Report, scheduled repair work under PIN XM14.51 Bridge Maintenance Repairs (Work Order No. 6) is in progress. Proposed repair work includes underside of deck spall repairs; replacement of all transverse joint systems with an armorless joint system; steel repairs; concrete and crack repairs at abutment stems, backwalls and pedestals, and piers (pedestals, pier cap, crash wall, columns); replacement of bearing anchor bolts; and painting of steel within five feet of all deck joints.

The concrete deck in all spans is in fair condition except some localized areas which are in poor condition. The steel superstructure in all spans is in good condition with some localized areas which are in poor or severe condition (see Yellow Flag below). All bearings are in fair condition except nine (9) bearings at Pier 1 which are in poor condition. The begin abutment backwall is mostly in good condition, but there are areas in poor condition. In Span 2, seven (7) pedestals at Pier 2 are in fair condition and the remaining seven (7) pedestals are in severe condition (see Yellow Flag below).

The steel superstructure and paint are in good condition. In Span 2, primary steel members have Category E/E’ welds at ends of bottom flange cover plates and do not show signs of cracking. Fatigue retrofit of bottom flange cover plate welds will not be considered.

Per 2016 Biennial Inspection Report, two Yellow Flags were issued for this structure. The flags are listed as follows:


1-9

Yellow Flag NB16MQW026: Pier 2, Pedestals at Stringers S2, S6 and S9 to S14 are severely deteriorated with up to 6” deep spalls with corroded and exposed reinforcement. The bearings are slightly undermined (less than 5%).

Yellow Flag NB16MQW027: Span 3 - Pier 2, Stringer S10 bottom web exhibits a web bearing loss of approximately 54%.

Two Yellow Flags are scheduled for repair under PIN XM14.51. The previously noted deteriorated concrete pedestals, pier caps, columns and crash walls with deep spalls, delamination, hollow sounding concrete and/or cracks are also scheduled to be repaired under XM14.51. Once these repairs are completed the substructure rating will be improved.

Although the underside of deck has been locally repaired, the deck slab has reached its useful life and will need to be replaced. The existing steel bearings will need to be replaced with elastomeric bearings, which may require modification to the abutment bridge seats, the pier cap beams and/or stringer ends. The bridge railing at the north fascia is in good condition, but needs to be replaced with a vertical faced concrete parapet in order to meet current bridge standards.

A hands-on, in-depth inspection was performed on the abutments and pier columns of BIN 1075751 using a hammer. The existing columns and abutments are in poor condition exhibiting delamination, spalls, hollow sounding concrete, and rust/efflorescence. It was noted that the column repairs scheduled under PIN XM14.51 were not done. Both faces of the crash wall at pier 1 and the begin face of pier 2 have been repaired under XM14.51. The end of face of the pier 2 crash wall was not fully repaired under XM14.51.

Vulnerability Ratings: Steel Detail Vulnerability Rating (performed in 1998) – 4.Per the 2016 Biennial Inspection, a new Yellow Flag NB16MQW027 was issued for metal corrosion of Stringer S10 in Span 3.



4) BIN 1075752 SIE (I-278E) over SIRT South Shore


Overall Condition Rating: 4.125

From the same report, bridge elements rating is as follows (on a scale of 1 [totally deteriorated] to 7 [new condition]):

1. Concrete Deck 5 (Span 1); 4 (Spans 2 and 3)2. Primary Members 6 (Span 1); 4 (Spans 2 and 3)3. Secondary Members 6 (All Spans)4. Bearings 4 (Pier 1); 5 (Pier 2); 5 (Begin/End Abutments)5. Pedestals 6 (Begin Abutment); 4 (End Abutments); 4 (Spans 1 and 2)6. Top of Cap Beam 3 (Pier 1); 5 (Pier 2)7. Cap Beam 4 (Piers 1 and 2)8. Pier Columns 4 (Pier 1); 5 (Pier 2)9. Joints 4 (Piers 1 and 2); 8 (Begin/End Abutments)

10. Sidewalks and Fascias 4 (Span 1); 5 (Spans 2 and 3)11. Median 1 (Spans 1 and 3); 4 (Span 2)12. Paint of Steel Members 6 (All Spans)13. Lighting 1 (Spans 1 and 3); 8 (Span 2)


1-10

Based on the 2015 Biennial Inspection Report, scheduled repair work under PIN XM14.51 Bridge Maintenance Repairs (Work Order No. 101) is in progress. Proposed repair work includes underside of deck spall repairs; replacement of all transverse joint systems with an armorless joint system; concrete and crack repairs at abutment stems and backwalls, and piers (pier cap, crash wall, columns); and painting of steel within five feet of all deck joints.

In Spans 2 and 3, the steel superstructure exhibits scattered areas of heavy corrosion and minor section loss isolated to its ends near deck joints and will need minor steel repairs and/or diaphragm replacement. Paint of steel superstructure is in good condition; however, isolated areas near the deck joints exhibit heavy corrosion and will need to be cleaned and painted. In Span 2, primary steel members have Category E/E’ welds at ends of bottom flange cover plates and do not show signs of cracking. Fatigue retrofit of bottom flange cover plate welds will not be considered.

Per the 2015 Biennial Inspection, Safety Flag NB15M9W048 was issued where the median bridge guide rail exhibits unprotected steel posts and sign structure base at immediate Begin and End Approaches of the Eastbound Service Road. During AECOM/URS’ Visual Inspection, it was noted that Safety Flag NB15M9W048 remains outstanding. The previously noted deteriorated concrete pedestals, pier caps, columns and crash walls with deep spalls, delamination, hollow sounding concrete and/or cracks have yet to be repaired under contract PIN XM14.51. Once these repairs are completed the substructure rating will be improved.

Although the underside of deck will/has been locally repaired, the deck slab has reached its useful life and will need to be replaced. The existing steel bearings will need to be replaced with elastomeric bearings which, may require modification to the abutment bridge seats, the pier cap beams and/or stringer ends. The bridge railing at the south fascia is in good condition, but needs to be replaced with a vertical faced concrete parapet in order to meet current bridge standards.

A hands-on, in-depth inspection was performed on the abutments and pier columns of BIN 1075752 using a hammer. The existing columns and abutments are in poor condition exhibiting delamination, spalls, hollow sounding concrete, and rust/efflorescence. It was noted that the column repairs scheduled under PIN XM14.51 were not done. Both faces of the crash wall at pier 1 and the begin face of pier 2 have been repaired under XM14.51. The end of face of the pier 2 crash wall was not fully repaired under XM14.51.

Vulnerability Ratings: No Steel Detail Vulnerability Review Recommended



1.2.3 Level 1 Load Rating

A preliminary Level 1 Load Rating was performed to determine if the existing stringers (superstructure only), under the as-rehabilitated condition of the structure, have a live load carrying capacity of HS-20. The load rating was performed in accordance with AASHTO 2008 The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 1st

Edition and NYSDOT EI-05-034. The Load Factor method was used to analyze and determine the ratings of the stringers. STAAD.Pro V8i was used to help determine forces due to certain dead loads. No in-depth inspection was performed to determine member deterioration, however, based on the most recent inspection reports the following section losses were assumed in analysis:

(1) If no bottom flange cover plate exists, the bottom flange was assumed to have 10% section loss. The top flange and web were assumed to have no section loss.

(2) If a bottom flange cover plate exists, the bottom flange cover plate was assumed to have 10% section loss. The top flange, bottom flange, and web were assumed to have no section loss.


1-11

In addition, the following were also assumed during analysis:

(3) The same loads and forces were used to analyze BINs 1067821 and 1067822.

(4) The same loads and forces were used to analyze BINs 1075751 and 1075752.

(5) Top flange cover plates were ignored.

(6) All sections were analyzed as composite with the proposed 9 ½” deck. .

1.2.4 What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?

The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the four (BINs 1067821, 1067822, 1075751 and 1075752) bridges along the Staten Island Expressway (I-278) over Mosel Avenue and Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT). The following objectives have been established to support the project’s purpose and need:

(1) Improve the general bridge condition and extend the service life for at least 40 years using cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair.

Replace the concrete deck slab that has exceeded its useful life with a new 8½” thick concrete deck as per NYSDOT standards;

Eliminate as many joints as possible per NYSDOT standards; Replace bearings as per NYSDOT standards; Paint structural steel as per NYSDOT standards; Perform local repairs to deficient steel stringers as necessary; and repair/replace end

diaphragms; Perform local concrete repairs to or replacement of substructure elements, such as

pedestals; pier caps, columns, crash walls, abutment stems and backwalls as necessary; Replace approach slab and pavement within project limits to complement deck replacement. Install new street light and underdeck lighting system

(2) Design new concrete deck slab for HS-25 live load (deck) and HS-20 live load (other elements).

(3) Improve/upgrade substandard features (i.e. bridge railing / parapet, fence, etc.) in order to meet current bridge standards.


1-12

1.3 What Alternatives Are Being Considered?

Several alternatives are being considered for each bridge to satisfy the project objectives. The following alternatives are being considered:

Alternative 1: No-Build/Maintenance

This alternative involves routine maintenance work. This alternative will result in the continued deterioration of the structure with progressively lower ratings. This alternative does not address the prevailing problems and does not satisfy the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative will not be discussed further.

Alternative 2A: Rehabilitation – CIP Deck Replacement with Minor Superstructure Repairs and Major Substructure Rehabilitation

This alternative includes replacement of the existing composite concrete deck, approach slabs, bearings, pedestals, pier cap beams, sidewalk, raised median and guide rail; elimination of deck joints at the abutments (or replacement with armorless joints if jointless abutments are not feasible) and piers; restoration/retrofit of primary structural steel; localized paint within five (5) feet of original deck joints and full length of fascia stringer; and localized concrete repairs of reinforced concrete substructure as needed for all BINs. This alternative also includes replacement of all columns and repairs to all abutment stems of BINs 1075751 and 1075752.

Existing deck joints at Piers 1 and 2 will be eliminated and instead a concrete link slab will be installed. The concrete link slab will eliminate water leakage which will stop further deterioration of the stringers and substructure elements. The deck joints at the abutments will be eliminated and jointless abutments will be installed per the current bridge standards. If jointless abutments are not feasible, amorless joints will be used at abutments. The existing steel bearings will need to be replaced with elastomeric bearings which may require modification to the abutment bridge seats, pier cap beams and/or stringer ends. The existing median guide rail between the mainline and service roadways will be replaced with a single slope median concrete barrier and the street lighting lampposts will be mounted on this median barrier. Thus, it will ensure the safety of the lamppost from potential impact of high speed vehicles. The non-conforming bridge railing at the north and south fascias will be replaced with a new vertical faced concrete parapet and pedestrian fence at sidewalk to meet current bridge standards. Work will also include new utility supports where supports are attached to the deck, superstructure, and/or substructure; maintenance/replacement of utilities embedded in the existing deck/median/sidewalk; replacement of street lighting and underdeck lighting; and replacement of pavement adjacent to the approaches. Roadway alignment and bridge width will remain unchanged.

The new cast-in-place (CIP) reinforced concrete deck will act composite with the supporting steel superstructure. The cast-in-place deck provides ease of construction and reduced cost but requires long term lane closures.

The new composite stainless steel reinforced (CIP) concrete deck, elimination/reduction of transverse deck joints, new elastomeric bearings, the new stainless steel reinforced pier capbeam, and new columns (column replacement only for BINs 1075751 and 1075752) will extend the bridges’ service life. In addition, the jointless deck will require less maintenance and repairs in the future.

While this alternative is the lowest cost alternative and meets all project objectives, the additional time needed to cast the deck substantially lengthens the construction duration of the project.


1-13

Alternative 2B: Rehabilitation – CIP/Precast Deck Replacement with Minor Superstructure Repairs and Major Substructure Rehabilitation

This alternative is the same as Alternative 2A except that BINs 1067821 and 1067822 includes cast-in-place (CIP) composite deck slab and BINs 1075751 and 1075752 includes a precast composite deck slab.

This alternative was not further reviewed because of the impractical combination of using cast-in-place concrete deck for two bridges and pre-cast concrete deck for the other two bridges in the same project.

Alternative 2C: Rehabilitation – Precast Deck Replacement with Minor Superstructure Repairs and Major Substructure Rehabilitation

This alternative is the same as Alternative 2A except that all BINs include a precast composite deck slab. If needed, the deck will be constructed in several longitudinal strips. Closure pours with high early strength concrete will be needed to connect the deck to the supporting steel superstructure. The framing plan variations from span to span may result in inconsistent panel sizes, shifts in the joint lines, and increased cost. The use of this type of deck will allow work to be performed during nighttime and/or weekends only which would minimize the impact to traffic. In addition, precast concrete panels are more durable and uniform than their cast-in-place counterparts because of the controlled fabrication environment and stringent quality control during production. This will result in a longer life span of the deck and a reduction to its maintenance cost.

This alternative, while more expensive, will significantly shorten the construction duration of the project and reduce the need and cost of future maintenance.

Alternative 2D: Rehabilitation - Deck Replacement with Major Superstructure and Substructure Replacement (Base Alternative)

This alternative will eliminate the two end spans (Spans 1 and 3) and will re-use the remaining span (Span 2) steel superstructure. The alternative proposes replacement of the existing composite deck slab with a new precast composite deck slab, approach slabs between Mosel Ave and SIRT, sidewalk, raised median and guide rail; removal of steel superstructure in original Spans 1 and 3, bearings, pier 1 and 2 cap beams, abutment backwalls, and pedestals; abandonment of existing abutment stems and footings; elimination of transverse deck joints; localized paint within five (5) feet of original deck joints and full length of fascia stringer; construction of integral abutment at original pier 1 location, semi-integral abutments at original pier 2 location, and wingwalls at end spans; restoration/repair of primary structural steel in the remaining span. This alternative also proposes removal of pier 1 and 2 columns for BINs 1075751 and 1075752.

For BINs 1067821 and 1067822 the original Pier 1 and 2 columns will remain and new abutment walls will be cast around them. These will be the new abutments. For BINs 10757512 the original Pier 1 and 2 columns will be removed up to the crashwalls, and a new abutment wall will be constructed from the crashwall. These will become the new abutments.

The embankment with concrete paving stones under original Spans 1 and 3 will be excavated and retaining walls with embankment fill will be installed to support the new approach slabs on grade. All transverse deck joints will be eliminated in this alternative. The elimination of the deck joints will prevent water leakage and thus will stop further deterioration of the stringers and substructure elements. The non-conforming bridge railing at the north and south fascias will be replaced with a new vertical faced concrete parapet and pedestrian fence at sidewalk to meet current bridge standards. Work will also include new utility supports where supports are attached to the deck, superstructure and/or substructure; maintenance/repair of utilities embedded in the existing deck/median/sidewalk; replacement of street


1-14

lighting and underdeck lighting; and replacement of the pavement adjacent to the new approaches. Roadway alignment and bridge width will remain unchanged.

The new composite stainless steel reinforced deck slab, jointless deck, elimination of two spans and the use of integral abutments will extend the bridges’ service life. This alternative will feature a jointless deck which will require less maintenance and repairs in the future.

Alternative 2E: Deck Replacement with Minor Superstructure Repairs and Major Substructure Rehabilitation (BINs 1067821 and 1068722) and Deck Replacement with Major Superstructure and Major Substructure Replacement (BINs 1075751 and 1075752)

This alternative is the same as Alternative 2C for BINS 1067821 and 1067822 and the same as Alternative 2D for BINs 1075751 and 1075752.

This combination of alternatives was considered due to the existing condition of the four bridges.

Alternative 3: Total Bridge Replacement

This alternative will eliminate all three spans and will construct a new one (1) span bridge on reinforced concrete integral abutments. The alternative proposes total demolition of the entire existing bridges; the installation of prestressed precast concrete box beams, reinforced concrete integral abutments on concrete piles and MSES walls; and the replacement of utilities embedded in the existing deck.

The embankment with concrete paving stones under original Spans 1 and 3 will be excavated and retaining walls with backfill will be installed to support the new approach slabs on grade. The north and south fascias will feature new vertical faced concrete parapet at sidewalk to meet current bridge standards. Roadway alignment and bridge width will remain unchanged.

The new bridges’ will feature a new concrete jointless deck, no bearings, and protected beam ends which will require less maintenance costs in the future.

For a more in-depth discussion of the design criteria and nonstandard features see Chapter 2 of this report.


1-15

1.4 Environmental Review This project is federally and state funded. It is subject to both NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) review.

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act):According to Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet (Appendix B), this project is classified as Class II/ Automatic Categorical Exclusion “C” List. This project involves bridge rehabilitation/replacement and does not involve any permanent functional changes to the affected roadways. Construction will be performed in stages, so as to have the least impact on traffic. There will be no major alteration of, or adverse effect on, any property, protected area, or natural or man-made resource of national, state, or local significance. This project will not have a significant effect on the environment or the neighboring communities.

The actions included in this project are described in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23 Highways, Section 771.117 Categorical Exclusions, by paragraph (c)(28) ’Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement…’ The proposed actions will not impact planned growth or land use for the area; will not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other resource; will not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; will not have significant impacts on travel patterns; and will not, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant environmental impacts. NYSDOT has determined that this project is NEPA Class II Automatic Categorical Exclusion “C” List.

SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act):The actions involved in this project are described as Type II actions by 17 NYCRR 15.14(e)(23): ‘Replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing highway / railroad crossings and crossing bridges at present sites not involving significant expansion, and provided that none of the criteria listed in 17 NYCRR 15.14(d) are violated’ and by 17 NYCRR 15.14(e)(37)(iv): ‘replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present sites… of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroad crossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure.’ The project meets all the criteria in 17 NYCRR 15.14(d) as follows:

a. The project will not acquire any occupied dwelling units or principal structures of businesses.b. The project will not cause significant changes in passenger or vehicle traffic volume, vehicle mix, local

travel patterns or access (other than changes that would occur without the action.) c. The project will have no more than minor social, economic or environmental effects upon occupied

dwelling units, businesses, abutting properties or other established human activities.d. The project will have no significant inconsistency with current plans or goals that have been adopted

by local government bodies.e. The project will have no physical alteration of publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or

designated open space.f. The project will have no effect on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed, or may

be eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places.g. The project will have no more than minor alteration of, or adverse effect upon, any property, protected

area, or natural or man-made resource of national, State, or local significance, including but not limited to: freshwater or tidal wetlands and associated areas; floodplain areas; prime or unique agricultural land; agricultural districts so designated pursuant to article 25, section 203; water resources including lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams; water supply sources; designated wild, scenic and recreational rivers; unique ecological, natural wooded, or scenic areas; rare endangered or threatened species; or any area officially designated as a critical environmental area pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.

h. The project will not require an indirect source air quality permit, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 203. Project Scoping Report (PSR)/Final Design Report (FDR) format has been used (see Exhibit 7-1 in Project Development Manual, Appendix 7) for this NEPA Class II and SEQRA Type II bridge rehabilitation project.


1-16

1.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment?

*The total costs reflect the most aggressive WZTC plan, WZTC-3 (two stage construction). For details, see Appendix A and section 2.3.1.7.

Proposed Mitigation:

Because the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to the human or natural environments, no mitigation measures have been developed or are proposed. If prior to or during the course of construction any reasonably foreseen or apparent impacts to any particular resource are identified, they will be minimized to the extent practical and feasible.

Anticipated Permits/CertificationsNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC):

State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit Article 24 - Freshwater Wetlands Permit/ NYSDEC General Permit No. 0-11-002 Construction Staging PermitConstruction Solid Waste Disposal Permit Construction Work Permit/Lane Closure Permit (NYCDOT OCMC) Local Permits

Coordination/Consultation Municipality Coordination with Local Community Coordination with NYCDOT and NYCDEP Coordination with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Coordination with New York City Transit (NYCT) Coordination with New York Fire Department (FDNY) Coordination with Con Edison Coordination with National Grid Coordination with NYSDOT T&S Coordination NYCDOT Street Lighting

Exhibit 1.2 - Comparison of Alternatives

AlternativesCategory

No Build 2A/2B/2C 2D 2E 3

Wetland Impacts None None None None None

100 year Floodplain impact None None None None None

Cultural Resources Impacts None None None None None

Section 106 / Section 4(f) impacts None None None None None

Noise None Minor impact during construction.

Moderate impact during construction.



Forested areas Impacts None None None None None

Property Impacts None None None None NoneConstruction

Cost(in millions of dollars)*

None 72 / 75 / 78 88 79 92


1-17

1.6 What are the Costs & Schedules?

Design approval is scheduled for December of 2017 with construction scheduled to last 15 to 18 months beginning in 2018 as a Design-Build project.

Exhibit 1.3 - Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Design Approval December 2017

ROW Acquisition N/A

Construction Start July 2018

Construction Complete September 2019


1-18

1.6.1 BIN 1067821 SIE (I-278W) over Mosel Avenue

Exhibit 1.4.A – Project Costs (in millions of dollars)

AlternativesActivities

1* 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3

Bridge - 9.02 9.02 9.94 11.74 9.94 12.04Construction Costs** Highway - - - - - - -

Contingency(20% at Scoping Approval) - 1.80 1.80 1.99 2.35 1.99 2.41

Subtotal 1 - 10.83 10.83 11.92 14.09 11.92 14.45

Field Change Order - 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.34 0.39

Subtotal 2 - 11.14 11.15 12.26 14.46 12.26 14.84

Mobilization (4%) - 0.45 0.45 0.49 0.58 0.49 0.59

Subtotal 3 - 11.59 11.60 12.75 15.03 12.76 15.43Expected Award Amount

(inflate current costs/prices at 2%/yr. to midpoint of

construction to arrive at $ amount to be entered here)

See HDM 21.6.3.2 B

- 0.47 0.47 0.52 0.61 0.52 0.62

Subtotal 4 - 12.06 12.07 13.27 15.64 13.27 16.06

Design-Build Cost (30%) - 3.48 3.48 3.83 4.51 3.83 4.63

Subtotal 5 - 15.54 15.55 17.09 20.15 17.10 20.69

WZTC-3 (Additional Cost) - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50

Total Alternative Costs*** - 18.04 18.05 19.59 22.65 19.60 23.19*No Build cost was investigated; see explanation in Section 1.3.**Construction costs include WZTC-1, the baseline WZTC cost. ***The total alternative costs reflect the most aggressive WZTC plan, WZTC-3. WZTC-3 costs are additional costs to WZTC-1. For details, see Appendix A and section 2.3.1.7.Notes:1. Design-Build Cost (30%) includes 11% Incidentals, 9% Detail Design and 10% Construction

Inspection Costs (excludes Mobilization and its escalation cost).2. Costs are based on a single crew operation. However, in order to minimize the construction duration

to 50%, two sets of crews may be used; no price adjustment was considered for two crews.Description of Alternatives Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative 2A: Deck Replacement with C.I.P. concrete deck for all bridges Alternative 2B: Deck Replacement with precast concrete deck for BINs 1075751 and 1075752 and

C.I.P. concrete deck for BINs 1067821 and 1067822 Alternative 2C: Deck Replacement with precast concrete deck for all bridges Alternative 2D: Eliminate two end spans, construct two new abutments, retain steel superstructure in

remaining span and deck replacement with precast concrete deck Alternative 2E: BINs 1067821 and 1067822 receive Alternative 2C; BINs 1075751 and 1075752

receive Alternative 2D Alternative 3: Total bridge replacement with prestressed concrete beams for all bridges


1-19

1.6.2 BIN 1067822 SIE (I-278E) over Mosel Avenue

Exhibit 1.4.B – Project Costs (in millions of dollars)


1* 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3



Subtotal 1 - 11.13 11.13 12.31 14.44 12.31 15.08


Subtotal 2 - 11.44 11.45 12.65 14.81 12.65 15.47

Mobilization (4%) - 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.59 0.51 0.62




See HDM 21.6.3.2 B

- 0.48 0.48 0.53 0.62 0.53 0.65

Subtotal 4 - 12.38 12.39 13.68 16.02 13.69 16.74


Subtotal 5 - 15.95 15.96 17.63 20.65 17.64 21.56


Total Alternative Costs*** - 18.45 18.46 20.13 23.15 20.14 24.06

*No Build cost was investigated; see explanation in Section 1.3.**Construction costs include WZTC-1, the baseline WZTC cost. ***The total alternative costs reflect the most aggressive WZTC plan, WZTC-3. WZTC-3 costs are additional costs to WZTC-1. For details, see Appendix A and section 2.3.1.7.Notes:1. Design-Build Cost (30%) includes 11% Incidentals, 9% Detail Design and 10% Construction







1-20

1.6.3 BIN 1075751 SIE (I-278W) over SIRT South Shore

Exhibit 1.4.C – Project Costs (in millions of dollars)


1* 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3



Subtotal 1 - 10.31 11.21 11.21 12.39 11.69 13.40


Subtotal 2 - 10.62 11.54 11.55 12.76 12.03 13.79

Mobilization (4%) - 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.48 0.55




See HDM 21.6.3.2 B

- 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.54 0.51 0.58

Subtotal 4 - 11.49 12.48 12.49 13.81 13.01 14.92


Subtotal 5 - 14.81 16.08 16.10 17.79 16.77 19.22


Total Alternative Costs*** - 17.31 18.58 18.60 20.29 19.27 21.72

*No Build cost was investigated; see explanation in Section 1.3.**Construction costs include WZTC-1, the baseline WZTC cost. ***The total alternative costs reflect the most aggressive WZTC plan, WZTC-3. WZTC-3 costs are additional costs to WZTC-1. For details, see Appendix A and section 2.3.1.7.Notes:1. Design-Build Cost (30%) includes 11% Incidentals, 9% Detail Design and 10% Construction







1-21

1.6.4 BIN 1075752 SIE (I-278E) over SIRT South Shore

Exhibit 1.4.D – Project Costs (in millions of dollars)


1* 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3



Subtotal 1 - 10.59 11.53 11.53 12.84 12.12 13.94


Subtotal 2 - 10.90 11.85 11.86 13.21 12.46 14.33

Mobilization (4%) - 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.50 0.57




See HDM 21.6.3.2 B

- 0.46 0.50 0.50 0.56 0.52 0.60

Subtotal 4 - 11.79 12.82 12.84 14.29 13.48 15.50


Subtotal 5 - 15.20 16.52 16.54 18.42 17.37 19.97


Total Alternative Costs*** - 17.70 19.02 19.04 20.92 19.87 22.47*No Build cost was investigated; see explanation in Section 1.3.**Construction costs include WZTC-1, the baseline WZTC cost. ***The total alternative costs reflect the most aggressive WZTC plan, WZTC-3. WZTC-3 costs are additional costs to WZTC-1. For details, see Appendix A and section 2.3.1.7.Notes:1. Design-Build Cost (30%) includes 11% Incidentals, 9% Detail Design and 10% Construction







1-22

1.6.5 Total Project Cost Summary

Exhibit 1.5 – Comparison of Alternatives’ Project Costs (in millions of dollars) for Entire Project

Alternatives Total Project Costs*

No Build -

2A 72

2B 75

2C 78

2D 88

2E 79

3 92*Cost reflects WZTC alternative WZTC-3 (two stage construction). For details, see Appendix A and section 2.3.1.7. Cost rounded up to nearest million.

Description of Alternatives Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative 2A: Deck Replacement with C.I.P. concrete deck for all bridges Alternative 2B: Deck Replacement with precast concrete deck for BINs 1075751 and 1075752 and




Exhibit 1.6 – Project Costs (in millions of dollars) for Entire Project for Base Alternative

Bridge Base Alternative Cost*

BIN 1067821 Alternative 2D 22.65




Total Project Costs** - - 88

*Cost reflects WZTC alternative WZTC-3 (two stage construction). For details, see Appendix A and section 2.3.1.7.**Total Project Cost rounded up to nearest million.


1-23

1.7 The Base Construction Alternative

All Alternatives, except Alternative 1 – No Build, meet the project objectives. Construction Alternative 2D is considered to be the base construction alternative due to the existing condition of the four bridges. The rehabilitation work proposed in Construction Alternative 2D is superior to the proposed rehabilitation work of the other alternatives. All options/alternatives discussed in this report are feasible and may be used. An environmental review was performed for all alternatives discussed in this report. Other alternatives/options not discussed in this report may be used, but may be subject to FHWA and environmental review

A decision to enter final design will not be made until after the evaluation of the comments on the draft design approval document are finalized.

1.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?

This project is a bridge reconstruction project. The existing three spans bridges will be reconstructed as single span bridges and their decks will be replaced. Major substructure work associated with the reconstruction is also included. Neither a public hearing nor a public information meeting is required for this work, however, an information meeting with the Community Boards will be scheduled during the final design stage, if they so desire. It is anticipated that advisory agencies and local officials will attend this meeting.

For questions or comments, you can contact:

Meena Kuriakose, Project Manager Please include the six-digit Project Identification Number (PIN) X731.47

e-mail: [email protected]: (718) 482-4685

Mailing Address:New York State Department of Transportation

Region 11 DesignHunters Point Plaza

47-40 21st StreetLong Island City, New York 11101

The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of existing conditions, anticipated impacts of the base alternative and comparison to the null alternative, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.


2-1

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area

This project is on the approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project No. X731.47.

The Regional Transportation Plan for the borough of Staten Island (Plan 2040 – Regional Transportation Plan, by New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, Adopted September 4, 2013) has been reviewed. The project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan.

There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.

2.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments

The abutting highway segments are similar to the section within the project area. The Staten Island Expressway (I-278) section consists of 3 – 12’ travel lanes in each direction, 1 – 12’ HOV Lane, a variable width buffer separating the HOV Lane from the travel lanes, a 4’ left shoulder between the HOV Lane and the concreter barrier, and a 0’ to 10’ right shoulder between the travel lanes and the median that separates the SIE from the service road (Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South).

Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South each contain 3 – 10’ travel lanes with no shoulders. They are separated from the SIE by a variable width curbed concrete median.

The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen this highway segment, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years. This section and the abutting sections of Staten Island Expressway (I-278) were reconstructed over the past 13 years as part of two (2) projects that included the construction of the HOV/Bus median lanes and the Staten Island Expressway Access Improvement Project.

2.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations

2.3.1.1 Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)

Exhibit 2.1Classification Data

Route(s) I-278Staten Island Expressway

Narrows Road North

Narrows Road South

Mosel Avenue

Functional Classification Urban Interstate Urban Minor

ArterialUrban Minor Arterial Local Road

National Highway System (NHS) Urban Interstate No No No

Designated Truck Access Route No No No No

Qualifying Highway No No No No

Within 1 mile (1.6 km) of a Qualifying Highway No No No No

Within the 16 ft (4.9 m) vertical clearance network

No No No No


2-2

2.3.1.2 Control of Access

The Staten Island Expressway is a fully controlled access facility. Access to Narrows Road North, Narrows Road South and Mosel Avenue is not controlled. There will be no change to the control of access as part of this project.

2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices

There are no traffic signals on any of the bridges or directly adjacent approaches to the bridges. There are traffic signals on the service roads outside of the project limits. These include Narrows Road South at Targee Street, Narrows Road South at Hylan Boulevard, Narrows Road North at Targee Street, and Narrows Road North at Hylan Boulevard. There are numerous signs on the bridges and approaches including regulatory, warning and guide signs. These signs are ground mounted, pole mounted or are on Cantilever Truss or Single Span Overhead Sign Structures. There is a Single Span Overhead Sign Structure in the eastbound direction between BINS 1067822 and 1075752 that contains a Variable Message Sign.

2.3.1.4 Traffic Volumes

Exhibit 2.2Existing and Future Traffic Volumes

SIE – Eastbound(includes HOV lane)

SIE – Westbound(includes HOV lane) Narrows Road North Narrows Road South

Year ADT DHV ADT DHV ADT DHV ADT DHVExisting(2017) 67258 4791 62570 4911 24774 2790 17862 2424

ETC(2020) 69296 4936 64466 5060 25525 2875 18403 2497

ETC+20(2040) 77329 5508 71939 5646 28483 3208 20536 2787

Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion

Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts – The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) + 20 design year was selected per PDM Appendix 5. Future build volumes are the same as the future no-build volumes. The growth rate used to calculate ETC+20 is 14.97% based on Table 16-4 of the New York City City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual, Chapter 16 – Transportation, which lists Annual Background Growth Rates for the “Other Staten Island Section” as 1.00% for 1 to 5 years and 0.50% for Year 6 and Beyond.

The percent trucks for the SIE Eastbound travel lanes is 7.6% and for the HOV lane is 4.6%. The percent trucks for the SIE Westbound travel lanes is 6.4% and for the HOV lane is 8.8%. The percent trucks for the Narrows Road North is 9.8%. The percent trucks for the Narrows Road South is 3.9%.

2.3.1.5 Speeds

The posted speed limit on the Staten Island Expressway is 50 mph. The posted speed limit on Narrows Road South is 35 mph. There are no posted speed limits on Narrows Road North or Mosel Avenue. The speed limit on these roads is the default New York City speed limit of 25 mph.

A speed study was performed within the project limits. Speed data was obtained on the SIE between the bridge locations. Other speed data locations included entrance and exit ramps from Narrow Road North and Narrows Road South. The following operating speeds (85th Percentile Speeds) were obtained.


2-3

Exhibit 2.3Operating Speeds (85th Percentile Speeds)

LOCATION SPEED (mph)SIE Eastbound Travel Lanes 56

SIE HOV Lane 59SIE Westbound Travel Lanes 57

SIE WB HOV Lane 64Narrows Road North west of Clifton Avenue 39

Exit 13 Exit Ramp from SIE WB to Narrows Road North 57Exit 13 Entrance Ramp from Narrows Road North to SIE WB 49

Exit 14 Exit Ramp from SIE EB to Narrows Road South 50Narrows Road South between bridges 44

Narrows Road South East of Hylan Boulevard 27Entrance to SIE EB from Narrows Road South East of Hylan Blvd. 31

2.3.1.6 Level of Service

The RPPM does not anticipate capacity improvements within 20 years. The Highway Capacity Manual was used to perform a level of service analysis for the SIE mainlines travel lanes and HOV lane and Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South in the vicinity of the four bridges.

Exhibit 2.4Level of Service – Existing and Proposed (pc/mi/ln)

EXISTING(2017)

ETC(2020)

ETC+20(2040)

LOCATION

AM PM AM PM AM PM

SIE Eastbound Travel Lanes C (25.5) D (26.8) D (26.2) D (27.6) D (29.3) D (30.8)SIE Eastbound HOV Lane F (> 45.0) B (16.1) F (> 45.0) B (16.6) F (>45.0) C (18.8)

SIE Westbound Travel Lanes C (22.1) D (26.4) C (22.8) D (27.2) C (25.5) D (30.3)SIE Westbound HOV Lane A (8.4) B (17.1) A (8.6) B (17.7) A (9.60 C (20.2)

Narrows Road North B (17.0) F (> 43.0) B (17.6) F (> 43.0) B (20.0) F (> 43.0)Narrows Road South B (16.9) B (9.1) B (17.4) B (9.4) B (19.4) B (10.4)


2-4

2.3.1.7 Work Zone Safety & Mobility

A. Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) Plan

Maintaining traffic flow on the mainline roadways, as well as service roadways and sidewalks, during construction will be a major issue. Maintenance of traffic/WZTC will require careful sequencing of construction to maintain the continuity of traffic flow and provide adequate safety for both motorists and construction workers. Impacts to the traveling public would be minimized, and access to abutting residences, commercial establishments, and retail businesses would be maintained. The contractor will be required to inform the local New York City Police and Fire Departments, as well as schools, of construction scheduling so that they are aware of construction activities.

Traffic will be maintained at all times via lane shifts onto the existing paved shoulders and service roads. However, one service road lane, in each direction (EB and WB), may be closed for the entire duration of construction. All of the alternatives require the service roads’ sidewalks and the raised medians between the service road and the mainline to be modified for use as temporary lanes. All traffic lanes will be maintained during peak hours with lane closures expected to be allowed for lane shifts during non-peak hours in accordance with NYCDOT-OCMC stipulations. No off site detours will be required for vehicular traffic. Routes for emergency vehicles will be maintained and open during construction. Pedestrian access and pedestrian traffic shall be maintained at all times. If pedestrian sidewalk cannot be maintained, the contractor shall provide alternate routes or means, such as a temporary pedestrian bridge or temporary bus service at reasonable intervals, for pedestrian access between the closed sidewalk routes. The details for the work zone traffic control will be prepared and evaluated during final design. A summary and a description of the WZTC alternatives begin considered are provided below. Conceptual plans are provided in Appendix A.

Three (3) WZTC alternatives are being considered for the project site. The following alternatives are being considered:

WZTC-1

This alternative has four (4) stages. All stages will maintain the Bus/HOV lane, three mainline travel lanes, and two service road travel lanes in both directions at all times. The Bus/HOV lane will remain dedicated to Bus/HOV traffic and will experience a minor shift closer to the concrete median barrier. Stages I through III will have a portion of the mainline and service road closed for reconstruction, with stage IV only have a portion of the mainline closed. While traffic will be shifted to the service roads’ sidewalks and the raised medians between the service road and the mainline, this alternative does not require mainline travel lanes to be shifted to the service road and vice versa. This alternative has minor lane shifts and will not require extensive roadway work to be performed beyond the limits of the bridges to allow the lane shifts to occur.

WZTC-1 is the lowest cost alternative and the least disruptive to the areas around the project site; however, the use of four stages increases the construction duration.

WZTC-2

This alternative has three (3) stages. All stages will maintain the Bus/HOV lane, three mainline travel lanes, and two service road travel lanes in both directions at all times. Throughout all stages, the Bus/HOV lane will remain dedicated to Bus/HOV traffic and will experience minor shifts. Stage I consists of closing the mainline for reconstruction and shifting the service road traffic to the outer sidewalk and mainline traffic to the service road and raised median between the service road and the mainline. Stage II consists of closing the raised median between the service road and the mainline and part of the service road, and shifting service road traffic to the outer sidewalk and mainline traffic closer to the Bus/HOV lane. Stage III consists of closing part of the service road and its outer sidewalk and shifting one service road travel lane to the mainline. This alternative has more extensive lanes shift and requires temporary roadway work to be performed beyond the limits of the bridges to allow the lane shifts to occur.


2-5

The additional roadway work required around the project site will increase the cost of WZTC but will reduce the construction duration.

WZTC-3

This alternative has two (2) stages. Both stages will maintain the Bus/HOV lane, three mainline travel lanes, and two service road travel lanes in both directions at all times. Stage I consists of closing both the EB mainline and service road and shifting the traffic to the WB travel lanes. Stage II consists of closing both the WB mainline and service road and shifting the traffic to the newly constructed EB travel lanes. Bus/HOV travel lanes will be shifted near the raised median to allow the original Bus/HOV lanes to accommodate the lane shifts. This alternative has major lanes shifts and requires significant roadway work to be performed beyond the limits of the bridges to allow the lane shifts to occur.

The additional work around the project site will substantially increase the cost of WZTC but will significantly reduce the construction duration.

WZTC Base Alternative

WZTC Alternative WZTC-3 (2-stage construction) is considered to be the base WZTC alternative as it allows the project to be completed in the shortest duration compared to the other WZTC alternatives. All options/alternatives discussed in this report are feasible and may be used. An environmental review was performed for all alternatives discussed in this report. Other alternatives/options not discussed in this report may be used, but may be subject to FHWA and environmental review

A decision to enter final design will not be made until after the evaluation of the comments on the draft design approval document are finalized.

Exhibit 2.5Work Zone Traffic Control Summary

WZTC-1 WZTC-2 WZTC-3

Number of Stages 4 3 2

MAINLINE NONE NONE NONENumber of Overnight Lane Closures in Each Direction (EB & WB) SERVICE ROAD 1 1 1

MAINLINE 4 4 4Number of Travel Lanes in Each Direction (EB & WB) SERVICE ROAD 2 2 2

Temporary Pedestrian/Utility Bridge Required NO NO NO

Detour Required NO NO NO

C.I.P. Deck (Alt 2A) 24 20 18C.I.P/Pre-Cast Deck (Alt 2B) 24 20 18

Pre-Cast Deck (Alt 2C) 20 17 15

Single Span Reconstruction (Alt 2D) 21 18 15Single Span Reconstruction/Deck Replacement (Alt 2E) 21 18 15

Estimated Construction Duration (Months)

Bridge Replacement (Alt 3) 21 18 14


2-6

B. Special Provisions

Night time construction may be utilized on this project due to the lower traffic volumes experienced during that time frame. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents.

C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010)

The Region has determined that the subject project is significant per 23 CFR 630.1010.

A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of:

• A Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan• A Transportation Operations (TO) component• A Public Information component (PI)

2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis

An accident analysis was performed in accordance with NYS Highway Design Manual Chapter 5. The analysis extends from RM 278I X6M1 3065 to RM 278I X6M1 3072 and from RM 278I X6M1 4065 to RM 278I X6M1 4072 and was performed from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016. The accident rate for this segment of I-278 SIE is 0.73 accidents per million vehicle miles. This is below the statewide accident rate for similar facilities, which is 1.08 accidents per million vehicle miles.

There are no high accident locations (HALs) within the study area.

The predominate accident types are:

Exhibit 2.6Collision Summary

I-278 Staten Island Expressway, From RM 278I X6M1 3065 to RM 278I X6M1 3072and From RM 278I X6M1 4065 to RM 278I X6M1 4072

Type of Collision Number PercentageRear End 49 67%

Overtaking 15 21%Other 8 11%

Unknown 1 1%

An accident analysis including an accident summary (TE-213), collision diagrams (TE-56), and recommendations for improvements are in Appendix C. Since the accident rate is below the statewide average and the project area was recently reconstructed to provide access improvements, no countermeasures are currently recommended.

2.3.1.9 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction

BIN 1067821, BIN 1067822, BIN 1075751 and BIN 1075752 are owned and maintained by NYSDOT. The Staten Island Expressway Eastbound and Westbound Roadways are owned by NYSDOT and maintained by NYCDOT. Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South are owned by NYSDOT and maintained by NYCDOT. Mosel Avenue is owned and maintained by NYCDOT.


2-7

2.3.2 Complete Streets

2.3.2.1 Pedestrians

Pedestrians are legally prohibited from using the Staten Island Expressway. BIN 1067821 and BIN 1075751 each have 9’ wide concrete sidewalks on their north outside faces located on Narrows Road North. BIN 1067822 and BIN 1075752 each have 9’ wide concrete sidewalks on their south outside faces located on Narrows Road South. Provisions for pedestrians vary within the project limits on Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South and include concrete sidewalk, dirt/gravel and/or grassed area behind curb, or paved mowing strip behind guiderail. Existing pedestrian travel is infrequent since most pedestrians utilize the sidewalks on the local street system. The Contractor shall provide a temporary pedestrian bridge or temporary bus service, at reasonable intervals, to detour pedestrian traffic during the entire period of mainline construction. This is consistent with HDM Chapter 18 and the Complete Streets Checklist in Appendix G.

2.3.2.2 Bicyclists

Bicyclists are legally prohibited from using the Staten Island Expressway. Bicyclists using Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South need to share the travel lanes with vehicles since there are no shoulders. Existing bicycle traffic is infrequent since there are no generators of bicycle traffic within the project limits and pedestrians utilize the sidewalks on the local street system. This route is currently not a signed bicycle route. However, the 2017 edition of the New York City Bike Map shows Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South as potential future bicycle routes.

2.3.2.3 Transit

The bridges and approaches contain one High Occupancy Vehicle lane in each direction on the mainline Staten Island Expressway. These lanes accommodate vehicles with 3 or more persons including buses during all hours of the day. BIN 1075751 and BIN 1075752 cross over two Staten Island Rapid Transit tracks. There are no other transit needs anticipated for this corridor.

2.3.3 Infrastructure

2.3.3.1 Design Standards

The current editions of the following standards will be utilized:

NYSDOT Bridge Manual (U.S. Customary Edition) NYSDOT Highway Design Manual NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges AISC Manual of Steel Construction: Load and Resistance Factor Design NYSDOT LRFD Design Specification with NYSDOT latest revision for Superstructure

Replacement Option or AASHTO 2002 Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition with NYSDOT latest revision by Blue Pages for Deck Replacement Option

New York State Steel Construction Manual (NYSSCM) AASHTO 2008 The Manual For Bridge Evaluation, 1st Edition


2-8

2.3.3.2 Critical Design Elements

Exhibit 2.7.ACritical Design Elements for Interstate 278 Staten Island Expressway

PIN: X731.47 NHS (Y/N): YesRoute No. &

Name:SH 62-3 I-278 SIE

Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial Interstate

Project Type: Major Bridge Rehabilitation

Design Classification: Urban Interstate

% Trucks: 7% Terrain: LevelADT: 149,268 Truck Access/Qualifying

Hwy.Access-No;

Qualifying-No

Element Standard Existing Condition

Proposed Condition

1 Design Speed60 mph1

HDM Section 2.7.1.1A 50 mph posted 60 mph

Lane Width

12 ft.HDM Chapter 2 roadway widths are desirable

Bridge Manual (BM) Section 2.3.1 and Table 2-1 or HDM 2.7.1.1.B

12 ft. 12 ft.2

Approach Lane Width 12 ft. 12 ft.

3 Shoulder Width

10 ft. right shoulder10 ft. left shoulder

BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1or HDM Section 2.7.1.1.C, Exhibit 2-2

HDM Chapter 2 roadway widths are desirable

right shoulder varies 0’ to 10’ due to variable median width**

4’-0” left shoulder**

right shoulder varies 6’-9”

due to variable median width**


3 Approach Shoulder Width

right shoulder varies 0’ to 10’ due to variable median width**


right shoulder 6’-9” min due

to variable median width**


4 Horizontal Curve Radius

1333 ft Min. (at emax=6%)HDM Section 2.7.1.1.D, Exhibit 2-2

3472’ WB3719’ EB

3472’ WB3719’ EB

5 Superelevation

6% MaximumHDM Section 2.7.1.1.E

3.94% Min. (WB); 3.77% Min. (EB)HDM Exhibit 2-13a

3.13%** 3.13%**

6

Stopping Sight Distance

(Horizontal and Vertical)

570 ft. Minimum HDM Section 2.7.1.1.F, Exhibit 2-2

551’ WB**541’ EB**

551’ WB**541’ EB**

7 Maximum Grade 3% Max.HDM Section 2.7.1.1.G, Exhibit 2-2

1.70% WB1.71% EB

1.70% WB1.71% EB

8 Cross Slope 1.5% Min., 2.5% Max.HDM Section 2.7.1.1.H3 N/A N/A

9 Vertical Clearance

14 ft or existing, whichever is greater over SIE14 ft over Local Street

22 ft over Railroad TracksBM Section 2.4

18’-3” over Mosel Avenue

18’-0” over SIRT**

18’-3” over Mosel Avenue

18’-0” over SIRT**


2-9

Exhibit 2.7.ACritical Design Elements for Interstate 278 Staten Island Expressway

PIN: X731.47 NHS (Y/N): YesRoute No. &

Name:SH 62-3 I-278 SIE

Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial Interstate

Project Type: Major Bridge Rehabilitation

Design Classification: Urban Interstate

% Trucks: 7% Terrain: LevelADT: 149,268 Truck Access/Qualifying

Hwy.Access-No;

Qualifying-No


Proposed Condition

10Design Loading

Structural Capacity

Bridge RehabilitationsNYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway

Bridges AASHTO HS 20 Live LoadSuperstructure Replacements: NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and

NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleSubstructures: NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges AASHTO HS 20 Live Load

HS-20 Live Load

HS-25 Live Load (Deck);

HS-20 Live Load (Other Elements)

11 Pedestrian Accommodations Complies with HDM Chapter 18 N/A N/A

1 The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 60 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.

2 ** Denotes non-standard feature3 Design element does not apply to superelevated roadway sections.


2-10

Exhibit 2.7.BCritical Design Elements for Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South

PIN: X731.47 NHS (Y/N): No

Route No. & Name:

Narrows Road North (NRN)

Narrows Road South (NRS)

Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial

Project Type: Major Bridge Rehabilitation Design Classification: Urban Arterial

% Trucks: 9.8% for NRN3.9% for NRS Terrain: Level

ADT: 28,483 for NRN20,536 for NRS

Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy.

Access-No; Qualifying-No


Proposed Condition

1 Design Speed 45 mph1

HDM Section 2.7.2.3.A

Not posted for NRN,

default NYC speed is 25

mph35 mph

posted for NRS

45 mph

Lane Width 11 ft.HDM Section 2.7.2.3.B Exhibit 2-4

10’** 11’2

Approach Lane Width 10’** 11’

Shoulder Width

5 ft. minimum right shoulder0 ft. left shoulder for divided arterials

BM Section 2.3.1 Table 2-1, or HDM Section 2.7.2.3.C Exhibit 2-4

0’ left and0’ right

shoulders**

6’-0” left shoulder and

0’ right shoulders**

3

Approach Shoulder Width

0’ left and 0’ right

shoulders**

6’-0” left shoulder and

0’ right shoulders**

4 Horizontal Curve Radius

466 ft. Min (at emax=4%)HDM Section 2.7.2.3.D Exhibit 2-4

2243’ NRN 5200’ NRS

2243’ NRN 5200’ NRS

5 Superelevation 4% Max.HDM Section 2.7.2.3.D N/A N/A

6

Stopping Sight Distance

(Horizontal and Vertical)

327 ft. Min.HDM Section 2.7.2.3.F Exhibit 2-4

558’ NRN427’ NRS

558’ NRN427’ NRS

7 Maximum Grade 6%HDM Section 2.7.2.3.G Exhibit 2-4

2.07% NRN1.48% NRS

2.07% NRN1.48% NRS

8 Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 3% Max.HDM Section 2.7.2.3.H

3.3% based on 6”

Parabolic Crown**

3%


2-11

Exhibit 2.7.BCritical Design Elements for Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South

PIN: X731.47 NHS (Y/N): No

Route No. & Name:

Narrows Road North (NRN)

Narrows Road South (NRS)

Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial

Project Type: Major Bridge Rehabilitation Design Classification: Urban Arterial

% Trucks: 9.8% for NRN3.9% for NRS Terrain: Level

ADT: 28,483 for NRN20,536 for NRS

Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy.

Access-No; Qualifying-No


Proposed Condition

9 Vertical Clearance

14 ft or existing, whichever is greater over NRN and NRS

14 ft over Local Street22 ft over Railroad Tracks

BM Section 2.4

18’-3” over Mosel

Avenue18’-0” over

SIRT**

18’-3” over Mosel

Avenue18’-0” over

SIRT**

10Design Loading

Structural Capacity

Bridge RehabilitationsNYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway

Bridges AASHTO HS 20 Live LoadSuperstructure Replacements: NYSDOT LRFD Specifications AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and

NYSDOT Design Permit VehicleSubstructures: NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges AASHTO HS 20 Live Load

HS-20 Live Load

HS-25 Live Load (Deck);HS-20 Live Load (Other Elements)

11 Pedestrian Accommodations Comply with HDM Chapter 18 Yes Yes

1 The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 45 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.

2 ** Denotes non-standard feature

2.3.3.3 Other Design Parameters

There are no other design parameters applicable to this project.

2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section The existing and proposed Staten Island Expressway (I-278) section consists of 3 – 12’ travel lanes in each direction, 1 – 12’ HOV Lane, a variable width buffer separating the HOV Lane from the travel lanes, a 4’ left shoulder between the HOV Lane and the concreter barrier, and a 0’ to 10’ right shoulder between the travel lanes and the median that separates the SIE from the service road (Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South). The existing Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South sections contain 3 – 10’ travel lanes with no shoulders. The proposed Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South sections contain 3 – 11’ travel lanes. They are separated from the SIE by a variable width curbed concrete median.

Refer to Appendix A for existing plans and sections, and for proposed plans and typical sections of the base alternative.


2-12

2.3.3.5 Non-Standard/Non-Conforming Features

The following non-standard features are proposed to be retained.

Shoulder Width – See the Non-Standard Feature Justification form in Appendix F of this report.

Approach Shoulder Width – See the Non-Standard Feature Justification form in Appendix F of this report.

Vertical Clearance - See the Non-Standard Feature Justification form in Appendix F of this report.

Superelevation – See the Non-Standard Feature Justification form in Appendix F of this report.

Stopping Sight Distance (Horizontal and Vertical) - See the Non-Standard Feature Justification form in Appendix F of this report.

The following non-conforming features will be addressed as part of the construction.

Bridge Deck – The existing reinforced concrete bridge decks in the project area have a thickness of 7 inches with a 2½ inch thick asphalt overlay. The above will be replaced with a 8½ inch thick reinforced concrete bridge deck with integral wearing surface in accordance with NYSDOT standards.

Bridge Railing – The existing metal bridge railing is non-conforming and will be replaced with 3’-6” single slope concrete median barrier or vertical faced concrete parapet, adequate for a TL-5 service level, as detailed on NYSDOT Bridge Detail sheets.

Lane Width – Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South will be widen to accommodate 3 – 11’ travel lanes.

Cross-Slope – Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South will be regraded to have a 3% cross-slope (parabolic crown).

2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder Conditions

The pavement condition rating for the Staten Island Expressway is 9 based on the 2015 Pavement Data Report. The SIE roadways were milled and resurfaced in 2014 as part of the access improvement project. The proposed pavement treatment will be to reconstruct the existing pavement between the bridges and also to repair any damage to the existing pavement on the roadway approaches due to the implementation of the WZTC.

The pavement condition rating for Narrows Road North and Narrows Road South is not part of the 2015 Pavement Data Report. These roads were not milled and resurfaced in 2014. These pavements are in fair to poor condition and exhibit alligator cracking and some rutting. The proposed pavement treatment will be to reconstruct the existing pavement between the bridges and also to repair any damage to the existing pavement on the roadway approaches due to the implementation of the WZTC.

2.3.3.7 Drainage Systems

The existing drainage system is a closed system consisting of catch basins along the curb lines and concrete median barrier. Portions of the system were reconstructed under the recently completed access improvement project with either reinforced concrete pipe or ductile iron pipe. BIN 1067821, BIN 1067822, BIN 1075751 and BIN 1075752 do not have any scuppers on them. There will be no changes to any drainage structures or in the type of drainage system or stormwater runoff patterns.

2.3.3.8 Geotechnical There are no special geotechnical concerns with the soils or rock slopes within the project area.


2-13

2.3.3.9 Structures

The project proposes to eliminate the end spans of the bridge and construct new abutments at the existing locations of pier 1 and 2. The existing steel superstructure of span 2 will remain and the deck will be replaced. The following is a description of the existing bridges included in this project. The project involves four existing bridges that are further described in Section 1.2.2

Exhibit 2.8.AStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTUREBIN 1067821 1067821

Feature Carried/Crossed I-278W / Mosel Avenue I-278W / Mosel AvenueType of Bridge Steel multi-girder with reinforced

concrete deckSteel multi-girder with reinforced concrete deck

Number and Length of Spans 3 spans; Span length varies 1 span; Span length approx. 80’-3”

Lane Width(s) 12’-0″ (Mainline); 10’-0″ (Service) 12’-0″ (Mainline); 11’-0″ (Service)Shoulder Width(s)

0’ to 10’ right shoulder

6’-9” right shoulder, 4’-0” left shoulder (Mainline);0’-0” right shoulder, 6’-0” left shoulder (Service)

Sidewalk(s) North Side; 9’-0″ wide North Side; 9’-0″ wideUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12

Vertical Clearance(s) 18′-3″ min. 18’-3″ min.Federal Sufficiency Rating - TBD

State Condition Rating 4.208 5 or better

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 1067821 carries the westbound lanes of the Staten Island Expressway (I-278) and Narrows Road North over Mosel Avenue.

Type of Bridge – BIN 1067821 consists of three (3) simply supported spans with a steel multi-stringer superstructure and a 7 inch reinforced concrete deck slab with a 2½″ asphalt concrete wearing surface. The bridges have original steel sliding bearings with a few replacement elastomeric bearings. The substructures consist of two (2) reinforced concrete abutments and two (2) reinforced concrete multi-column piers with a capbeam. The abutments and piers are supported on concrete piles. The bridge has two wingwalls at each abutment that retains the backfill. The transverse deck joints at BIN 1067821 are armorless joints.

History & Deficiencies – BIN 1067821 was constructed in 1965 under original Contract No. F.I.C.L.E. 62-3 (Contract 4).

For history and deficiencies, see Sections 1.2.1.1 and 1.2.2, respectively.

Inspection - See the latest biennial inspection report in Appendix D.

Restrictions – The Bridge is currently open to traffic with no restrictions.

Waterway – N/A


2-14

Exhibit 2.8.BStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTUREBIN 1067822 1067822Feature Carried/Crossed I-278E / Mosel Avenue I-278E / Mosel Avenue

Type of Bridge Steel multi-girder with reinforced concrete deck

Steel multi-girder with reinforced concrete deck

Number and Length of Spans 3 spans; Span length varies 1 span; Span length Approx. 83’-4”

Lane Width(s) 12′-0″ (Mainline); 10’-0″ (Service) 12’-0″ (Mainline); 11’-0″ (Service)

Shoulder Width(s) 0’ to 10’ right shoulder


Sidewalk(s) South Side; 9’-0″ wide South Side; 9′-0″ wideUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) 20′-3″ min. 20’-3″ min.Federal Sufficiency Rating - TBD

State Condition Rating - 5 or better

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 1067822 carries the eastbound lanes of the Staten Island Expressway (I-278) and Narrows Road South over Mosel Avenue.

Type of Bridge – BIN 1067822 consists of three (3) simply supported spans with a steel multi-stringer superstructure and a 7 inch reinforced concrete deck slab with a 2½″ asphalt concrete wearing surface. The bridges have original steel sliding bearings with a few replacement elastomeric bearings. The substructures consist of two (2) reinforced concrete abutments and two (2) reinforced concrete multi-column piers with a capbeam. The abutments and piers are supported on concrete piles. The bridge has two wingwalls at each abutment that retains the backfill. The transverse deck joints at BIN 1067822 are armorless joints.





Waterway – N/A


2-15

Exhibit 2.8.CStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTUREBIN 1075751 1075751Feature Carried/Crossed I-278W / SIRT South Shore I-278W / SIRT South Shore



Number and Length of Spans 3 spans; Span length varies 1 span; Span length approx. 60’-2”

Lane Width(s) 12’-0″ (Mainline); 10’-0″ (Service) 12’-0″ (Mainline); 11’-0″ (Service)



Sidewalk(s) North Side; 9’-0″ wide North Side; 9’-0″ wideUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) 18’-0″ min. 18’-0″ min.Federal Sufficiency Rating - TBDState Condition Rating 4.125 5 or better

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 1075751 carries the westbound lanes of the Staten Island Expressway (I-278) and Narrows Road North over SIRT South Shore.

Type of Bridge – BIN 1075751 consists of three (3) simply supported spans with a steel multi-stringer superstructure and a 7 inch reinforced concrete deck slab with a 2½″ asphalt concrete wearing surface. The bridges have original steel sliding bearings with a few replacement elastomeric bearings. The substructures consist of two (2) reinforced concrete abutments and two (2) reinforced concrete multi-column piers with a capbeam. The abutments and piers are supported on concrete piles. The bridge has two wingwalls at each abutment that retains the backfill. The transverse deck joints at BIN 1075751 is either paved over, armored or armorless joints.





Waterway – N/A


2-16

Exhibit 2.8.DStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTURE

BIN 1075752 1075752Feature Carried/Crossed I-278E / SIRT South Shore I-278E / SIRT South Shore



Number and Length of Spans 3 spans; Span length varies 1 spans; Span length approx. 60’-4”

Lane Width(s) 12’-0″ (Mainline); 10′-0″ (Service) 12’-0″ (Mainline); 11’-0″ (Service)



Sidewalk(s) South Side; 9’-0″ wide South Side; 9’-0″ wideUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) 19’-6″ min. 19’-6″ min.Federal Sufficiency Rating - TBDState Condition Rating - 5 or better

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 1075752 carries the eastbound lanes of the Staten Island Expressway (I-278) and Narrows Road South over SIRT South Shore.

Type of Bridge – BIN 1075752 consists of three (3) simply supported spans with a steel multi-stringer superstructure and a 7 inch reinforced concrete deck slab with a 2½″ asphalt concrete wearing surface. The bridges have original steel sliding bearings with a few replacement elastomeric bearings. The substructures consist of two (2) reinforced concrete abutments and two (2) reinforced concrete multi-column piers with a capbeam. The abutments and piers are supported on concrete piles. The bridge has two wingwalls at each abutment that retains the backfill. The transverse deck joints at BIN 1075752 is either paved over, armored or armorless joints.





Waterway – N/A

2.3.3.10 Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts

BIN 1067821, BIN 1067822, BIN 1075751 and BIN 1075752 do not cross over any bodies of water. There are no culverts within the project limits.

2.3.3.11 Constructability Review

The Regional Construction Group will review the projects and note any concerns.


2-17

2.3.3.12 Utilities

BIN 1067821, BIN 1067822, BIN 1075751 and BIN 1075752 each have fire alarm conduit(s) cast into the sidewalk and also carry underground electrical conduit for street lighting both above and below the bridge deck. Lighting improvements will be made both above and below the bridge decks as part of this project. ITS facilities exist in the roadway approaches in the vicinity of BIN 1067822 and BIN 1075752. If integral abutments are used, utilities that are relocated through the abutment shall be equipped with expansion sleeves.

There are existing underground electric (Con Edison), gas (National Grid), telephone (Verizon), fire department (FDNY), oil (Buckeye Partners), water (NYCDEP), and storm sewer (NYCDEP) utilities along Mosel Avenue.

The Staten Island Rapid Transit tracks contain both power and signal equipment. These utilities will not be impacted by this project.

Exhibit 2.9Existing Utilities Table

Utility Type Owner Location Anticipated Work*

Electric Con Edison

-Underground along Mosel Ave and SIRT

-Underground 80’ North of Narrow Rd North

parallel to SIE

None**

Telephone ECS/Verizon Not in Project Site None

Gas National Grid Underground Along Mosel Avenue None***

Water NYCDEP N/A**** N/A****Storm Sewer NYCDEP N/A**** N/A****

TV Time Warner Cable N/A**** N/A****

Fire Alarm FDNY SidewalkRelocate to proposed support brackets on

existing stringersFire Hydrants FDNY N/A**** N/A****

ITS NYSDOT SIE EB and Narrows Road South

Removal and Replacement of

Overhead VMS Sign Structure

Lighting NYCDOT – Street Lighting N/A**** N/A****Transit MTA N/A**** N/A****

Police Alarm NYPD N/A**** N/A*****Anticipated work is based on the Base Construction and WZTC Alternatives, Alternative 2D and WZTC-3. If different Alternatives are selected, existing utilities may be impacted.**The contractor shall conduct his operations in such a manner as not to damage any buried utilities. In developing and executing his work plan, the contractor shall insure that the surface pressure within a lateral distance of 10 feet from the centerline of any buried utility does not exceed the limits specified below: Electric ducts: 108 ksf***Requires a 48 hour notice prior to start of construction****Utility company/agency was contacted, but did not respond.


2-18

2.3.3.13 Right of Way

The rehabilitation of the bridges over Mosel Avenue will occur within the existing highway right of way. Currently, the bridges over the Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT) property lack any property rights, and therefore will require property acquisitions. A Right of Entry will be acquired via Force Account Agreement with SIRT to allow for project construction. This will be followed with acquisition by two maps to acquire permanent property rights for NYSDOT.

2.3.3.14 Landscaping/Environmental Enhancement

There are minimal grassed areas on the approaches to the bridges within the paved area of the project. There are trees on the side slopes outside of the pavement edges that most likely will not be impacted by construction. Landscaping of previously vegetated areas that are impacted by the project will be landscaped appropriately to re-vegetate the area. Landscaping will be done to accomplish re-vegetation but will not infringe upon any safety standards such as sight distance, clear zones, and guiderail deflection zone.

2.4 Miscellaneous

2.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). It is a rehabilitation project that improves existing infrastructure that will ensure the long-time viability of a critical transportation corridor.

To the extent practicable this project has met the relevant criteria as described in ECL § 6-0107 The Smart Growth Screening Tool was used to assess the project’s consistency and alignment with relevant Smart Growth criteria; the tool was completed by the Region’s Planning and Program Management group on August 31, 2017 and reflects the current project scope.

2.4.2 Other Miscellaneous InformationThis final design and construction for this project will be accomplished through a Design-Build contract


3-1

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Refer to the Environmental Checklist included in Appendix B for information on all environmental issues for which the project was screened. Appendix B - Figure 3-1 shows the project area boundary for this environmental analysis.

3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)The proposed project is being progressed as a NEPA Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) because it would not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) as documented in the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW) and following discussion in this chapter.

The proposed project meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion described in 40 CFR 1508.4 as follows: The project is within a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementation of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1507.3, and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations in 23 CFR 771.117(c)(28) and meets the constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e). This project is one of the project types described in the ‘C’ list as primarily a repair/reconstruction of an existing bridge in the same location with no additional capacity (no added thru lanes) and does not significantly impact the environment. Refer to Appendix B for the FEAW.

3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)New York State Department of Transportation is the SEQRA lead agency as per 17 NYCRR Part 15 “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act”, Section 15.5. The Department has determined that this project is a SEQRA Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15. No further SEQRA processing is required. The proposed project has been identified as a Type II action, per 17 NYCRR 15.14 Subdivision (e), Item (23) and by 17 NYCRR Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph (iv). This permits the project to be classified as Type II since the project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14, and is of a scale and scope illustrated by the following:

(iv) replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present site or immediately adjacent thereto, of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroad crossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure.

Specifically, the proposed project does not include or result in:

1. The acquisition of an occupied dwelling or business structure;2. Significant changes in passenger or vehicle traffic volumes, vehicle mix, local travel patterns or

access;3. More than minor social, economic or environmental effects upon occupied dwelling units,

businesses, abutting properties or other established human activities;4. Significant inconsistency with current plans or goals that have been adopted by local government

bodies;5. Physical alteration of more than 1 ha (2.5 ac) of publicly owned or operated park land,

recreational area or designated open space;


3-2

6. An effect on a district, building, structure or site eligible for, or listed on, the National Register of Historic Places;

7. More than minor alteration of, or adverse effect upon, any property, protected area, or natural or man-made resource of national, State or local significance, including but not limited to:

(i) Wetlands and associated areas;(ii) Floodplains;(iii) Prime or unique agricultural land;(iv) Agricultural districts, when more than one acre may be affected;(v) Water resources, including lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams;(vi) Water supply sources;(vii) Designated wild, scenic and recreational rivers;(viii) Unique ecological, natural wooded or scenic areas;(ix) Rare, threatened or endangered species;(x) Any area designated as a critical environmental area;

8. Requirement for an indirect air source quality permit.

3.3 Additional Environmental InformationFor the following resources, the proposed project requires no analysis due to the absence of that resource or issue within the project limits:

Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Aquifers, Wells, and Reservoirs General Ecology and Wildlife Resources Critical Environmental Areas Visual Resources Farmlands

Other resources are present in the project limits, but would sustain no significant impact as a result of the proposed project, as follows:

3.3.1 Land UseThe Staten Island Expressway (SIE) provides interstate highway access to the northern part of Staten Island, and carries Interstate 278 (I-278) from New Jersey through Staten Island to Brooklyn. The project area supports a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, parkland, and transportation uses (see Appendix B -Figure 3-2).

The proposed project would not entail the construction of new roadway, an increase in the capacity of the existing roadway, or new or modified points of access to the highway. Rather, the proposed project would comprise only the restoration and rehabilitation of four existing SIE bridges within the existing right-of-way. Thus, the proposed project would not change land use within the project area, and it would result in no adverse effects to land use.

3.3.2 Neighborhoods and Community CohesionThe residential sections of the project area are characterized by neighborhoods and communities largely delineated by the orientation of major thoroughfares and the Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT) rail line. The proposed project would not divide these neighborhoods or isolate any part of them. The proposed project involves no displacement or relocation of the residences or businesses. No ramp closures or detours would be required permanently or during the proposed project’s construction phase, and therefore, access to the neighborhoods would be maintained during construction and operation of the project. Thus, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects to neighborhoods and community cohesion.


3-3

3.3.3 Social Groups Benefitted or HarmedSocial groups in the project area do not include a high concentration of low-income and minority populations. These populations do exist in the project area, but at a rate or concentration that is similar rate to borough of Staten Island and in New York City as a whole (see Appendix B - Figure 3-3). In addition, as the proposed project would not result in any adverse effects, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low income populations would result from it.

Also, because the proposed project would not result in adverse effects, no adverse impacts would affect elderly and/or disabled persons or groups, or, particularly because transit availability would not be changed, transit-dependent individuals.

3.3.4 School Districts, Recreation Areas and Places of WorshipThere are no schools or places of worship (see Figure 3-2) within the project area. However, Brady’s Pond Park is located in the southeastern portion of the project area. All construction activities would occur within the SIE right-of-way (ROW). One recreation area is located within the project area, Brady’s Pond Park. The proposed project would not require the disturbance of parklands or recreational resources, either directly or constructively. The park is adjacent to the SIE and active rail corridor; both uses have high existing ambient noise levels. No direct disturbance or construction staging would occur in Brady’s Pond Park. Construction would be temporary (15 months) for all four bridges, and construction near the park would last only about 4 months so effects on the park would be of short duration. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on school districts, recreational areas, or places of worship.

3.3.5 Regional and Local EconomiesThe rehabilitation of the four SIE Bridges would occur within existing NYSDOT right-of-way, and there would be no acquisition of property. The proposed reduction in speed during construction would not substantially impact travel times for commuters, trucks, and other traffic through the area. The proposed project would not include detours or the temporary closure of ingress and egress ramps associated with the SIE during construction. Although some lane closures would be required, NYSDOT would manage access to businesses through a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plan. Thus, the proposed project would not adversely affect the regional or local economy.

3.3.6 Business DistrictsThe project area is characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses. Businesses and industrial facilities are primarily concentrated in the southern portion of the project area along Clove Road and Darian Street (see Appendix B - Figure 3-2). The proposed project would not include detours or the temporary closure of ingress and egress ramps associated with the SIE during construction, and access to businesses would not be impacted. Parking would be maintained along local roadways that serve businesses, and transit stops would remain accessible. Thus, no adverse effects to business facilities or access to these businesses are expected.

3.3.7 Specific Business ImpactsBecause business properties would not be acquired and access to businesses would be maintained, no adverse effects to any specific business interests are expected.

3.3.8 WetlandsAs shown in Appendix B - Figure 3-4, no federal jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project area boundary. In addition, there are no NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands within the project area boundary. However, BIN 1075752 is located approximately 65 feet from a mapped NYSDEC wetland, and portions of the project area boundary are located within the 100-foot boundary of NYSDEC’s freshwater wetland adjacent area. The roadway is elevated and the adjacent area will continue to function as a wetland buffer. An Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit would be required from NYSDEC for construction within the boundary of the adjacent area. However, NYSDOT has a General Permit with NYSDEC for construction activities within freshwater wetlands adjacent areas regulated under Article 24. The project would comply with Item 4 of NYSDEC General Permit No. 0-11-002: Rehabilitation or in-


3-4

kind/in-place Replacement of Existing Transportation Facilities. With the erosion control and stormwater management practices described below under Section 3.3.13, “Stormwater Management,” no adverse effects to wetlands or wetland adjacent areas would occur.

3.3.9 Surface Waterbodies and WatercoursesGrasmere Lake is located approximately 25 feet from BIN 1075752. However, Grasmere Lake is outside of the project area boundary, and there would be no direct impacts to it. To prevent indirect impacts to Grasmere Lake, the proposed project would include erosion and sedimentation control measures as set forth in NYSDOT’s statewide construction erosion and sedimentation control specifications, standard construction details, and design and construction guidance procedures to prevent discharges to Grasmere Lake. Therefore, no adverse effects to surface waterbodies or watercourses would occur.

3.3.10 Navigable WatersThe proposed project would not involve work over a navigable waterway.

3.3.11 FloodplainsThe proposed project is not located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.

3.3.12 Coastal ResourcesThe proposed project is not located in or near a State Coastal Zone Management area.

The proposed project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.

3.3.13 Stormwater ManagementProjects that disturb soils or increase impervious surface have the potential to affect the quality and quantity of stormwater run-off that may discharge into surface or subsurface waters. The proposed project would not increase impervious surface, but instead would consist of the rehabilitation and re-decking of an existing elevated roadway bridge. As a result, stormwater in the form of runoff from impervious surfaces would not exceed quantities under existing conditions, and would be controlled through the implementation of standard collection and treatment practices.

During construction, the proposed project would include soil disturbance totaling one or more acres and would be subject to the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) general permit for construction activities (GP-0-15-002).

As discussed above, the proposed project would include erosion and sedimentation control measures as set forth in NYSDOT’s statewide construction erosion and sedimentation control specifications, standard construction details, and design and construction guidance procedures.

Because of the minimal nature of soil disturbance and because no increase in impervious surface area is proposed, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects in terms of stormwater management.

3.3.14 Threatened and Endangered SpeciesAccording to the NYSDEC GIS information database, there are no state-protected, threatened, or endangered species located in or near the proposed project area boundary. The New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) was contacted on March 22, 2017 to confirm that no state listed endangered or threatened species or special habitats would be affected by the proposed project. Per NYNHP’s response on April 21, 2017, NYNHP “has no records of rare or state-listed animals, plants, or significant natural communities at the project site or immediate vicinity”.

In addition to the NYNHP data requests, a search for federally listed species in the USFWS’s IPaC System database was conducted on October 30, 2017. Two federally listed species were identified as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project area: roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) (federally listed endangered) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus) (federally listed endangered).


3-5

Roseate tern and piping plover are beach-nesting waterbirds. The project area is entirely comprised of developed, urban areas which would not provide suitable roseate tern or piping plover habitat. Neither of these species is expected to be present within the project area. NYSDOT has initiated an informal Section 7 Consultation for these species and anticipates a “No Adverse Effect” Determination. Therefore, the proposed project would have no effect on these species.

3.3.15 Historic and Cultural Resources

3.3.15.1 National Heritage Areas ProgramThere are no National Heritage Areas near the project limits.

3.3.15.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09An area 400 feet from the proposed project limits was studied to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources. The area of potential effects (APE) for this project is entirely within this study area and includes the proposed work area and the area from which the proposed change from steel bridge railing to concrete barrier would be noticeable. Replacement of overhead sign panels with same size panels on existing structures and removal and replacement of noise barrier with noise barrier matching the existing noise barrier will not change the visual or spatial environment, so these activities do not contribute to the project’s area of potential indirect effects. The study area, project limits (area of potential direct affects), and area of potential indirect effects are illustrated in Appendix B, Figure 3-5.

3.3.15.3 Architectural ResourcesThe study area includes one property that has been determined National Register-eligible by SHPO, but this cultural resource is outside of the project’s area of potential effects:

Engine Company 160 is a three-story firehouse located on the south side of Clove Road between Oder Avenue and Targee Street. (Location is shown in Appendix B, Figure 3-5), designed by MacDonald and Reddy and completed in 1914. (Photo is in Appendix H, Figure 6). Construction for the proposed project would occur within the existing SIE right-of-way. Towards the west end of the Direct Effects APE, project work would include the removal and subsequent reconstruction of a noise barrier between the main travel lanes of the SIE and Narrows Road South at Britton Avenue. In addition, highway signage along the SIE right-of-way west of Hanover Road would be removed and replaced. The proposed noise barrier and signage replacement work would occur over 200 feet north and east of Engine Company 160, would be minimally if not visible at all from this historic architectural resource, and would not affect the setting of this historic architectural resource, which currently includes an intervening block with fenced parking and the SIE to the north. The work at the bridges, much farther to the east, would not have the potential to affect Engine Company 160 due to distance and lack of a visual relationship. Therefore, compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would have no adverse direct or indirect effects on architectural resources.

The Staten Island Expressway (SIE) is part of I-278, which is part of the Interstate system, which is exempt from consideration as a cultural resource for the purposes of Section 106 due to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s March 10, 2005 adoption of the Section 106 Exemption Regarding Effects to the Interstate Highway System. This document made the Interstate Highway System exempt from consideration as an historic property under Section 106 except for those elements that have been determined exceptional or that meet a National level of significance. No such elements are located within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). The SIE bridges over Mosel Avenue and Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT) that would be rehabilitated by this project have not been identified as eligible for listing in, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places in the New York State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO’s) New York State Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS), so these bridges and their component elements do not have significance necessary for consideration as resources subject to the Section 106 process.


3-6

The APE does not include any National Register-listed properties or any other undesignated properties that would meet National Register eligibility criteria. A Cultural Resources Screening Memorandum has been prepared and is included as Appendix H.

In accordance with 36 CFR §800.4(d)(1), NYSDOT has found that the proposed project’s area of potential effects does not include any places listed in, eligible for listing in, or potentially eligible for listing in the National or State Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, the project will not affect historic places.

3.3.15.4 Archaeological ResourcesThe location of the two bridges that carry Interstate 278 (I-278) over Mosel Avenue and the two bridges that carry it over the existing Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT) tracks are situated in an area of generalized archaeological sensitivity as mapped in the CRIS. The project locations are located in the vicinity of a number of pre-contact archaeological sites that were identified to the east of Grasmere Lake and along the eastern shoreline of Staten Island. One site, New York State Museum (NYSM) site 8478 overlaps with the eastern portion of the APE.

An assessment of past landscape modification in the project area boundary is included in Appendix H. This assessment included a review of historical maps, as-built drawings, and soil boring logs. As part of this assessment, efforts were made to determine the extent to which the landscape has been modified as a result of construction of the existing bridges and associated roadways.

The landscape reconstruction determined that extensive quantities of fill were placed within the APE during the early 1960s in associated with the construction of the existing expressway. Prior to this filling, the landscape of the APE was characterized by inundated wetlands, artificial ponds formed as a result of damming and the construction of the SIRT, and hills of various heights. The deposition of fill created an elevated surface for the construction of the expressway, which was raised by more than 35 to 40 feet in some portions of the APE. The review of historic maps indicated that minimal development occurred within the APE prior to the 20th century. The Concord neighborhood was established at the western end of the APE in the mid-19th century, and several historic houses were located within the APE by that late-1850s.The area to the west of Mosel Avenue was characterized by increasingly dense residential development throughout the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Little fill (between 0 and 5 feet) appears to have been added in this area and as such, the construction of the existing SIE would have resulted in extensive disturbance across much of the APE. Project-related impacts in the western portion of the APE where 19th century map-documented structures were identified are expected to be relatively shallow (less than 1 foot in depth) or limited to the removal and later in-kind replacement (in the same location) of noise barrier footings (approximately 13 foot below grade) and sign structures (approximately 19 feet below grade). Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to impact undisturbed soil levels in the location of mid-19th century historic occupation. Furthermore, little development occurred to the east of the SIRT tracks, and industrial and commercial buildings were located within the footprints of the existing bridges. Therefore, those areas are not considered to be sensitive for historic period archaeological resources.

With respect to precontact archaeological resources, it is likely that some form of Native American occupation occurred in the vicinity of the bridge locations, potentially including long- or short-term occupation sites, camp sites, or resource procurement or processing sites. Absent disturbance and landscape modification, the APE would be expected to have high sensitivity for precontact archaeological sites. The locations of sensitivity would be expected to be situated beneath the depths of the fill layers that are currently located on the site. The rise of sea levels over several thousand years has been documented within and around Staten Island by recent archaeological investigations that have shown that precontact archaeological resources can survive in undisturbed areas after inundation. As such, the swamps formerly located within the project site may have been dry, inhabitable land and those former ground surfaces are now buried beneath more than 30 feet of fill. Much of the former ground surface of the upland areas are similarly buried beneath extensive fill deposits. The upland ground surfaces would have experienced some disturbance as a result of the construction of roads and the SIRT, the construction and demolition of buildings, and the use of the area between Mosel Avenue and the railroad tracks as lumber and coal yards. Precontact archaeological sites are typically shallowly buried (within 5 feet of the original ground surface), and the historic period developments described above would have resulted in some disturbance to potential precontact ground surfaces. Furthermore, the construction of


3-7

the existing bridges would have resulted in additional disturbance. Any grading that occurred in conjunction with the deposition of fill in the area would have resulted in additional disturbance. Given the extent of development-related disturbance and the great depth and low archaeological visibility of possibly submerged resources in the vicinity of former swamp deposits, it was determined that the location of the bridges has low potential for intact precontact archaeological resources. Therefore, compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would have no adverse direct or indirect effects on archaeological resources.

3.3.15.5 Historic BridgesThere are no historic bridges located within the study area.

3.3.15.6 Historic ParkwaysThis project is not located near any Historic Parkways.

3.3.16 Parks and Recreational ResourcesParks and recreational resources in the project area are shown in Appendix B - Figure 3-2. Brady’s Pond Park is approximately 15 feet from BIN 1075752. The proposed project would not require the disturbance of parklands or recreational resources, either directly or constructively. The park is adjacent to the SIE and active rail corridor; both uses have high existing ambient noise levels. No direct disturbance or construction staging would occur in Brady’s Pond Park. Construction would be temporary (15 months) for all four bridges, and construction near the park would last only about 4 months so effects on the park would be of short duration. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on parklands or recreational resources.

3.3.17 Air Quality

3.3.17.1 Regulatory Framework Air quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments, aimed to achieve and maintain criteria pollutant levels lower than the concentrations defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and revised periodically by the USEPA. If the NAAQS are exceeded in any given state, the CAA mandates that the state formulate and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain the NAAQS. The air quality evaluation for the proposed project is based on the general State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) guidance from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), NYSDOT’s The Environmental Manual (TEM), and USEPA modeling guidance.

3.3.17.2 Transportation ConformityThe preliminary design for the project is currently listed in the approved New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) 2014-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the proposed project is anticipated to be added to the TIP.

The proposed project is categorized as an exempt project under 40 CFR, Part 93.126; therefore, the proposed project is exempt from conformity analyses.

3.3.17.3 Carbon Monoxide An air quality analysis for CO is not required since this project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances by 10% or more, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The project does not require a project-level conformity determination. Also, no individual construction-related diversion or detour by area is planned that would last for more than one year (two consecutive CO seasons).


3-8

3.3.17.4 Mesoscale Analysis The proposed project would not substantially affect air quality conditions over a large area and is not a regionally significant project, as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 240 and 40 CFR 93.101. It also does not meet any of the criteria of the NYSDOT TEM Air Quality Chapter that would warrant a mesoscale analysis. Therefore, a mesoscale analysis is not required.

3.3.17.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)The amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) if other variables, such as fleet mix, remains constant. The proposed project is not expected to result in changes in peak hour VMT or fleet mix, and there would be no increase in capacity for the roadways affected by the proposed project. Since the estimated peak hour VMT is not expected to substantially increase, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions from the proposed project. In addition, emissions would likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of USEPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the USEPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the project area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. Based on the FHWA December 2012 updated interim guidance on MSATs, the proposed project will have no meaningful potential impacts; it does not require further MSATs analysis because it is exempt from transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR 93.126.

3.3.17.6 Particulate Matter This project is determined to be a SEQR Type II Action and is classified as a NEPA Class II Categorical Exclusion. As such, the project actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on PM emissions. It can therefore be concluded that the project will have no significant adverse impact on ambient PM levels.

3.3.18 EnergyThe proposed project would require the use of energy (gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity) during the construction phase for the purpose of operating construction equipment, with no energy use above baseline conditions in the operational phase. However, the proposed project does not warrant an energy analysis, as it would not substantially impact energy utilization.

3.3.19 NoiseThe proposed project also would not substantially alter the horizontal or vertical roadway alignment such that vehicular traffic and its associated noise would be closer to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) and thereby raise the noise levels experienced at those sensitive receptors. Because there would be no change in horizontal or vertical alignment, no noise analysis is needed under the NYSDOT Noise Analysis Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.18 of The Environmental Manual). Because the proposed project would not create a change in alignment or capacity, it would not result in any adverse effects in terms of noise.

For an approximately 8-month portion of the construction period, the noise barrier along the south of the SIE would be removed from Britton Avenue to just east of Hanover Avenue. This noise barrier separates the SIE from the residences south of Narrows Road South between Britton Avenue and Neckar Avenue. This section of the noise barrier was constructed in 2013.

During the 8-month portion of the construction period that the noise barrier would be temporarily removed, the approximately six (6) two -story residential buildings in the first building row from the SIE would experience noise levels comparable to those prior to the construction of the noise barrier. Residences beyond the first building row would remain mostly shielded from the SIE by the buildings in


3-9

the first building row, and would consequently not experience a substantial increase in noise as a result of the temporary removal of the noise barrier.

While the approximately six (6) two-story residential buildings in the first building row from the SIE would experience increased noise during the temporary removal of the noise barrier, the noise level increase would be relatively brief, and the total resultant noise levels would be comparable to those experienced at these locations in the recent past (i.e., prior to construction of the barrier in 2013). Because the benefit of the noise barrier is a relatively recent development, and because of the temporary nature of the noise level increase, the effects of the temporary removal of the noise barrier would not constitute a significant adverse impact at these residential buildings.

Construction activities would also result in increased noise levels at sensitive receptors, such as Brady’s Pond Park. Construction near the park would last only about 4 months so effects on the park would be of short duration. Construction noise would be mitigated to the extent practicable through the implementation of standard measures, including limitations on construction days and hours. All measures undertaken to mitigate potential noise impacts would be set forth in a Noise Mitigation Plan, which is required under the New York City Noise Code (Local Law of 2005).

3.3.20 AsbestosBased on the findings of the Asbestos Investigation Report (see Appendix B) dated December 2017, prepared by EnTech Engineering, PC, the proposed project has the potential to disturb asbestos containing materials (ACM). In March 2017, sampling of suspected ACMs was conducted on the above-deck and below-deck portions of the Staten Island Expressway (SIE) over Mosel Avenue bridges (BIN 1067821 and BIN 1067822) and the above-deck portion of the SIE over Staten Island Rapid Transit (SIRT) South Shore bridges (BIN 1075751 and BIN 1075752). The findings of this survey are detailed in the Asbestos Investigation Report dated July 2017. Due to safety precautions, wire insulations, which are suspected to contain asbestos, were not sampled. As a result of access limitations, sampling could not be conducted below BIN 1075751 and BIN 1075752 along the SIRT South Shore right-of-way. It is assumed that compressed sheet packing located in the joint between the top of the end abutment backwall and the bottom of the road deck of the SIE over the SIRT South Shore is an ACM.

A total of one hundred and five (105) samples were collected and analyzed for asbestos. All samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with all applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40 CFR 763, New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Industrial Code Rule 56 (NYCRR Part 56) and (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) rules and regulations. The samples were to a NYSDOH ELAP certified laboratory for analysis, follow proper chain-of-custody procedures. Based on the laboratory results, three (3) of the sampled materials were found to have a concentration above the regulatory threshold of 1% asbestos. These confirmed ACMs include: compressed sheet packing located in the joint between the top of the end abutment backwall and the bottom of the road deck of the SIE over Mosel Avenue; gray caulk under railing posts along the sidewalk of the SIE over Mosel Avenue; and gray caulk under railing posts on the sidewalk of the SIE over SIRT South Shore.

The disturbance, removal, storage, and disposal of all confirmed and assumed ACMs shall be performed in accordance with Section 210 of New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) specification, along with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, and regulations.

3.3.21 Contaminated and Hazardous MaterialsThe Hazardous Waste/ Contaminated Materials Screening Report dated December 2017 (see Appendix B), prepared by EnTech Engineering, PC, identified Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and Historic Recognized Environmental Concerns (HRECs) within 1.0 mile of the project site. The properties that were identified as candidates for further investigation were categorized as “High”, “Moderate”, and “Low” risk, with respect to their potential impact on the project site. Following site reconnaissance and the review of a site-specific Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report, zero (0) High risk sites, three (3) Moderate risk sites and twenty (20) Low risk sites have been identified within a one-mile radius of the project site. According to the maps provided by the EDR Report, the project site is in close proximity of a


3-10

New York State Regulated Freshwater Wetland. The entire project site is located within the New York State Regulated Checkzone for Grasmere Lake, which is located south-southeast of the project site. After review of the EDR Report and site reconnaissance, it was determined that there are no wetlands present within the Project Area.

Based on the lack of high-risk sites in the vicinity of the project site and the residential nature of the surrounding properties, the chances for presence of contaminated soil in the Project Area are minimal. If any boring advancement and sampling does proceed at the project site, extreme care should be taken to avoid the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline, a high-pressure natural gas pipeline, which crosses below BIN 1067821 and BIN 1067822 along Mosel Avenue.

3.3.22 Construction EffectsThe impacts during project construction are described above.

Documents

BIN 1075752: Staten Island Expwy (I-278E) over SIRT PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/ FINAL ... · 2018. 1. 26. · PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/ FINAL DESIGN REPORT December 2017 Rehabilitation