REHABILIATION OF BRIDGE NO. 05491 BAILIWICK … · rehabiliation of bridge no. 05491 bailiwick road over the byram river greenwich, connecticut state project no. 56-299 town project

REHABILIATION OF BRIDGE NO. 05491

BAILIWICK ROAD OVER THE BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT

STATE PROJECT NO. 56-299

TOWN PROJECT NO. 06-44

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT

(ROADWAY DESIGN REPORT)

OCTOBER 2011

Prepared By:

Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.

59 Elm Street, Suite 101

New Haven

Preliminary Engineering Report

Rehabilitation of Bridge 05491

Bailiwick Road over Byram River

Greenwich, Connecticut

TOC-1

Table of Contents

Description Page

Foreword 1

1. Project Description 1

2. Geometric Details 2

3. Traffic Control 4

4. Substructure and Superstructure Evaluations 5

5. Hydrology, Hydraulic and Scour Evaluations 6

6. Preliminary Foundation Report 8

7. Alternate Transportation Modes 9

8. Rights of Way 9

9. Noise/ Air Impacts and Design Features 9

10. Drainage and Permitting 9

11. Utilities 10

12. Landscaping 10

13. Construction Cost Estimate 10

14. Summary and Conclusions 10





TOC-2

Table of Contents

Appendix A – Photos

Appendix B – Design Elements Tables

Appendix C – Plans and Profiles

Appendix D – Cost Estimates

Appendix E – References

Appendix F – Bridge Sketches





1

Report

FOREWORD

For this preliminary engineering phase of the rehabilitation of the Bailiwick Road Bridge over

Byram River (BIN 05491), various technical investigations have been conducted concurrently:

• A Preliminary Hydraulic Findings and Qualitative Scour Assessment Memorandum,

submitted in August 2011, summarized the results of the Hydraulics Analysis and

provided a qualitative Scour Assessment.

• A Structure Type Study Report, submitted in October 2011, summarized the findings of

bridge rehabilitation and replacement alternatives.

• A Preliminary Foundation Report, submitted in October 2011, summarized the findings

of substructure investigations and assessed the condition and capacity of the existing

foundation soils to support the proposed and rehabilitated bridge.

This Preliminary Engineering Report primarily focuses on elements which pertain to the

approach roadway design, but also includes a brief summary of various important factors and

findings contained in the aforementioned reports.

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Bridge No. 05491 carries Bailiwick Road, an urban local road, over the Byram River in the

Town of Greenwich (Town), Connecticut. The bridge is located approximately fifty-five feet

west of the intersection of Bailiwick Road and Riversville Road (refer to Sheet 12, Appendix C)

and provides the only official public access to a community of approximately 200 residents. The

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on the bridge is estimated at 590 vehicles (Year 2008)

based on information made available from the Town.

The 32 foot long (chord length) single span bridge carries one lane of vehicular traffic in the

eastbound and westbound directions over a roadway with a 27 foot curb-curb width. In addition,

the bridge carries an approximately 5’-0” wide grass walkway along the south fascia. The bridge

is located within the limits of a slightly curved horizontal roadway alignment and a crest vertical

curvature. According to Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) records, the

bridge was originally constructed in 1970.

During a major storm event on April 15, 2007, the Bailiwick Road Bridge sustained significant

damage as a result of the Byram River overtopping the bridge. The damage included the

detachment of the north (i.e. upstream) parapet and rail system from the bridge structure and

failure of the bituminous concrete pavement resulting in the closure of the bridge. The Town was

able to detour traffic via a private roadway belonging to Bailiwick Club. Subsequently, the Town





2

was able to reopen the bridge by installing temporary precast concrete barriers along the fascias

to act as parapets and reconstructing the roadway pavement over the arch bridge. The Town has

since repaired (in kind) the storm damaged parapet with funding available from the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It should be noted that neither the original parapets

nor the repaired parapets have steel reinforcing within. Without steel reinforcing, the parapets

are likely to continue to fall apart over time and with further bridge overtopping events.

Refer to Photos 1 to 5 in Appendix A for photos of existing bridge structure and approaches. A

general-plan, elevation and cross section of the existing bridge is depicted as Sketch 1 in

Appendix F.

2. GEOMETRIC DETAILS

The proposed project will begin at Sta. 102+60, approximately 275’ west of the bridge. The

project will end at Sta. 106+81, approximately 100’ east of the bridge. The portion of Bailiwick

Road within the described project limits is located on a curvilinear alignment.

Bailiwick Road is classified as an “Urban Local Street”. The 2003 Connecticut Department of

Transportation (ConnDOT) Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommends a travel lane width of

10’to11’ and a shoulder width of 2’ to 4’for Urban Local Streets in Suburban areas (Refer to

Appendix E). The existing roadways within the project limits do not meet these criteria.

The width of the roadway on the bridge will be widened to accommodate two 11 ft lanes and 3 ft

shoulders on each side. The roadway approach on the west side will be tapered to match the

widened roadway on the bridge. Any proposed widening will be tapered and the taper geometry

will be designed to meet existing roadway width beyond the immediate vicinity of the bridge.

(Refer to Sheet No. 1, Appendix C).

Three bridge alternatives were examined in the Structure Type Study Report. The three

alternatives had identical horizontal alignments, but differing vertical alignments.

1. Alternative 1- Bridge replacement. The roadway profile was raised by 14” above the

existing ground at the east abutment. Refer to sheet nos. 2 to 5 (Appendix C).

2. Alternative 2- Bridge rehabilitation with addition of relief culverts. The roadway

profile was raised 14” above the existing ground at the crown of the bridge. Refer to

sheet nos. 6 to 9 (Appendix C).

3. Alternative 3- Bridge rehabilitation with the lowering of the west approach roadway by

6” below existing ground. Refer to sheet nos. 10 and 11 (Appendix C).

Alternative 3 was not investigated further for the following two reasons:

1. The preliminary hydraulic analysis indicated no significant hydraulic benefits by

lowering of the profile on the west approach roadway.





3

2. Lowering of the road results in a substandard sag curve on the west approach with the

“K” value reducing from 34 (existing condition) to 30, both of which are less than the

minimum design standard requirement of 34.

Since Alternative 3 was not investigated further, only the roadway profiles, which are attached in

Appendix C, were developed for this alternative.

The portion of Bailiwick Road from Sta. 102+60 to Sta. 106+81 will be reconstructed due to the

poor condition of the existing pavement. Since the vertical alignment of Bailiwick Road will be

revised, the portion of Riversville Road from Sta. 200+45 to Sta. 201+70 will be reconstructed to

obtain desirable grading of the intersection. Alternative 1, as shown in Sheet Nos. 2 and 4

(Appendix C), consists of two 11 ft lanes with no shoulders. The roadway is widened from Sta.

104+00 to Sta. 104+90 to accommodate a 3 foot shoulder on each side of the travel lane and the

shoulders continue all the way to the intersection with Riversville Road.

Alternative 2, as shown in Sheet Nos. 6 and 8 (Appendix C), consists of two 11 ft lanes and no

shoulders. The eastbound lane is widened from Sta. 104+00 to Sta. 104+90 to accommodate a 3

foot shoulder, which continues all the way to the intersection with Riversville Road. The

westbound lane is widened from Sta. 104+00 to Sta. 104+90 to accommodate a 3 foot 7 inch

wide shoulder at Sta. 104+90 and thereafter a variable width shoulder is provided all the way to

the intersection with Riversville Road. A Three (3) inch thick concrete block pavers are proposed

to fill the area on the bridge between the roadway and the south parapet as depicted in Sheet No.

3 (Appendix F). The areas outside the limits of the block pavers will be graded and seeded. A

sidewalk was not considered due to the absence of a sidewalk system within or in the vicinity of

the project limits.

The pavement in Alternative 1 will be full depth Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) from Sta. 102+60 to

Sta. 104+00, 2 inch bituminous overlay on 8 inch concrete pavement from Sta. 104+00 to Sta.

105+30.50 and full depth HMA from Sta. 105+89.60 to Sta. 106+81. A 2 inch HMA was added

to 8 inch concrete pavement in Alternative 1 so that the pavement will look uniform on both the

bridge and the roadway approaches within the project limits. Refer to Sheet Nos. 3 and 5,

Appendix C. The pavement in Alternative 2 will be full depth HMA from Sta. 102+60 to Sta.

104+00, 8 inch concrete pavement from Sta. 104+00 to Sta. 106+09 and full depth HMA from

Sta. 106+09 to Sta. 106+81. Refer to Sheet Nos. 7 and 9, Appendix C. The purpose of a concrete

pavement is to fortify the pavement structure and prevent its failure in the event of future

overtopping events. While there is no feasible way to rebuild the bridge structure to avoid all

potential flooding events, the concrete pavement structure will ensure that the roadway will be

intact once the flood waters recede.

An 8 inch concrete pavement will be provided between Sta. 102+60 and Sta. 106+09, if

Alternate 3 is pursued, so that the sag portion of the lowered west approach roadway would be

able to carry the flood water without any failure of the pavement structure. A full depth HMA

pavement will be provided between Sta. 106+09 and Sta. 106+81. Refer to Sheet Nos. 10 and 11,

Appendix C for details.





4

The pavement on Riversville Road will be full depth HMA in all the three alternatives.

The design parameters recommended for this project are listed below. A comparison of existing

and proposed roadway design elements with the current Design Standards specified in the

ConnDOT HDM is tabulated in the Design Elements Table in Appendix B:

a. Design Traffic Volume: 590 AADT, November 2008 (Source: Town of Greenwich)

b. Design Classification: Urban Local

c. Design Speed: 30 mph

d. Posted Speed: 25 mph

e. Minimum and Maximum Grade: 0.5 and 11.0%

f. Maximum Superelevation: 4%

g. Minimum Stopping Sight Distance: 200 ft.

h. Lane Width: 10 - 11 ft.

i. Shoulder Width: 2 - 4 ft.

j. Pavement Type and Composition: Asphalt (Class 1 and Class 4)

l. Climbing Lanes: Not Applicable

As summarized in the Design Element Table, the following roadway elements are considered to

be substandard features in both Alternatives 1 and 2:

1. Shoulder Width on Approach Road

Currently there is no shoulder on both the approach roadways. A design exception will be

sought for lack of shoulder on approach road as this is a bridge rehabilitation project and

major approach roadway rework is not within the scope of this work. Existing substandard

conditions will be improved to the extent reasonable and feasible in design development.

2. Sidewalk Width

Currently there is no sidewalk on Bailiwick Road. A design exception will be sought for the

lack of a proper sidewalk on the road as major roadway section modifications are not

warranted for this bridge remediation project. Existing substandard conditions will be

improved to the extent reasonable and feasible without involving right of way impacts.

3. TRAFFIC CONTROL

The layout of the proposed intersections located within the project limits, traffic management

plans and illumination treatments at bridge are described below.

a. Intersection Configuration – There is one (1) intersection present within the project limits:

• Intersection of Bailiwick Road and Riversville Road – This is a three-legged intersection.

Each of the intersecting streets is a two lane roadway. Only eastbound movement from

Bailiwick Road is controlled by a STOP sign. No changes are anticipated to the existing

intersection configuration. Refer to Photo 5, Appendix A.





5

b. Existing and projected turning volumes- Data not available

c. Intersection Capacity Analysis – Not Applicable

d. Traffic Management Plan – The Bailiwick Road Bridge will be closed during construction.

The vehicular traffic will be detoured via a private roadway/driveway belonging to Bailiwick

Club. An agreement may need to be developed between the Town and Bailiwick Club to

utilize the private road/driveway as a detour route during construction. The vehicular traffic

will be routed via Duncan Drive, Angelus Drive, Glenville Street and Riversville Road as

depicted in the Detour Plan (Sheet No. 12, Appendix C). All bicycle and pedestrian traffic

will follow the same detour path and hence no separate detour for bicycle and pedestrian

traffic will be designed.

e. Illumination – Existing lighting will be replaced in kind unless otherwise directed by the

town and public outreach process. No formal illumination analysis will be conducted.

f. Traffic Signs – Existing signs impacted by the construction will be reset to their original

locations after the construction activities are completed.

4. SUBSTRUCTURE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE EVALUATION

A Structure Type Study Report was submitted in October 2011 under separate cover. The

following narrative is a summary of aforementioned report. Please refer to the complete

Structure Type Study Report for further information.

The goals of the project are to improve the hydraulic capacity of the bridge and to ensure that the

Bailiwick Road Bridge and the approach roadways can be reopened quickly to vehicular traffic

subsequent to major storm events so that the community comprising of approximately 200

residents do not feel stranded as this bridge provides their only official access for ingress and

egress. Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis performed by Dewberry, the following

alternatives were proposed for investigation in the Structure Type Study:

1. Alternative 1 – Bridge replacement

2. Alternative 2 – Bridge rehabilitation with addition of relief culverts

3. Alternative 3 – Bridge rehabilitation with lowering of west approach roadway

In Alternative 1, the existing concrete arch, footings and the wingwalls will be removed in their

entirety. New concrete abutments and wingwalls supported by spread footings founded on

bedrock will be constructed to support a new 53’-0” long bridge with a reinforced concrete deck

made composite with maintenance free weathering steel rolled beams to provide for a 50’-0”

wide hydraulic opening. A rigid concrete pavement will be utilized to construct the roadway

approaches to eliminate pavement washouts during storm events and to facilitate a quicker

reopening of the bridge subsequent to overtopping events. Form liners will be used on all

exposed concrete surfaces to provide an appearance of stone masonry for improved aesthetics.

In Alternative 2, the existing arch bridge was studied for rehabilitation with the aim that it could

be reopened quickly subsequent to a major overtopping event. A structural analysis of the arch





6

indicates that the bridge has adequate capacity to support future loads. In this alternative, the

existing bituminous concrete pavement and backfill material present above the arch will be

removed prior to repairing potential concrete deterioration present on the arch intrados and

extrados. The stone masonry spandrel walls will be replaced with a concrete wall positively

attached to the arch to prevent its failure. A moment slab will be installed to resist vehicular

traffic impact loads from the parapet in order to meet current safety standards and an 8” thick

rigid concrete pavement will be installed both on the bridge and the roadway approaches to

prevent its washout during potential storm events. The existing stone masonry wingwalls will be

removed in its entirety and replaced with reinforced concrete wingwalls that will be extended to

the headwall of the proposed relief culverts to be installed west of the existing bridge. In order to

provide for improved aesthetics and an appearance that is uniform, consistent and similar to the

existing bridge, masonry facing will be provided on all exposed concrete surfaces.

Alternative 3 was not investigated further because hydraulic analysis indicated no substantial

benefits in flood abetment by simply lowering the west approach roadway.

The bridge rail system in both the alternatives will consist of a 2’-8” high concrete parapet and a

single aluminum rail anodized to color brown. Cofferdams and temporary earth retaining

systems will be required in both the alternatives in order to excavate and remove the existing

structure and to accomplish the proposed construction in the dry.

5. HYDROLOGY, HYDRAULIC AND SCOUR EVALUATIONS

A Preliminary Hydraulic Findings and Qualitative Scour Assessment Memorandum was

submitted in August 2011. The following narrative is a summary of aforementioned report.

Please refer to the Preliminary Hydraulic Findings and Qualitative Scour Assessment

Memorandum for further information.

The peak flows developed by hydraulic model are summarized in the table below.

Storm (Year) Peak Flow (cfs)

2 1,054

10 2,581

25 3,805

50 4,586

100 5,592

500 8,186

The existing condition model was modified to create 5 different proposed conditions models for

3 replacement and 2 rehabilitation alternatives investigated in this project. These alternatives are

as described below.





7

Replacement Alternatives:

1. New Conspan Structure

2. New single-span bridge with longer span length (i.e. longer bridge); low chord

elevation set to top of existing arch

3. New single-span bridge with same span length; higher low chord elevation (i.e. taller

bridge)

Rehabilitation Alternatives:

4. Existing bridge with addition of relief culverts

5. Existing bridge with lower west approach roadway

The study concluded that for all 5 of the alternatives investigated, elevation differences between

existing and proposed conditions for the 100-yr storm event differ by no more than 1 inch at any

point within the study reach. As summarized in the memorandum, Alternative 2 would result in

most advantageous reductions of 2-yr and 10-yr water surface elevations (approximately 5.3 and

3.0 inches respectively) for a bridge replacement scenario. Alternative 4 would result in the most

advantageous reductions of 2-yr and 10-yr water surface elevations (approximately 2.3 and 1.3

inches respectively) for a bridge rehabilitation scenario.

During the field visit to assess the condition of Byram River’s main channel in the vicinity of

Bailiwick Road Bridge, there were no visible signs of bank erosion or main channel scour in the

vicinity of the bridge. Both abutments were protected with standard riprap that appeared to be in

good condition. The main channel banks, both upstream and downstream, are primarily lined

with rock walls at the outside of each channel bend. Due to predominance of shallow bedrock in

the vicinity of the bridge, it likely that the scour countermeasures will not be necessary to protect

the existing bridge if it is left in place. Foundations for a replacement structure would likely be

founded on rock regardless of the computed scour depths.

Waterway Adequacy Rating

According to the ConnDOT’s Local Bridge Program manual, a rating less than or equal to 2 for

the NBIS Item 71 “Waterway Adequacy” results in the bridge to be classified as “Structurally

Deficient” while a rating less than or equal to 3 results in the bridge to be classified as

“Functionally Obsolete”. The current waterway adequacy rating of the bridge is 2 with the 2-yr,

10-yr, 25-yr, 50-yr and the 100-yr storm events overtopping the bridge.

The hydraulics improvements proposed with Alternative 1 will result in the 2-yr storm event to

pass under the bridge even though the remaining storms would still overtop the bridge. However,

a new stronger bridge design would ensure that the bridge could be quickly reopened subsequent

to an overtopping event. Based on FHWA's Recording and Coding Guide, the adjectives for

“overtopping” and "traffic delay" would be classified as "occasional" and

“insignificant/significant” respectively resulting in the condition rating for waterway adequacy to

be upgraded to a number between 4 and 6. This would eliminate the bridge from being classified

as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.





8

In Alternative 2, even with the addition of relief culverts, the 2-yr storm event will be unable to

pass the bridge without overtopping; though the rehabilitated bridge could be quickly reopened

to vehicular traffic. Based on FHWA's Recording and Coding Guide, the adjectives for

“overtopping” and "traffic delay" would be classified as "frequent" and

“insignificant/significant” respectively for this alternative resulting in the condition rating for

waterway adequacy to be upgraded to 3. While the upgraded rating would eliminate the bridge

from being classified as structurally deficient, it may still be considered to be functionally

obsolete. Additional hydraulics investigations could be performed to determine if modifications

to the shape/size of the relief culverts would improve the waterway adequacy rating to a “4”, in

order to eliminate the bridge from being classified as functionally obsolete if Alternative 2 is

selected.

6. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

A Preliminary Foundation Report was submitted in October 2011. The following narrative is a

summary of aforementioned report. Please refer to the Preliminary Foundation Report for

further information.

A soil investigation program consisting of three borings was performed in August 2011. The

subsurface conditions were observed to be uniform among the three borings consisting of 4 ft. of

granular fill, underlain by medium dense to very dense sand and gravel present to a depth of 8.5

to 11 ft., underlain by competent bedrock. The bedrock was determined to be hard gneiss and

was encountered at El. 124.1 in Boring B-1, El. 123.5 in Boring B-2 and El. 121.4 in Boring B-3

(see Appendix F for locations).

Based on the presence of competent bedrock at shallow depth, bridge abutment and wingwalls in

Alternative 1 would be economically supported on spread footings founded directly on bedrock.

Scour, though not analyzed, will not be a concern since the footings would be founded directly

on competent, scour resistant bedrock. The twin culverts included in Alternative 2 would be

founded on the very dense sand and gravel which is present below the proposed invert elevation

of El. 126.9 and above the top of bedrock at El. ±121.4. The cutoff wall could extend completely

or partially to the top of bedrock depending on the result of the scour analysis.

Construction of the bridge foundations will require cofferdam and dewatering to remove water

entering from the river. Traditional cofferdam methods may be difficult to install due to the

shallow depth to bedrock and other, prefabricated cofferdam methods such as a Portadam system

which can provide a water resistant barrier for the excavation may be well suited for this project.

Portable pumps could then be used to remove water that enters the excavation.

A drilled-in soldier pile and lagging system or soil nail wall will be suitable at this project site to

support the necessary excavations since a traditional driven sheeting system would not be

feasible due to the shallow depth to bedrock. Excavations which extend deeper than 5 ft. and

which are not supported by sheeting or shoring would need to be benched or sloped in

accordance with current OSHA regulations.





9

7. ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION MODES

The bridge provides the only official access to the community of approximately 200 residents.

There are no sidewalks on the bridge and the approach roads.

a. Pedestrian Path – Since the Bailiwick Road Bridge will be closed during the construction,

pedestrian traffic will be detoured via a private roadway belonging to Bailiwick Club as

depicted on Sheet No. 12 (Appendix C).

b. Bicycle Path – Currently no separate bicycle lanes are marked on any of the streets within the

project limits. Bicycle traffic using the corridor will be directed to use the aforementioned

pedestrian detour during the bridge construction.

8. RIGHTS OF WAY

The existing right of way (ROW) limits are approximately 25’ on each side of the Bailiwick

Road centerline (i.e. baseline). The land adjacent to the street lines along Bailiwick Road is

owned by the private owners. The land on the east side of Riversville Road is owned by private

owners. The land between Riversville Road and Byram River is owned by the Town.

The improvements proposed in Alternative 1 are within the existing street lines (ROW limits).

The channelization for relief culverts proposed in Alternative 2 would require permanent

easements and/or takes.

The approach roadway west of the bridge will be used for staging the construction operations.

Temporary easements from the private property owners will be necessary for the contractor to

access the bridge during the construction.

9. NOISE/AIR IMPACTS AND DESIGN FEATURES

No significant change in the vehicular traffic volume is anticipated after completion of this

project. There will be a temporary increase in the noise levels during construction.

10. DRAINAGE AND PERMITTING

The proposed roadway cross section will remain largely unchanged; therefore the quantity of

storm water draining to Byram River will not change because of this project. Based on this

assumption, a gutter flow analysis and pipe sizing analysis will not be performed.

a. Preliminary Drainage Issues – There is no existing storm sewer system on Bailiwick Road

within the project limits. The bituminous leak-off, located at Sta. 104+50 on the right side

(refer to Photo 7, Appendix A), carries the storm water from road surface to Byram River. In

order to improve roadway drainage, granite curb will be installed on both sides from Sta.

104+00 all the way to the project limits. Catch basins, installed on the west approach





10

roadway, will carry the storm water runoff to Byram River through 18” reinforced concrete

pipes and a manhole.

b. Water resource impacts – No impacts are anticipated.

c. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures – A silt fence will be provided along the toes

of slopes and the catch basin inlets will be protected by hay bales during construction.

d. Permit Involvement – Not Applicable

11. UTILITIES

Overhead utilities (telephone, cable and electric) present on the approach roadways will need to

be temporarily relocated during construction. While there are no current utility crossings under

the bridge, Alternative 1 provides an opportunity for future utilities to be carried by the bridge.

The channelization proposed in Alternative 2 will require the relocation of an exposed water

currently crossing Byram River upstream of the bridge. Test pits will be necessary to ascertain its

exact location in order to avoid impacts during the construction.

12. LANDSCAPING

Invasive vegetation if present within project limits will be removed and a modest landscaping

design plan will be developed to show proposed planting to address the areas of disturbance due

to construction.

13. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

A summary of the cost estimates for the three alternatives described Section 4 assuming 35% for

incidentals and contingencies is shown below and attached as Appendix D.

Alternative Estimated Construction Cost (2011)

1 $ 1,880,000.00

2 $ 1,830,000.00

3 $ 1,360,000.00

14. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Even though the bridge replacement alternative is estimated to be slightly more expensive,

improvement in hydraulic opening and minimizing potential overtopping during the lower

frequency storm events, a bridge structure not encroaching into the channel aiding the permitting





11

approval process and a new stronger bridge with a rigid concrete pavement that will not washout

and ensure that the bridge and the roadway can be quickly reopened to vehicular traffic

subsequent to storm events are some of the main benefits with this alternative. Other benefits

with this alternative include a new bridge with a service life of 50-75 years, maintenance free

nature of weathering steel beams and the feasibility of installing conduits for future utility

crossings.

For nearly the same cost as Alternative 1, the bridge rehabilitation alternative will provide for a

somewhat lesser hydraulics improvement; however a rehabilitated bridge with a service life of

30-40 years, the presence of a rigid reinforced concrete pavement and a spandrel wall positively

attached to the arch will ensure that the bridge can be quickly reopened to vehicular traffic

subsequent to overtopping events. The Town will be required to maintain an additional bridge

comprising of the two relief culverts.

While Alternative 3 costs the least amongst the three alternatives, no hydraulics benefits are

gained by lowering the west approach roadway. This alternative will also result in poor sight

distances at the west approach roadway. However, a rehabilitated bridge with a service life of

30-40 years, the presence of a rigid reinforced concrete pavement and a spandrel wall positively

attached to the arch will ensure that the bridge can be quickly reopened to vehicular traffic

subsequent to overtopping events.

Based on the benefits, cost estimate and duration of construction, we recommend the selection of

Alternative 1 with the construction of a new bridge. It is also recommended that the Town

investigate the feasibility of further improving the hydraulics by conducting a downstream

impact analysis.

Structure Type Study




Appendix A

Photos


New Haven, CT 06510


BRIDGE NO. 05491,BAILIWICK ROAD OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH, CT

Photo Sheet

1 of 2

Photo 1: Bridge from West Approach Photo 2: South elevation of bridge.

Photo 3: Bridge from east approach. Photo 4: West approach.


New Haven, CT 06510


BRIDGE NO. 05491,BAILIWICK ROAD OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH, CT

Photo Sheet

2 of 2

Photo 5: Intersection of Bailiwick Road and Riversville Photo 6: West Approach of Bridge. Note Posted Speed

Road, looking North. Limit

Photo 7: Existing Leak-off located at SW corner





Appendix B

Design Elements

Tables

DESIGN ELEMENTS TABLE – Alternative 1 (Bridge Replacement)

Design Element:

Design Standards Existing Proposed Design

English Units English Units English Units

Design Speed

Travel Lane Width

Approach Road

Bridge

Shoulder Width (Eastbound)

Approach Road

Bridge

Shoulder Width (Westbound)

Approach Road

Bridge

Cross Slope

Sidewalk Width

Stopping Sight Distance

Minimum Radius of curvature

Superelevation (e Max)

Maximum Grade

Minimum Grade

Vertical Curvature (K value)

Crest

Sag

20-25 mph

10-11 ft.

2-4 ft.

2-4 ft.

1.5% -2.0%

5 ft.

200 ft.

230 ft.

4.0%

10.0%

0.5%

19

37

25 mph(1)

11 ft.

11 ft.

0 ft.(2)

4 ft.

0 ft.(2)

4 ft.

2.0%

0 ft.(2)

500 ft.

950 ft.

2.0%

2.0%

0.8%

38

34

30 mph (1)

11 ft.

11 ft.

0 ft.(2)*

3 ft.

0 ft.(2)*

3 ft.

2.0%

0 ft.(2)*

447 ft.

950 ft.

2.0%

2.0%

1.0%

60

73

Legend (1) The posted speed limit is 25 mph on Bailiwick Road.

(2) Currently not present within project limits.

* Design exception will be sought for these criteria. A design exception will be sought as this is a bridge

rehabilitation project and major approach roadway rework is not warranted. Existing substandard conditions will

be improved to the extent reasonable and feasible without involving right of way impacts.

DESIGN ELEMENTS TABLE – Alternative 2 (Bridge Rehabilitation)

Design Element:

Design Standards Existing Proposed Design

English Units English Units English Units

Design Speed

Travel Lane Width

Approach Road

Bridge

Shoulder Width (Eastbound)

Approach Road

Bridge

Shoulder Width (Westbound)

Approach Road

Bridge

Cross Slope

Sidewalk Width

Stopping Sight Distance

Minimum Radius of curvature

Superelevation (e Max)

Maximum Grade

Minimum Grade

Vertical Curvature (K value)

Crest

Sag

20-25 mph

10-11 ft.

2-4 ft.

2-4 ft.

1.5% -2.0%

5 ft.

200 ft.

230 ft.

4.0%

10.0%

0.5%

19

37

25 mph(1)

11 ft.

11 ft.

0 ft.(2)

4 ft.

0 ft. (2)

4 ft.

2.0%

0 ft.(2)

500 ft.

950 ft.

2.0%

2.0%

0.8%

38

34

30 mph (1)

11 ft.

11 ft.

0 ft. (2)*

3 ft.

0 ft. (2)*

3 ft. (min.)

2.0%

0 ft.(2)*

217 ft.

950 ft.

2.0%

2.0%

0.5%

22

41

Legend (1) The posted speed limit is 25 mph on Bailiwick Road.

(2) Currently not present within project limits.

* Design exception will be sought for these criteria. A design exception will be sought as this is a bridge

rehabilitation project and major approach roadway rework is not warranted. Existing substandard conditions will

be improved to the extent reasonable and feasible without involving right of way impacts.





Appendix C

Plans and Profiles

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -

REHABILITATION OF BRIDGE

NO. 05491 BAILIWICK ROAD

OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH 56-299R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

TYPICAL SECTIONS

25.0’ 25.0’

} BAILIWICK RD

2%2%

FROM STA. 102+60.00 TO STA. 104+00.00

25.0’ 25.0’

} BAILIWICK RD

2%2%

FROM STA. 104+00.00 TO STA. 104+90.00

4% 4%

FROM STA. 104+90.00 TO STA. 105+35.00

FROM STA. 105+85.00 TO STA. 106+11.00

} BAILIWICK RD

2:1

4% 4%

2:1

2%2%

VARIES (0’-3’)VARIES (0’-3’)

GRANITE CURB (TYP.)

SL SL

SLSL

5.5’ 5.5’

5.5’ 5.5’

6:16:1

3’.0 11.0’ 11.0’ 3.0’

11.0’ 11.0’

11.0’ 11.0’

BAILIWICK RD - ALTERNATE 1

BAILIWICK RD- ALTERNATE 1


25.0’ 25.0’

} BAILIWICK RD

2%2%

FROM STA. 102+60.00 TO STA. 104+00.00

25.0’ 25.0’

} BAILIWICK RD

2%2%

FROM STA. 104+00.00 TO STA. 104+90.00

4% 4%

FROM STA. 104+90.00 TO STA. 105+48.00

FROM STA. 105+80.00 TO STA. 106+11.00

} BAILIWICK RD

2:1

4% 4%

2:1

2%2%

VARIES (0’-3’)

GRANITE CURB (TYP.)

SL SL

SLSL

5.5’ 5.5’

5.5’ 5.5’

6:16:1

11.0’ 11.0’ 3.0’

11.0’ 11.0’

11.0’ 11.0’

BAILIWICK RD - ALTERNATE 2



VARIES (0’-3.6’)

VARIES

1


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT TITLE: TOWN:

DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.

Filename:SHEET NO.REVISION DESCRIPTIONDATEREV.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

TOWN OF GREENWICH

NOT TO SCALE

11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:


...\HW_MSH_056_0299_TYP-1.dgnPlotted Date:

3 in.3 in.

3 in.

5 in.

5 in.

5 in.

5 in.

15 in.

15 in.

16 in.

8 in.

8 in.8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

TW 8 in.

8 in.

4 in.

4 in.

4 in.

4 in.4 in.

4 in.12 in.

3 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

36 in.

2 in.

12 in. 12 in.

12 in.12 in.

14 in.

6 in.

18 in.

6 in.

9 in.

TW 12/15in.

TW 2/3 in.

TW 3/5 in.

TW 4/5 in.

HIDDEN DRIVE

SLOW

SIGN

ELEC

TELE

UG UTIL

TELE

UG UTIL

BAILIWICK ROAD

SCHALLER

CAROLLATA & HOWARD

N/F

15 BAILIWICK ROAD

THOMAS

HARRY III & MERI

N/F

7 BAILWICK ROAD

JOHNSON

TODD & NICOLE

N/F

8 BAILIWICK ROAD

140

140

140

150

150

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH

ROADWAY PLANALTERNATE 1

56-299R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

11’

BEGIN STATE PROJECT NO. 056-0299

BAILIWICK ROAD

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E

GRID

SAW CUT EXISTING PVMT.

LIMIT OF FULL DEPTH PVMT. RECONST.

E = 747957.13

N = 579000.46

STA. 102+60

11’

BAILIWICK ROAD

= 15°29’07.2"

= 95.17’

= 186.30’

= 370’

= 28°50’54.3"

D

T

L

R

D

T

L

R

= 4°00’24.1"

= 111.84’

= 223.22’

= 1430’

= 8°56’37.1"

1

2

} CURVE DATA 1

} CURVE DATA 2

2

EXIST. R-O-W

EXIST. R-O-W


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

SCALE 1"=20’

20 400

SCALE IN FEET

11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:


...\HW_MSH_056_0299_PLN-1-ALT 1.dgnPlotted Date:

MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 4

100+00

101+00

102+00

103+00

E 747703.8

7N

579042.2

5100+

00.0

0P

C

E 747887.2

9

N 579024.0

0

101+

86.3

0

PR

C

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - - GREENWICH

ROADWAY PROFILEALTERNATE 1



OVER BRYAM RIVER

R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

56-299

103+00102+00101+00100+00

120

130

140

150

120

130

140

150


LIMIT OF FULL DEPTH PVMT. RECONST.MEET EXISTING PVMT.E = 747957.13N = 579000.46STA. 102+60

BAILIWICK ROAD

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL - TWO WAY

EXISTING GROUND ALONG }

FULL DEPTH PVMT. RECONST.

{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (N

OR

TH)

{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (N

OR

TH)

ALONG }

PROPOSED GRADE

3

FULL DEPTH H.M.A.


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

OF WORK WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED.

THE CONDITIONS OF ACTUAL QUANTITIES

IN NO WAY WARRANTED TO INDICATE

INVESTIGATIONS BY THE STATE AND IS

SHEETS IS BASED ON LIMITED

QUANTITIES OF WORK, SHOWN ON THESE

THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING ESTIMATED

11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:


HORIZ. SCALE IN FEET

VERT. SCALE IN FEET

0 2 4

0 20 40

...\HW_MSH_056_0299_PRO-1-ALT 1.dgnPlotted Date:

MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 5

K=73.07

PV

C

ST

A.1

02+

60.0

0

EL.=

134.8

4

L.V.C.=210.00

S.S.D.=446.47

4 in.

4 in. 3 in.

8 in.8 in.

1 in.

12 in.

16 in.

24 in.

18 in.

4 in.

8 in.

2 in.

2 in.

20 in.

TW 10/16 in.

Q 8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

Q 8 in.

TW 8 in.

8 in.

6 in.

8 in.

4 in.

4 in.

8 in.

3 in.

3 in.

10 in.

24 in.

36 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

12 in.

4 in.

3 in.

1 in.

32 in.

6x1 in.

TW 5 in.

8 in.

18 in.

36 in.

30 in.

TW 2 in.

TW 1/3 in.

TW 1 in.

TW 14 in.

TW 5/6 in.

TR 6/2/2 in.

TR 3 in.

80134

CL&P

8134A

CL&P

69239

CL&P

69240

CL&P

WF 41

WF 42

WF 43

WF 44

WF 45

WF 46

WF 47

WF 30

WF 31

WF 32

WF 33

WF 34

WF 35

WF 26

WF 25

WF 24

WF 23

WF 22

WF 21

WF 20

WF 5

WF 1

WF 2

WF 3

WF 4

WF 6

WF 9

WF 10

NO OUTLET

SIGN

STOP

SIGN

STREET

SIGN

NO PARK

SIGN

25MPH

SIGN

AT&T

UGUF

CATV

UGUF

CL&P

UGUF

CL&P

UGUF

CATV

UGUF

CATV

UGUF

BIT. L.O.

BIT. L.O.

JPG-3 (I. PIN)

JPG-1 (I. PIN)

E 7

48400

N 578800

BAILIWICK ROAD

RIV

ER

VIL

LE R

OA

D

No. 05491

BRIDGE

AQUARION WATER CO.EXPOSED WATER MAIN

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

140

140

140

140

150

150

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH


56-299R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

11’

11’

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E

GRID

BAILIWICK ROAD

RIV

ERS

VIL

LE

RO

AD

GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB

END STATE PROJECT NO. 056-0299

14’

14’

BRIDGE NO. 05491

LIMIT OF FULL DEPTH PVMT RECONST.

E = 748369.90

N = 578921.10

STA. 106+81.05

18" RCP

18" RCP

18" R

CP

BYRA

M

RIV

ER

12.0’

12.0’

12.5’

12.5’

INV.=129.31

TF=133.21

STA. 104+05

"C" CB

INV.=129.42

TF=133.21

STA. 104+05

"C" CB

INV.=128.67

STA. 105+40, 23’ RTINV.=128.98

TC=133.00

STA. 104+75, 23’ RT

4’ DIA. MH

14’

RIV

ER

VIL

LE R

OA

D

BYR

AM

RIV

ER

20’ R

40’ R

14’

+11

+38

SAW CUT

EXISTI

NG PVMT.

PVMT. RECOST.

LIMIT O

F FULL

DEP

TH

+45

SAW CUT

EXISTI

NG PVMT.

PVMT. RECOST.

LIMIT O

F FULL

DEP

TH

+70

+00

+90

SHLD. TAPER(30:1) BOTH EDGES

SIGN

NO OUTLET

SIGN

STOP

SIGN

25 MPH2

D

T

L

R

= 4°00’24.1"

= 111.84’

= 223.22’

= 1430’

= 8°56’37.1"

} CURVE DATA 2

3

D

T

L

R

} CURVE DATA 3

= 6°01’52.1"

= 56.30’

= 112.46’

= 950’

= 6°46’58.3"

4

EXIST. R-O-W

EXIST. R-O-W

RAIL (TYP.)

BOX BEAM


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

SCALE 1"=20’

20 400

SCALE IN FEET

11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



STA. 105+30.5

BEGIN BRIDGE

STA. 105+89.6

END BRIDGEMA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 2

E 748102.0

3

N 578963.9

1

104+

09.5

1

PT

E 748342.8

6

N

578923.1

7

106+

53.9

3

PT

E 748369.9

0

N

578921.1

0

106+

81.0

5

PO

E

N78° 50’18.6"E

S 24°

17’5

2.8

7" E

200+

00

201+

00

202+

00

E 74

8312.78

N 57

9018.72

200+

00.00

POB

E 74

8395.07

N 57

8836.43

202+

00.00

POE

E = 748356.38

N = 578922.14

STA. 201+05.96 RIVERVILLE ROAD

STA. 106+67.49 BAILIWICK ROAD =

EQ:

104

105

106

E 748231.4

9

N 578938.3

7

105+

41.4

6

PC

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - - GREENWICH




OVER BRYAM RIVER

R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

56-299

107+00106+00105+00104+00

120

130

140

150

120

130

140

150

BAILIWICK ROAD




LIMIT OF FULL DEPTH PVMT RECONST.E = 748369.90N = 578921.10STA. 106+81.05

{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (S

OU

TH)


18" RCP18" RCP

INV.=129.31

TF=133.21

STA. 104+05

"C" CB

INV.=128.98

TC=133.00

STA. 104+75, 23’ RT

4’ DIA. MH

INV.=128.67

STA. 105+40, 23’ RT

BRIDGE NO. 05491


ALONG }

PROPOSED GRADE

5

FULL DEPTH H.M.A.

ON TOP OF 8" CONCRETE SLAB

2" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE OVERLAYFULL DEPTH H.M.A.


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH








11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



VERT. SCALE IN FEET

0 2 4

0 20 40


+30.5

+89.6

{

RIV

ER

SVILLE

RO

AD

MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 3

K=73.07

PVI S

TA.1

03+

65.0

0

EL.=

132.8

8

L.P.

ST

A.1

03+

95.9

5

EL.=

133.5

7

PV

RC

ST

A.1

04+

70.0

0

EL.=

133.9

5

H.P.

ST

A.1

05+

30.3

7

EL.=

134.2

5

PVI S

TA.1

05+

60.0

0

EL.=

134.8

6

PV

T S

TA.1

06+

50.0

0

EL.=

133.0

5

PVI S

TA.1

06+

67.4

9

EL.=

132.7

0

PVI S

TA.1

06+

81.0

5

EL.=

132.4

3

S=-2.00%

S=-2.01%

L.V.C.=210.00

S.S.D.=446.47

L.V.C.=180.00

S.S.D.=447.19

K=59.58

3 in.3 in.

3 in.

5 in.

5 in.

5 in.

5 in.

15 in.

15 in.

16 in.

8 in.

8 in.8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

TW 8 in.

8 in.

4 in.

4 in.

4 in.

4 in.4 in.

4 in.12 in.

3 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

10 in.

36 in.

2 in.

12 in. 12 in.

12 in.12 in.

14 in.

6 in.

18 in.

6 in.

9 in.

TW 12/15in.

TW 2/3 in.

TW 3/5 in.

TW 4/5 in.

HIDDEN DRIVE

SLOW

SIGN

ELEC

TELE

UG UTIL

TELE

UG UTIL

BAILIWICK ROAD

SCHALLER

CAROLLATA & HOWARD

N/F

15 BAILIWICK ROAD

THOMAS

HARRY III & MERI

N/F

7 BAILWICK ROAD

JOHNSON

TODD & NICOLE

N/F

8 BAILIWICK ROAD

140

140

140

150

150

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH


56-299R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

} BAILIWICK ROAD

11’


BAILIWICK ROAD

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E

GRID

SAW CUT EXISTING PVMT.

LIMIT OF FULL DEPTH PVMT. RECONST.

E = 747957.13

N = 579000.46

STA. 102+60

11’

= 15°29’07.2"

= 95.17’

= 186.30’

= 370’

= 28°50’54.3"

D

T

L

R

} CURVE DATA 1

D

T

L

R

= 4°00’24.1"

= 111.84’

= 223.22’

= 1430’

= 8°56’37.1"

} CURVE DATA 2

2

1BAILIWICK ROAD

6

EXIST. R-O-W

EXIST. R-O-W


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

SCALE 1"=20’

20 400

SCALE IN FEET

11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 8

100+00

101+00

102+00

103+00

E 747703.8

7N

579042.2

5100+

00.0

0P

C

E 747887.2

9

N 579024.0

0

101+

86.3

0

PR

C

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - - GREENWICH




OVER BRYAM RIVER

R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

56-299

103+00102+00101+00100+00

120

130

140

150

120

130

140

150



BAILIWICK ROAD




{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (N

OR

TH)

{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (N

OR

TH)

ALONG }

PROPOSED GRADE

7

FULL DEPTH H.M.A.


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH








11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



VERT. SCALE IN FEET

0 2 4

0 20 40


MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 9

PVI S

TA.1

02+

60.0

0

EL.=

134.8

4

PV

C

ST

A.1

02+

80.0

0

EL.=

134.4

3

S=-2.05%

L.V.C.=180.00

S.S.D.=534.42

K=70.47

4 in.

4 in. 3 in.

8 in.8 in.

1 in.

12 in.

16 in.

24 in.

18 in.

4 in.

8 in.

2 in.

2 in.

20 in.

TW 10/16 in.

Q 8 in.

8 in.

8 in.

Q 8 in.

TW 8 in.

8 in.

6 in.

8 in.

4 in.

4 in.

8 in.

3 in.

3 in.

10 in.

24 in.

36 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

12 in.

4 in.

3 in.

1 in.

32 in.

6x1 in.

TW 5 in.

8 in.

18 in.

36 in.

30 in.

TW 2 in.

TW 1/3 in.

TW 1 in.

TW 14 in.

TW 5/6 in.

TR 6/2/2 in.

TR 3 in.

80134

CL&P

8134A

CL&P

69239

CL&P

69240

CL&P

WF 41

WF 42

WF 43

WF 44

WF 45

WF 46

WF 47

WF 30

WF 31

WF 32

WF 33

WF 34

WF 35

WF 26

WF 25

WF 24

WF 23

WF 22

WF 21

WF 20

WF 5

WF 1

WF 2

WF 3

WF 4

WF 6

WF 9

WF 10

NO OUTLET

SIGN

STOP

SIGN

STREET

SIGN

NO PARK

SIGN

25MPH

SIGN

AT&T

UGUF

CATV

UGUF

CL&P

UGUF

CL&P

UGUF

CATV

UGUF

CATV

UGUF

BIT. L.O.

BIT. L.O.

JPG-3 (I. PIN)

JPG-1 (I. PIN)

E 7

48400

N 578800

BAILIWICK ROAD

RIV

ER

VIL

LE R

OA

D

No. 05491

BRIDGE

AQUARION WATER CO.EXPOSED WATER MAIN

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

140

140

140

140

150

150

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH


56-299R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

11’

11’

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E

GRID

BAILIWICK ROAD

RIV

ERS

VIL

LE

RO

AD

GRANITE CURB

GRANITE CURB


14’

BRIDGE NO. 05491

LIMIT OF FULL DEPTH PVMT RECONST.

E = 748369.90

N = 578921.10

STA. 106+81.05

18" RCP

18" R

CP

BYRA

M

RIV

ER

12.0’

12.0’

12.5’

12.5’

INV.=128.05

TF=132.72

STA. 104+74

"C" CB

INV.=128.19

TF=132.72

STA. 104+74

"C" CB

RIV

ER

VIL

LE R

OA

D

BYR

AM

RIV

ER

20’ R

40’ R

14’

+09

+38

SAW CUT

EXISTI

NG PVMT.

PVMT. RECOST.

LIMIT O

F FULL

DEP

TH

+45

SAW CUT

EXISTI

NG PVMT.

PVMT. RECOST.

LIMIT O

F FULL

DEP

TH

+70

FL 127.4

FL 126.7

FL 126.9

FL 127.1

FILL BOTTOM 1’

TWO- 4’ X 9’ BOX CULVERTS

RC

P

18"

SIGN

STOP

SIGN

25 MPH

SIGN

NO OUTLET

FL 126.9

+95

104

INV. OUT=127.26

INV. IN=128.02

TC=130.60

STA. 104+75, 23’ RT

4’ DIA. MH

2

D

T

L

R

= 4°00’24.1"

= 111.84’

= 223.22’

= 1430’

= 8°56’37.1"

} CURVE DATA 2

D

T

L

R

= 6°01’52.1"

= 56.30’

= 112.46’

= 950’

= 6°46’58.3"

} CURVE DATA 3

3

14’-7"

14’-7"

+00

SHLD. TAPER

+90

BOTH EDGES

8

EXIST. R-O-W

EXIST. R-O-W

RAIL (TYP.)

BOX BEAM

PAVERS

CONCRETE BLOCK


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

SCALE 1"=20’

20 400

SCALE IN FEET

11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 6

E 748102.0

3

N 578963.9

1

104+

09.5

1

PT

E 748342.8

6

N

578923.1

7

106+

53.9

3

PT

E 748369.9

0

N

578921.1

0

106+

81.0

5

PO

E

N78° 50’18.6"E

S 24°

17’5

2.8

7" E

200+

00

201+

00

202+

00

E 74

8312.78

N 57

9018.72

200+

00.00

POB

E 74

8395.07

N 57

8836.43

202+

00.00

POE

E = 748356.38

N = 578922.14

STA. 201+05.96 RIVERVILLE ROAD

STA. 106+67.49 BAILIWICK ROAD =

EQ:

104

105

106

E 748231.4

9

N 578938.3

7

105+

41.4

6

PC

130

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - - GREENWICH




OVER BRYAM RIVER

R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

56-299

107+00106+00105+00104+00

120

130

140

150

120

130

140

150

BAILIWICK ROAD





{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (S

OU

TH)


18" RCP

INV.=128.05

TF=132.72

STA. 104+74

"C" CB

BRIDGE NO. 05491

FL=126.90

STA. 104+95, 23’ RT2-4’X9’ BOX CULVERTS

FL. 127.0

INV. OUT=127.26

INV. IN=128.02

TC=130.60

STA. 104+75, 23’ RT

4’ DIA. MH

FULL DEPTH PVMT. RECONST.+48

ALONG }

PROPOSED GRADE

9

FULL DEPTH H.M.A. FULL DEPTH H.M.A.


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH








11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



VERT. SCALE IN FEET

0 2 4

0 20 40


{

RIV

ER

SVILLE

RO

AD

+09

8" CONCRETE PAVEMENT

MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 7

PVI S

TA.1

03+

70.0

0

EL.=

132.5

8

L.P.

ST

A.1

04+

24.5

8

EL.=

132.9

4

PV

CC

ST

A.1

04+

60.0

0

EL.=

133.0

3

PVI S

TA.1

04+

90.0

0

EL.=

133.1

8

PV

RC

ST

A.1

05+

20.0

0

EL.=

133.7

8

PVI S

TA.1

05+

60.0

0

EL.=

134.5

7

H.P.

ST

A.1

05+

62.6

0

EL.=

134.2

0

PV

T S

TA.1

06+

00.0

0

EL.=

133.8

7

PVI S

TA.1

06+

67.4

9

EL.=

132.7

0

PVI S

TA.1

06+

81.0

5

EL.=

132.4

3

S=-1.74%

S=-2.00%

L.V.C.=180.00

S.S.D.=534.42

K=70.47

L.V.C.=60.00

S.S.D.=217.15

K=40.65

L.V.C.=80.00

S.S.D.=330.42

K=21.53

10

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - - GREENWICH




OVER BRYAM RIVER

R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

56-299

103+00102+00101+00100+00

120

130

140

150

120

130

140

150



BAILIWICK ROAD




{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (N

OR

TH)

{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (N

OR

TH)

L.V.C.=140.00

S.S.D.=558.77

K=132.54

ALONG }

PROPOSED GRADE


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH








11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



VERT. SCALE IN FEET

0 2 4

0 20 40


8" CONCRETE PAVEMNT

MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 11

PVI S

TA.1

02+

60.0

0

EL.=

134.8

4

PV

C

ST

A.1

03+

00.0

0

EL.=

134.0

6

S=-1.95%

11

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - - GREENWICH




OVER BRYAM RIVER

R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

56-299

107+00106+00105+00104+00

120

130

140

150

120

130

140

150

BAILIWICK ROAD





{

EX.

DRIV

EW

AY (S

OU

TH)


ALONG }

PROPOSED GRADE

BRIDGE NO. 05491


+48

+80


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH








11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:



VERT. SCALE IN FEET

0 2 4

0 20 40


{

RIV

ER

SVILLE

RO

AD

FULL DEPTH H.M.A.8" CONCRETE PAVEMENT

+09

MA

TC

H

LIN

E S

EE S

HE

ET

NO. 10

PVI S

TA.1

03+

70.0

0

EL.=

132.6

9

PV

CC

ST

A.1

04+

40.0

0

EL.=

132.0

6

L.P.

ST

A.1

04+

66.4

9

EL.=

131.9

4

PVI S

TA.1

04+

80.0

0

EL.=

131.7

0

PV

RC

ST

A.1

05+

20.0

0

EL.=

132.4

3

PVI S

TA.1

05+

60.0

0

EL.=

133.1

5

H.P.

ST

A.1

05+

76.1

9

EL.=

132.9

4

PV

T S

TA.1

06+

00.0

0

EL.=

132.8

4

PVI S

TA.1

06+

53.9

3

EL.=

132.4

3

PVI S

TA.1

06+

67.4

9

EL.=

132.7

0

PVI S

TA.1

06+

81.0

5

EL.=

132.4

3

S=-0.77%S=2.00

%

S=-2.00%

L.V.C.=140.00

S.S.D.=558.77

K=132.54

L.V.C.=80.00

S.S.D.=321.40

K=29.53

L.V.C.=80.00

S.S.D.=458.27

K=31.01

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH 56-299R. BHAVE

G. JACOBS

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

CO

OR

DIN

AT

E

GRID

12DETOUR PLAN

DETOUR PLAN

BAILIWICK ROAD

DU

NC

AN

DRIV

E

RIV

ERS

VIL

LE

RO

AD

AN

GE

LU

S

DRIV

E

OF GREENWICH

BAILIWICK CLUB

NOT TO SCALE

BYRA

M

RIV

ER

PROPOSED DETOUR

BRIDGE 05491


DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

11/3/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:


...\TR_MSH_056_0299_DTR-1.dgnPlotted Date:





Appendix D

Cost Estimates

ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

A. Roadway Items

Earth excavation 800 CY $40.00 $32,000

8" Concrete Pavement 80 CY $750.00 $60,000

HMA Pavement 575 TON $120.00 $69,000

Subbase 400 CY $50.00 $20,000

Granite Curbing 420 LF $45.00 $18,900

Approach Guide Railing 150 LF $25.00 $3,750

Approach Guide Railing: End Anchorage 4 EA $1,250.00 $5,000

Approach Guide Railing: Bridge Attachments 4 EA $3,000.00 $12,000

Striping 425 LF $1.00 $425

Roadway Drainage 1 LS $23,000.00 $23,000

Sedimentation Control System 300 LF $6.00 $1,800

Construction Field Office, Small 9 MO $1,800.00 $16,200

Sub Total $262,075

B. Structure Items

Structure Excavation - Earth (Complete) 1,063 CY $35.00 $37,201

Cofferdam & Dewatering 140 LF $325.00 $45,500

Temporary Earth Retaining System 2,249 SF $40.00 $89,960

Removal of Superstructure 1,267 SF $50.00 $63,350

Removal of Masonry 229 CY $150.00 $34,422

Structural Steel 33,579 LBS $3.00 $100,737

Class F Concrete (Superstructure) 131 CY $850.00 $111,328

Class A Concrete (Substructure) 448 CY $750.00 $336,365

Deformed Steel Bars (Epoxy Coated) 32,750.00 LBS $1.60 $52,400

Deformed Steel Bars 29,160.00 LBS $1.40 $40,824

Steel Laminated Elastomeric Bearings 10 EA. $900.00 $9,000

Perevious Structure Backfill 433 CY $50.00 $21,674

Membrane Waterproofing (Woven Glass Fabric) 283 SY $30.00 $8,493

HMA Wearing Surface 31 TON $120.00 $3,717

Concrete Form Liners 2,593 SF $20.00 $51,854

Metal Bridge (Handrail) 160 LF $150.00 $24,000

Asphaltic Plug Expansion Joint System 56 LF $110.00 $6,160

Sub Total $864,325

C. Environmental Compliance Items

Estimated Cost 1 EST $20,000.00 $20,000

D. Traffic Items

Traffic Person (Municipal Police Officer) 32 HR $100.00 $3,200

Construction Signing 300 SF $25.00 $7,500

Temporary Precast Concrete Barrier Curbs 80 LF $40.00 $3,200

Construction Barricade - Type III 8 EA $140.00 $1,120

Sub Total $15,020

E. Minor Items (20% of Roadway Items) 20% $52,415

F. Lump Sum Items (Based on percentages of A-E)

Cleaning & Grubbing 2% $24,277

M&P of Traffic 4% $48,553

Mobilization 7.5% $91,038

Construction Staking 1% $12,138

CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,389,841

SAY $1,390,000

G. Incidentals (25%) & Contingencies (10%) 35% $486,444

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (Year 2011) $1,876,285

Say $1,880,000

Alternative 1: Bridge Replacement

PROPOSAL ESTIMATE

Rehabilitation of Bridge No. 05491



State Project No. 56-299


A. Roadway Items



HMA Pavement 520 TON $120.00 $62,400

Subbase 500 CY $50.00 $25,000





Striping 425 LF $1.00 $425

Roadway Drainage 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000



Sub Total $276,775

B. Structure Items

Structure Excavation - Earth (Complete) 1,387 CY $35.00 $48,541




Concrete Arch Repairs (Intrados & Extrados) 7 CY $3,000.00 $22,222

Class A Concrete (Spandrel walls/Parapets/Wingwalls/Headwalls/Moment Slab) 378 CY $750.00 $283,135

Deformed Steel Bars 24,540 LBS $1.40 $34,356


Granular Fill 125 CY $45.00 $5,610

Masonry Facing 2,370 SF $80.00 $189,618


Concrete Block Pavers 350 SF $35.00 $12,250

9' x 4' Concrete Box Culvert 80 LF $850.00 $68,000

Sub Total $838,923



D. Traffic Items




Construction Barricades - Type III 8 EA $140.00 $1,120

Sub Total $15,020








SAY $1,350,000


ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST (Year 2011) $1,822,048

Say $1,830,000




PROPOSAL ESTIMATE


Alternative 2: Bridge Rehabilitation with Addition of Relief Culverts


A. Roadway Items



HMA Pavement 350 TON $120.00 $42,000

Subbase 500 CY $50.00 $25,000





Striping 425 LF $1.00 $425



Sub Total $260,175

B. Structure Items

Structure Excavation - Earth (Complete) 854 CY $35.00 $29,874




Concrete Arch Repairs (Intrados & Extrados) 7 CY $3,000.00 $22,222

Class A Concrete (Spandrel walls/Parapets/Wingwalls/Headwalls/Moment Slab) 254 CY $750.00 $190,385

Deformed Steel Bars 16,510 LBS $1.40 $23,114


Granular Fill 125 CY $45.00 $5,610

Masonry Facing 1,789 SF $80.00 $143,096


Concrete Block Pavers 249 SF $35.00 $8,698

Sub Total $553,091



D. Traffic Items




Construction Barricades - Type III 8 EA $140.00 $1,120

Sub Total $15,020








SAY $1,010,000


ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST (Year 2011) $1,353,290

Say $1,360,000

PROPOSAL ESTIMATE





Alternative 3: Bridge Rehabilitation with Lowering of West Approach Roadway





Appendix E

References

5(12) URBAN HIGHWAYS AND STREETS December 2003

Fig

ure

5F

LO

CA

L U

RB

AN

ST

RE

ET

S

(Ne

w C

on

str

uc

tio

n/M

ajo

r C

on

str

uc

tio

n)

De

sig

n V

alu

es (

by T

yp

e o

f A

rea

) D

esig

n E

lem

en

t *

Ma

nu

al

Se

ctio

n

Su

bu

rba

n

Inte

rme

dia

te

Bu

ilt-u

p

De

sig

n F

ore

ca

st

Yea

r

6-3

.02

2

0 Y

ea

rs

20

Ye

ars

2

0 Y

ea

rs

Desig

n S

peed

x

6-2

.02

25 m

ph –

30 m

ph

25 m

ph –

30 m

ph

20 m

ph –

25 m

ph

Acce

ss C

on

tro

l

6-4

.0

Co

ntr

ol b

y R

eg

ula

tio

n

Co

ntr

ol b

y R

eg

ula

tio

n

Co

ntr

ol b

y R

eg

ula

tio

n

Le

ve

l o

f S

erv

ice

6-3

.0

C –

D

C –

D

C –

D

Design Controls

On

-Str

ee

t P

ark

ing

10

-1.0

4

So

me

tim

es

So

me

tim

es

So

me

tim

es

Tra

vel Lane W

idth

x

10-1

.01

10

– 1

1

10

– 1

1

10

– 1

1

Should

er

Wid

th

x

10-1

.02

2 –

4

2 –

4

2 –

4

Tra

vel Lane

x

10-1

.01

1.5

% –

2.0

%

(1.5

%-3

.0%

with c

urb

ing)

1.5

% –

2.0

%

(1.5

%-3

.0%

with c

urb

ing)

1.5

% –

2.0

%

(1.5

%-3

.0%

with c

urb

ing)

Sh

ou

lde

r (W

< 4

) x

Sa

me

as A

dja

ce

nt

Tra

ve

l L

an

e

Cro

ss S

lop

e

Sh

ou

lde

r (W

4

) x

10-1

.02

4%

– 6

%

4%

– 6

%

4%

– 6

%

Lane W

idth

x

10

– 1

1

10

– 1

1

10

– 1

1

Turn

La

nes

Sh

ou

lde

r W

idth

x

10-1

.03

2 –

4

2 –

4

2 –

4

Pa

rkin

g L

an

e W

idth

10

-1.0

4

7 –

10

7

– 1

1

7 –

11

Sid

ew

alk

Wid

th

1

0-2

.01

5

Min

imu

m

5 M

inim

um

5

Min

imu

m

Wid

th

5

5

5

Bic

ycle

La

ne

C

ross S

lop

e

15-4

.0

2%

2%

2%

Brid

ge

Wid

th/C

ross S

lop

e (

1)

x

10

-4.0

1

Cu

rb-t

o-C

urb

: M

ee

t A

pp

roa

ch

Ro

ad

wa

y W

idth

and

Cro

ss S

lop

e

S

ide

wa

lk W

idth

: 5

-6

Un

de

rpa

ss W

idth

10

-4.0

2

Me

et

Ap

pro

ach

Ro

ad

wa

y W

idth

Plu

s C

lea

r Z

on

es

Rig

ht-

of-

Wa

y W

idth

10

-5.0

P

roje

ct-

by-P

roje

ct

Ba

sis

Ro

ad

sid

e C

lea

r Z

on

es

x

13

-2.0

S

ee

Se

ctio

n 1

3-2

.0

Cross Section Elements

Fill

/Cu

t S

lop

es

1

0-2

.02

S

ee

Fig

ure

5I

* C

on

trolli

ng

de

sig

n c

rite

ria

(se

e S

ectio

n 6

-6.0

).

December 2003 URBAN HIGHWAYS AND STREETS 5(13)

Fig

ure

5F

(C

on

tin

ue

d)

LO

CA

L U

RB

AN

ST

RE

ET

S

(Ne

w C

on

str

uc

tio

n/M

ajo

r C

on

str

uc

tio

n)

De

sig

n V

alu

es (

Ba

se

d o

n D

esig

n S

pe

ed

) D

esig

n E

lem

en

t *

Ma

nu

al

Se

ctio

n

30

mp

h

25

mp

h

20

mp

h

Sto

pp

ing

Sig

ht

Dis

tan

ce

x

7-1

.0

200

155

115

Ma

ne

uve

r

U

: 620

S

U:

53

5

N/A

N

/A

De

cis

ion

Sig

ht

Dis

tan

ce

Sto

p

7-2

.0

490

N

/A

N/A

Min

imu

m R

ad

ius (

e =

4%

) x

8-3

.02

230

145

80

em

ax

4.0

%

4.0

%

4.0

%

Su

pe

rele

va

tio

n

Rate

x

8-3

.02

Se

e F

igu

re 8

-3C

Ho

rizo

nta

l S

igh

t D

ista

nce

8-2

.04

S

ee

Se

ctio

n 8

-2.0

4

Maxim

um

Gra

de

x

9-2

.03

10%

11%

11%

Min

imu

m G

rad

e

9

-2.0

3

0.5

%

Cre

st

9-2

.02

19

12

7

Ve

rtic

al C

urv

atu

re

(K-V

alu

e)

Sag

9-3

.03

37

26

17

Ne

w H

igh

wa

y B

ridge

x

14

-6

Min

imu

m V

ert

ica

l

Cle

ara

nce

:

Lo

ca

l S

tre

et

Un

de

r …

E

xis

tin

g H

igh

wa

y B

rid

ge

x

9-4

.0

14

-3

Alignment Elements

Min

imu

m V

ert

ica

l C

lea

ran

ce

(Lo

ca

l S

tre

et

ove

r R

ailr

oa

d)

x

9-4

.0

Ele

ctr

ifie

d:

22

-6

All

Oth

ers

: 2

0-6

* C

on

tro

llin

g d

esig

n c

rite

ria

(se

e S

ectio

n 6

-6.0

).

U:

Urb

an

S

U:

Suburb

an

Footn

ote

:

(1)

Brid

ge

Wid

th.

Se

e S

ectio

n 3

-2.0

4 f

or

loca

l b

rid

ge

pro

jects

.





Appendix F

Bridge Sketches

1 in.

TW 10/16 i

n.

Q 8 in.

4 in. 8 in.

3 in.

3 in.

36 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

4 in.

3 in.1 in.

32 in.

6x1 in.

TW 5 in.

8 in.

80134

CL&P

8134A

CL&P

WF 46

WF 47WF 30

WF 31

WF 26WF 1

NO OUTLETSIGNNO PARK

SIGN

AT&TUGUF

CATVUGUF

CL&PUGUF

BIT. L.O.

BIT. L.O.

JPG-3 (I. P

IN)

No. 05491

BRIDGE

AQUARION W

ATER CO.

EXPOSED WATER M

AIN

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH 56-299

{ BAILIWICK ROAD

36’-6"|

VA

RIES

SCALE: �" = 1’-0"

SCALE: 1" = 10’

GENERAL PLAN AND

CROSS SECTION

38’-0"|

VARIES)

ARCH SLAB (THICKNESS

(THICKNESS VARIES)

GRANULAR FILL

(TYP.)

SPANDREL WALL/PARAPET

STONE MASONRY4"| ASPHALT PAVEMENT

P.A.G.

(T

YP.)

6"

(TYP.)

FACING

MASONRY

15’-0"|PAVEMENT

EDGE OF

PAVEMENT

EDGE OF

WINGWALL 1A

WINGWALL 1B

GRASS WALKWAY

ARCH BRIDGE

EXIST. CONCRETE

GENERAL PLANSCALE: 1" = 10’

RIVER

BYRAM

WINGWALL 2B

APPROX. { BAILIWICK ROAD

COMPANY)

(AQUARION WATER

EXISTING WATER MAIN

WINGWALL 2A

SOUTH ELEVATION

(TYP.)

EL. 120.6|

33’-8�"

(ELEVATION VARIES)

WATERLINE

ORDINARY HIGH 4"X4" STEEL TUBE RAIL

MASONRY WINGWALL (TYP.)

CEMENT RUBBLE STONE

(TYP.)

EL. 127.4|

EL. 130.8|

EXIST. ROADWAY

T.STRNAD/S.ERDAS

A. SESHADRI

1ELEVATION-EXISTING BRIDGE

EXIST. GRADE

30’-0"

(SURVEY)

CHANNEL BED

APPROX. EXIST.

TUBE RAIL (TYP.)

4"X4" STEEL

1’-6"|

LANE

15’-0"|

LANE

15’-0"|

GRASS WALKWAY

5’-0"| 1’-6"|

ROAD

} BAILIWICK

WALL

FACE OF WALL

FACE OF

1’-6"|

5’-0"|

15’-0"|

1’-6"|

FACING

WITH MASONRY

CONCRETE ARCH

STRUCTURE STUDY REPORT

DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SKETCH NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

SCALE AS NOTED

10/6/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:


...\SB_MSH_056_0299_GPN-EXIST.dgnPlotted Date:

E 748231.49

N 578938.37

STA 105+41.46

PC

106+00

105+00

1 in.

TW 10/16 i

n.

Q 8 in.

4 in. 8 in.

3 in.

3 in.

36 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

4 in.

3 in.1 in.

32 in.

6x1 in.

TW 5 in.

8 in.

80134

CL&P

8134A

CL&P

WF 46

WF 47WF 30

WF 31

WF 26WF 1


SIGN

AT&TUGUF

CATVUGUF

CL&PUGUF

BIT. L.O.

BIT. L.O.

JPG-3 (I. P

IN)

No. 05491

BRIDGE

AQUARION W

ATER CO.

EXPOSED WATER M

AIN

Q 8 in.

8 in.

4 in. 8 in.

3 in.

3 in.

36 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.12 in

.

4 in.

3 in.1 in.

32 in.

6x1 in.

TW 5 in.

8 in.

80134

CL&P

8134A

CL&P

WF 46

WF 47WF 30

WF 31

WF 26WF 1


SIGN

AT&TUGUF

BIT. L.O.

BIT. L.O.

JPG-3 (I. P

IN)

No. 05491

BRIDGE

AQUARION W

ATER CO.

EXPOSED WATER M

AIN

130

E 748231.49

N 578938.37

STA 105+41.46

PC

106+00

105+00

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH 56-299

GENERAL PLAN AND

STA 105+30.50

BEGIN BRIDGE

SKEW (TYP.)

22°56’ 45.09"

WINGWALL (TYP.)

REMOVE EXISTING

WINGWALL 1A

N 78°50’ 18.16 E

WINGWALL 1B

14’-0"

14’-0"

1’-10"

ABUTMENT

FACE OF

CURB LINE

LINE

CHORD

FACE OF ABUTMENT

WINGWALL 2B

WINGWALL 2A

ABUTMENT 1

BEARINGS

{ EXPANSION

ABUTMENT 2

{ FIXED BEARINGS,

SHOULDER

3’-0"

LANE

11’-0"

LANE

11’-0"

SHOULDER

3’-0"

1’-10"

1’-10"

B4B3B2B1 B5

(WOVEN GLASS FABRIC)

MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING

1" HMA S0.375 ON

2" HMA S0.5 ON

P.A.G.

�" / FT�" / FT

SLAB

8�" CONCRETE

} BAILIWICK ROAD

4 SPACES @ 6’-9" = 27’-0"

CROSS SECTIONSCALE: �" = 1’-0"

T.STRNAD/S.ERDAS

A. SESHADRI

GENERAL PLANSCALE: 1" = 10’

(VARIES)

2’-1�" TO 2’-8"

(VARIES)

4�" MAX.

RIVER

BYRAM

SH

LD

3’-0"

LA

NE

11’-0"

LA

NE

11’-0"

SH

LD

3’-0"

RA

DIA

L

1’-10"

(TYP.)

PAINTED TO COLOR BROWN

GALVANIZED & SHOP

BOX BEAM GUIDE RAIL,

} BAILIWICK ROAD

31’-8" TO 32’-4�"

INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM (TYP.)

C12 x 20.7

LINE

CURB

1’-11�" TO 2’-7�"

(VARIES)

CONSTRUCTION

PROTECTED DURING

COMPANY) TO BE

(AQUARION WATER

EXISTING WATER MAIN

STA 105+89.60

END BRIDGE

STA 105+86.53

W.P. 2

STA 105+33.50

W.P. 1,

BRIDGE & FOOTINGS

CONCRETE ARCH

REMOVE EXISTING

(TYP.)

PAINTED TO COLOR BROWN

GALVANIZED & SHOP


(TYP.)

PROPOSED GRADE

SCALE: 1" = 10’

SOUTH ELEVATION

ABUTMENT 1

{ EXPANSION BEARINGS,

(ELEVATION VARIES)

ORDINARY HIGH WATERLINE

EL. TBD (TYP.)

BOTTOM OF FOOTING,

ABUTMENT 2

{ FIXED BEARINGS,53’-0"

ARCH BRIDGE & FOOTINGS

REMOVE EXIST. CONCRETE

(TYP.)

EL. 120.6|

ELEVATION-ALTERNATIVE 1

BEAM (TYP.)

WEATHERING STEEL

W21 X 101

TO COLOR BROWN (TYP.)

(HANDRAIL) ANODIZED

METAL BRIDGE RAIL

FORM LINERS (TYP.)

TREATMENT UTILIZING

WITH ARCHITECTURAL

2’-8" HIGH PARAPET& { BEAM B3

CHORD LINE

1’-3" APPROACH SLAB (TYP.)

3" HMA PAVEMENT OVER

CONCRETE DECK

BRIDGE WITH COMPOSITE

PROPOSED WEATHERING STEEL

(TYP.) (BY CL&P)

TO BE RELOCATED

EXIST. UTILITY POLE

8" CONCRETE PAVEMENT

2" HMA PAVEMENT OVER

EL. 130.82

LOW CHORD

CONCRETE DECK

BRIDGE WITH COMPOSITE

PROPOSED WEATHERING STEEL

EL. 130.8|

CHANNEL BED (SURVEY)

APPROX. EXIST.

UTILIZING FORMLINERS

ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT

JOINT

1" EXPANSION

2

(T

YP.)

2’-8"

RECONSTRUCTION

FULL DEPTH HMA PAVEMENT

COLOR BROWN

ANODIZED TO

(HANDRAIL)

METAL BRIDGE RAIL

(TYP.)

ROADWAY

PROPOSED

ANODIZED TO COLOR BROWN

METAL BRIDGE RAIL (HANDRAIL)

GRANITE CURB

BORING B1)

EL. 124.1 (BASED ON

APPROX. TOP OF ROCK,

BORING B2)

EL. 123.5 (BASED ON


BORING B3)

EL. 121.4 (BASED ON


BORING LOCATION

DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC

LEGEND

B1

B2

B3

STRUCTURE TYPE STUDY

DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SKETCH NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

SCALE AS NOTED

10/6/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:


...\SB_MSH_056_0299_GPN-ALT1.dgnPlotted Date:

- -

-

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - -

- - -

- - -

- - - -



OVER BYRAM RIVER

GREENWICH 56-299

} BAILIWICK ROAD

36’-6"|

SCALE: �" = 1’-0"

SCALE: 1" = 10’

GENERAL PLAN ANDELEVATION-ALTERNATIVE 2

T.STRNAD/S.ERDAS

A.SESHADRI

38’-0"|

9"

3"

LANE

11’-0"

LANE

11’-0"

�"/FT �"/FT

3"

1’-6" 9"

(TYP.)

REINFORCEMENT

DRILL AND GROUT

(TYP.)

FACING

MASONRY

(TYP.)

WALL

SPANDREL

P.A.G.

ROAD

} BAILIWICK

HEADWALL 1

WINGWALL 3A

2’-6"

LINE

CURB

LINE

CURB

HEADWALL 2

WINGWALL 3BTO COLOR BROWN (TYP.)

GALVANIZED & SHOP PAINTED


RIVER

BYRAM

SCALE: 1" = 10’

GENERAL PLAN

WINGWALL 1B

20’-9�"

33’-8�"

WINGWALL 2B

15’-11"

SPANDREL WALL (ELEVATION VARIES)

WATERLINE

ORDINARY HIGH

EL. TBD (TYP.)

BOTTOM OF FOOTING,

PROPOSED GRADE

(TYP.)

EL. 120.61

SOUTH ELEVATION

PROPOSED ROADWAY

(TYP.)

STANDARD RIPRAPEL. TBD

CUT-OFF WALL

(TYP.)

MASONRY FACING

TO COLOR BROWN (TYP.)

GALVANIZED & SHOP PAINTED


(VARIES)

3’-0" MIN.

SHLD

3’-0"7"

CURBING

8"X16" SLOPED GRANITE

SLAB (TYP.)

1’-0" MOMENT

(THICKNESS VARIES)

GRANULAR FILL

CROSS SECTION

& EXTRADOS

ARCH INTRADOS

REPAIR EXISTING

(TYP.)

ANODIZED TO COLOR BROWN

METAL BRIDGE RAIL (HANDRAIL)

CURBING

6" GRANITE

PAVEMENT

8" CONCRETE

VARIES)

ARCH SLAB (THICKNESS

WINGWALL 1B

WINGWALL 1AWINGWALL 2A

GRANITE CURBING

8"X16" SLOPED

WINGWALL 2B

RA

DIA

L

14’-0"

CURBING

6" GRANITE

(BY CL&P) (TYP.)

TO BE RELOCATED

EXIST. UTILITY POLE

OVER FLOW

TO COLOR BROWN

(HANDRAIL) ANODIZED

METAL BRIDGE RAIL

HEADWALL 2

21’-8"

TO COLOR BROWN

(HANDRAIL) ANODIZED

METAL BRIDGE RAIL

CHANNEL BED (SURVEY)

APPROX. EXIST.

ARCH INTRADOS & EXTRADOS

REPAIR EXISTING

(TYP.)

EL. 127.4|

EL. 130.8|

CONSTRUCTION

PROTECTED DURING

COMPANY) TO BE

(AQUARION WATER

EXISTING WATER MAIN

3

PAVERS (TYP.)

3" CONCRETE BLOCK

2’-8"

SHLD

3’-0" MIN.

2’-8"

RA

DIA

L

11’-0"

RA

DIA

L

11’-0"

2’-3"

MIN.

14’-0"

B1

B2

B3

SH

LD

3’-0"

SH

LD

3’-0"

MIN.

BL

OC

K

PA

VE

RS

3’-0"

MIN.

CO

NC

RE

TE

(TYP.)

WITH CONCRETE WINGWALLS

WINGWALLS & REPLACE

REMOVE EXISTING MASONRY

PAVEMENT

MOMENT SLAB & INSTALL CONCRETE

REPLACE SPANDREL WALL, CONSTRUCT

& REPAIR ARCH INTRADOS & EXTRADOS.

REMOVE FILL ABOVE EXISTING ARCH

ARCH BRIDGE NO. 05491

EXISTING CONCRETE

PAVEMENT

LIMITS OF 8" CONCRETE

104+00

TO STA.

BORING B1)

EL. 124.1 (BASED ON


BORING B2)

EL. 123.5 (BASED ON


BORING B3)

EL. 121.4 (BASED ON


INV. EL. 126.9

RELIEF CULVERTS

(2)-9’-0" X 4’-0" CONC.

BORING LOCATION

DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC

LEGEND

STRUCTURE STUDY REPORT

DESIGNER/DRAFTER:

CHECKED BY:


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SKETCH NO.



TOWN OF GREENWICH

SCALE AS NOTED

10/6/2011

BLOCK:

SIGNATURE/

DATE: APPROVED BY:


...\SB_MSH_056_0299_GPN-ALT2.dgnPlotted Date:

CULVERTS. BRIDGE NO. TBD

(2) 9’-0" X 4’-0" CONCRETE RELIEF

1’-6"

E 748231.49

N 578938.37

STA 105+41.46

PC

106+00

105+00

1301 in.

TW 10/16 i

n.

Q 8 in.

4 in. 8 in.

3 in.

3 in.

36 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

2 in.

4 in.

3 in.1 in.

32 in.

6x1 in.

TW 5 in.

8 in.

80134

CL&P

8134A

CL&P

WF 46

WF 47WF 30

WF 31

WF 26WF 1


SIGN

AT&TUGUF

CATVUGUF

CL&PUGUF

BIT. L.O.

BIT. L.O.

JPG-3 (I. P

IN)

No. 05491

BRIDGE

AQUARION W

ATER CO.

EXPOSED WATER M

AIN

Documents

REHABILIATION OF BRIDGE NO. 05491 BAILIWICK … · rehabiliation of bridge no. 05491 bailiwick road over the byram river greenwich, connecticut state project no. 56-299 town project