HomeMy WebLinkAboutCauseway Resource Protection Project Phase 1A Final Report~ , RECEIVED
~AFI 1 3 2007
$outhold To,tn Ciera March 5, 2007
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CA USEWA Y RESOURCE PROTECTION PROJECT
PHASE IA
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Raod
S°uth°lPd,ON~Xlll1977~
Prepared by':
· Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
(631) 669-0693
(631) 669-1599 (FAX)
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CA USEWA Y RESOURCE PROTECTION PROJECT
PHASE IA
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Title
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
3.0 METHODOLOGY
4.0 PROJECT EXECUTION AND FINDINGS
4.1 INITIAL iNVESTIGATIONS
4.2 UTILITIES
4.2.1 CABLEVISION
4.2.2 VERIZON
4.2.3 LIPA
4.3 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
4.4 BICYCLE PATH
4.5 KAYAK LAUNCH RAMP
4.6 COST ESTIMATE
4.7 SOURCES OF FUNDING
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 COST ESTIMATE
6.2 PROPOSED ROAD PROFILE DRAWING
6.3 PARTIAL UTILITY PLANS
6.4 PROJECT AERIAL VIEW
Page 1
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project scope includes the relocation of L1PA distribution, LIPA transmission,
Verizon and Cablevision cabling along Route 25 in Marion (Town of Southold)
underground. The project scope starts at the west side of the bridge over the Dam Pond
inlet, and extends to the utility pole just west of Pete Hill Rd.
The undergrounding will require conduit runs on both the north and south side of Rt 25 in
order to comply with LIPA's separation requirements for transmission and distribution
lines.
DEC is not likely to approve construction activities in or immediately adjacent to the
wetlands that exist along much of the project route. DOT has indicated that all trenching
within their paved shoulder will require tight sheeting, and the sheeting must be left in
place, cut immediately below grade when backfilling. This requirement alone has more
than doubled the cost of the overall project.
The utilities have been reluctant to provide firm costs associated with their respective
cable work, however we believe that the costs provided are a fair indication of the value
of the work to be performed.
No source of significant outside funding for the project has been identified. The current
cost estimate for the entire project is approximately $24 million. Of this amount, it is
anticipated that an optimistic estimate of currently identifiable grant funding is under
$100,000. This funding would primarily be related to efforts associated with the limited
bicycle path and kayak launch area improvements. The utilities have indicated no desire
to discount or absorb any portion of their costs. It is not expected that significant private
sources of funding would be available.
~ Page 2
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
The Town of Southold is seeking a means to address visual impacts and improvements to
the natural resources in the vicinity of the Causeway between East Marion and Orient.
This project is know as: THE NORTH FORK TRAIL, SCENIC BYWAY: RESOURCE
PROTECTION PROJECT, CAUSEWAY BETWEEN EAST MARION AND ORIENT
- PIN #: SB09.03.321.
The North Fork Trail Scenic Byway is designated a New York State Scenic Byway. It is
situated on the eastern end of Long Island, on a narrow peninsula known as the North
Fork. The North Fork is approximately Thirty (30) miles in length, and is less than one
hundred miles from New York City.
This project will implement a key element of the Corridor Management Plan that was
submitted during the nomination and designation process, and presented to the New York
State Scenic Byways Advisory Board in 2002. Southold proposes to develop a
comprehensive action plan using the results of work as described in this report. The
action plan may include acquisition of certain private properties or easements necessary
for implementation of the preferred plan as well as other management actions to be
determined by the Town of Southold. Property acquisition may include reconstruction of
the easterly end of the existing seawall to provide public access and minimize shoreline
erosion.
The project plans for the protection of the scenic, historical and natural resources adjacent
to the byway along the causeway in Orient, NY. This will enhance the traveler's
experience and prevent the degradation of various resources. This will be done through
the planning, development and construction of a major construction project to
underground the overhead utility wires, improve bicycle and kayak access, and to replace
and modify the asphalt outside the shoulder with native seaside vegetation along the
Orient, East Marion Causeway.
The purpose of the contract that resulted in this report is to analyze the cost and
feasibility of the proposed project which will allow the Town to decide upon possible
alternatives it can support and prepare the necessary support for project management,
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) compliance, permitting,
engineering, design and mitigation of impacts as deemed necessary.
Design services for the project will be required in two parts. (Phase lA and Phase lB).
The complete scope of work will include:
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
1. Identifying all project design parameters and environmental impacts with regard
to the Scenic Byway Resource Protection Project.
2. Identifying all potential project costs with regard to the Project
3. Identifying potential bidders and contractors capable o£performing the Scope of
Work and Construction requirements.
4. Identifying potential governmental and private funding sources for construction
implementation (Phase II)
The Town of Southold retained the services of Island Structures,
a
professional
design-
engineering firm, to assist in the Phase IA scope of work of the project.
The Phase IA Scope of Work consists of the following:
1. Develop a consensus with regard to project approach that will determine a course
of action that would be in the best interest of the Town of Southold;
2. Conduct a series of interviews with but not limited to the following agencies:
NYS Department of Transportation, LIPA, NYS DEC, US Army Corp of
Engineers, Cablevision, Verizon, NYS Department of State and various Town
Departments;
3. Obtain utility information, including identifying the locations and types of all
utilities within the project area, the ownership of these utilities and prepare an
inventory of same;
4. Develop a consensus on a conceptual plan to underground the overhead utilities,
improve the bikeway, and define kayak access to the harbor and filter storm water
runoff;
5. Verify data collected from all governmental agencies and ascertain the overall
Project Cost to complete the Phase II Construction Project;
6. Determine the need to apply for any required permits, including U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, DEC, SPDES, NYSDOT, Highway Work
Permits and any other required permits or approvals;
7. Identify potential realistic funding sources for implementation of the Phase I!
Construction Project;
8. Verify potential environmental impacts through and adjacent to the project area
where related or associated to the proposed project;
9. Where required by the Town of Southold, or as necessary for the performance of
the Services, coordinate, co, operate and consult with the Southold Transportation
Commission and the Town s Engineering Department or other Consultants as
directed by the Town of Southold.
10. Review, circulate and submit a written report and other project data to the New
York State Department of Transportation and the Town of'Southold to obtain the
necessary review, approval, and/or secure the approval and/or authorization to
Island Structures Engineering, PC
proceed. This written report shall outline all of the data gathered under Phase IA
of the project.
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
3.0 METHODOLOGY
A principal objective of this project is to take utility lines that are currently overhead in
the Orient-East Marion Causeway and place them underground. Early research and
discussions with the Town determined that the preferred routing would have been along
the north side of Route 24. Subsequently, as the result of LIPA separation requirements,
it was determined that trenching on both sides would be necessary. The north side of the
road was determined to be advantageous due to the following characteristics:
· The initially identified starting point of the existing lines is on this side of the
road.
· Most service connections are also on this side of the road.
· The potential for erosion and/or scouring of the topography during a severe storm
is lower since this side of the road is not directly exposed to the open bay.
· The potential impact on wetlands and other enviromnentally sensitive property
appeared less on this side of the road.
· Restoration costs within extensive paved or rip rapped areas are minimized.
Successful implementation of the Scope of Work required the active participation of the
utilities whose lines would be involved; these are LIPA, Venison and Cablevision. To
achieve this, early in the project, a series of meetings were set up with these utilities.
The purpose of these meetings was to:
· Determine the type and quantity of the existing lines for each utility
· Determine the requirements for duct bank, buried conduit or direct buried lines so
that trench, duct bank sizes, separation criteria and other physical construction
requirements could be established.
· General methods to be used for individual service taps from the new underground
feeders to the ultimate customers for each utility.
· Confirmation of the acceptability of the locations of the start and end points of the
underground lines.
Identification of any special requirements associated with the crossing of the inlet
bridge near the west end of the project
A list of questions and requests for information was given to the utilities prior to the
meetings to facilitate and expedite their efforts.
In parallel with this effort, contact was established With NYS DEC, NYS DOT and other
agencies to address the issues of permit requirements and approvals.
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
NYS DEC input was required to address the issues of distance of construction activities
fi'om wetlands and other enviromnentally sensitive areas.
NYS DOT input was required to address required distances and easements from the
existing and final roadway, as well as any issues associated with the placement along,
attached to, or near the bridge at the west end of the causeway. Roadway lighting
requirements were also investigated.
Army Corps of Engineers input was required to address issues associated with
construction near open bodies of water.
The NYS Department of State and The NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation were contacted to determine what assistance and concerns they would have
with respect to the project as well as to pursue potential sources of funding.
In addition to the above, numerous site visits were conducted to familiarize us with the
project, take measurements and confirm information shown on drawings received from
several utilities and agencies.
Once the data gathering was completed a cost estimate was prepared for the
implementation of the project. The results of the findings and the cost estimate are
discussed in the remaining sections of this report.
~ Page 7
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
4.0 PROJECT EXECUTION AND FINDINGS
4.1 INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Initial investigations included site visits and a walk-down of the project route. It was
determined that four utilities were involved in the area: LIPA, Keyspan, Verizon and
Cablevision.
LIPA and Keyspan were contacted together, and it was determined that Keyspan had an
underground natural gas main in the route. It was also determined that this gas line
would not be relocated. LIPA's facilities included both transmission and distribution.
Meetings were held with representatives in order to determine exactly what facilities
already exist, and what additional facilities would need to be incorporated int,o the
proposed underground system. It was determined at an early stage that LIPA s
transmission and distribution separation requirements would dictate that discreet
trenches, located on opposite sides of the roadway, would be required.
Cablevision and Verizon were similarly contacted and ensuing meetings defined both
their existing facilities and needs for the underground system.
Requests for NYS DOT drawing files along the proposed route were also requested, for
use in determining the extents of right-of ways and the other underground features that
exist along the proposed route.
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
4.2 UTILITIES
Many discussions were held with representatives of all three utilities. Cooperation and
willingness to provide infoImation varied with Cablevision providing a fairly good
estimate of their costs and the other two providing at best high level estimates with very
little written backup and detail. We were able to determine the overall needs of the three
utilities in order to size the trench and quantify the type and number of conduits required
to install all their cables. A drawing indicating the results is provided in the Appendix.
4.2.1 Cablevision ,
Meetings were held at Cablevision s offices in Port Jefferson with Mr. David
Cervone, Long Island East Construction Manager. Cablevision provided an estimate
for converting the existing facilities between East Marion and Orient of $120,000
with a number of conditions as follows.
Southold Town or their agents would obtain all permits for construction at no
cost to Cablevision
· Southold Town or their agents would open the trench for Cablevision at no
cost ,,
· Southold Town or their agent would place two cables in 1-1/2 conduits
(cable supplied by Cablevision) along with 2 empty 1-i/2" conduits (total of
four conduits to be supplied by the Town, after their i.,n, stallation to become the
property of Cablevision) in the trench,at a depth of 30 of cover over the
conduits and place warning tape at 12 above the conduits at no cost to
Cablevision.
o The Town ~vill place 16 pull boxes and 8 manholes for Cablevision (pull
boxes to be supplied by Cablevision, manholes by Town), once pull boxes and
manholes are installed to become the property of Cablevision).
· Cablevision would remove the existing aerial lines, once underground
construction is complete and activated, at Cablevision's cost.
· Cablevision is a Non-Union contractor and all Cablevision labor may be
subcontracted to a non-union contractor.
· System mapping would be supplied when requested once project moves
forward to verify number of existing cables, customer laterals and start and
end point poles.
It is obvious that this relatively low cost from Cablevision assumed that most of the
installation of the infrastructure for their cables would be included in the cost of work
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
provided under a separated contract to be performed directly for the Town. All
Cablevision would provide are the cables themselves some pull boxes (minor cost) and
the labor to hook up the customers and remove the existing overhead cables.
Cablevision did not offer to discount or share in any of the costs for the project.
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
4.2.2 Verizon
Several meetings and discussions were held with Verizon engineering personnel. The
objectives of the project were discussed in detail. At the end of the day Verizon
provided an estimate of $2,575,000 "...for future budgeting purposes" only. This did
not include any directional drilling under the bridge. They also estimated about an
additional $315,000 of shared costs between the three utilities for miscellaneous costs
associated with the directional drilling activities such as dewatering, road signs and
traffic control etc. These estimated shared costs are covered in the quantity takeoff
and estimate provided for the "Bridge Reach Undergrounding" in the Appendix.
Their total cost proposal of $2,575,000 was comprised of $1,590,000 for cost of new
conduit, and $985,000 for the cost of new and removed telephone facilities. Only the
direct cost of $985,000 was included in the pricing included in the Appendix, as the
other costs ($1,590,000) are included in the line item takeoffs and estimates for the
common trench work.
When pressed for details and backup for their estimate, Verizon did not provide any
other than the assumed number of cables and conduits that were required to be
provided. We also asked Verizon if they would be able to provide for some or all of
the costs associated with the project from internal sources and they replied that they
would not be able to do so due to corporate and PSC regulations.
~ ~1 Page l l
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
4.2.3 LIPA
The discussions with LIPA took place over a number of weeks, via telephone
conference calls and working meetings. LIPA made it clear all along that generally,
the cost of placing line underground would cause it to raise rates, so they have been
reluctant to do so.
It was explained to LIPA that the intent of the project was for all utilities to share the
cost as much as possible by performing certain tasks in a cooperative maturer, such as
digging a common trench. Another approach discussed was to have all the work
associated with their own lines done under their direct supervision, either by their
own force account labor or their own contractors. In order to limit the c?,sts incurred
by the utilities another approach would be to have the Town of Southold s contractors
execute all strictly non-utility related tasks. The work would have to be done to the
utility companies' construction specification requirements. This approach had some
buy in from LIPA and the other utilities, but LIPA was reluctant to provide a breakout
cost under such a scenario. As such, the LIPA estimate that was provided
($7,400,000) w,a,s discounted in the final cost estimate included in the Appendix to
account for the common trench by others" concept.
A significant amount of time was spent with LIPA understanding the current
configuration of the existing lines since there are a number of different voltage levels
being carried across the causeway that are classified as transmission and distribution
voltages.
LIPA did provide us with good information on the existing lines including detailed
drawings of the existing lines. Other subjects discussed with LIPA included the
criteria for separation between their own Iines at different voltage levels, as well as
separation requirements from other utilities cables. This allowed us to come up with
an overall requirement for the quantity and size of duct banks and conduits required,
the number of manholes required, the maximum pulling distances and other criteria.
A drawing indicating the results is provided in the Appendix.
As mentioned above, LIPA provided a verbal estimate to underground their lines of
$7,400,000 and committed to give us a written description of what was included in
the scope of work for such an estimate. The written description of requirements was
received, however the estimate has only been provided verbally.
~~ Pagel2
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
4.3 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Interface with governmental agencies revolved primarily around the New York State
Department of Enviromnental Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Department
of Transportation. Proximity to navigable waters also places the United States Army
Corp of Engineers (Army Corp) in a review position, however the Army Corp is expected
to have no objection to the proposed project, as there are no direct impacts expected to
the navigable waterways. ,
The project is located along a narrow reach of Long Island s north fork, where it is
bounded by the Long Island Sound to the north, and Peconic Bay to the south. The
easternmost portion of the project traverses a small inlet from Peconic Bay to Dam Pond.
The state highway traverses this inlet with reinforced concrete bridge, rebuilt in the
nineties. The south side abutments for the bridge are armored with rip rap. The north
side abutments slope toward Dam Pond.
The project involves significant environmental issues. The impact of these
enviroarnental restrictions, when juxtaposed with the NYS DOT requirements pose the
most significant cost impact to the project.
The western extent of the project is i,mmediately adjacent to the south shore of Dam Pond
for a distance of approximately 2000 . This area has wetlands all tbe way up to and
encroaching in the DOT right of way. For all practical purposes there is virtual no
constructible area north of the road shoulder that would not be in or abut the wetlands.
highway paved over as a shoulder, with an
The
south
side
of the
is
widened
accompanying concrete wall and rip rap armoring along the shore of Peconic Bay. At the
eastern end of this widened and rip rapped area, a small extent of natural sand beach lies
immediately along the roadway. This area has been subject to repeated shoreline erosion,
and is the object of a current DOT project in the plarming stages for additional erosion
protection. This area has repeatedly scoured to a point where the roadway has been in
jeopardy. DEC and DOT are currently in consultation regarding possible solutions to this
problem. Consideration is being given to extending the concrete wall and rip rap for a
distance further to the east, where the beach widens and is not as proximate to the
roadway. Portions of this remediation will likely impact private property owned in
conjunction with the lots on the north side of the highway. DEC and DOT are still
reviewing alternatives. Until such remediation is undertaken, the area continues to be
replenished with additional native dredged material provided by the Orient Ferry from its
dock area.
~~ Pagel3
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
Further to the east of the existing widened shoulder and rip rap, the roadway curves
slightly to the north and runs al,o, ng the north side of an extensive wetland area. This area
extends for approximately 4000 , with wetland ponding, flora and fauna extending
typically within several feet of the highway shoulder. The north side of roadway in this
area contains some municipal bayfront beach property and numerous private residential
properties.
Further east yet, the south side of the roadway abuts open farmland and several isolated
businesses. The north side continues to about individual residential lots.
Ms. Karen (Darcy) Graulich, the regional director for DEC, has reviewed the proposed
project scope and indicated that construction within the wetlands areas would not be
considered for approval. Some relaxation of construction setback requirements from
wetlands may be considered if both a compelling need and significant sediment and
erosion control measures were implemented to protect the adjacent wetlands. The result
of these conditions is to effectively dictate that the excavations for underground utilities
lie within the paved shoulder of the roadway in all areas proximate to wetlands. This
category includes most of the project. More specifically, this constitutes the western-
most 2000 ft of the north side trenching, as ~vell as the eastern-most 4500 ft of the
southside trenching.
trenching work and virtually all of the manhole excavations are expected to
Most
of the
be performed to depths at or below the normal ground water table. This not only poses
stability prob,!ems and increased excavation and backfill costs, but will also necessitate
dewatering. Open cut" dewatering involving pumping from the bottom of the
excavation is not expected to be viable. The soils to be encountered are expected to be of
a fine to coarse sand with some gravel. Such a system in this material fosters both the
removal of fines in the subsurface strata, and results in a high potential for trench bottom
"blowout". Linear well points may be employed to address these concerns. The
dewatering may not need to be operational continuously (i.e. during off-shift hours),
however it will most likely be required to some extent through,o, ut the construction term.
Proper control of flow rates, prevention of excavation bottom blow out" and best
management practices for stilling and silt removal will be required. With such controls in
place, the work should be permittable, however the costs of such are not insignificant.
Discharge permits will be required.
The DEC requirements have forced the excavations into the areas within the paved
shoulder. DOT (primary contact: Mark Wolfgang) has reviewed this proposed trenching
schematic design and determined that they would not consider such a proposal unless
tight sheeting were installed at all such locations in or immediately proximate to the
shoulder. DOT has further indicated that such tight sheeting would be required to be
Report No. 2005-128-Rpt-O1 Page 14
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West lslip, NY 1 I795
abandoned in place and would not be permitted to be removed after backfilling. It
should also be noted that DOT standards provide that all underground utility work shall
be at the edge of the right-of-way unless a special exception is granted. As DEC has
precluded this possibility because of wetland infringement, the project is left in the
unfortunate position of having to account for rather costly conditions of permitting.
Even with this condition, DOT still reserves the right to impose additional conditions on
the construction, so as to preclude potential damage to the adjacent traveled roadway
surface. The imposition of the requirement for such abandoned in place sheeting for all
shoulder trenching is significant. It has the ultimate effect of potentially doubling the
cost of the work. State Regulations, specifically 17NYCRR Part 131 and Section 2.01 of
the Requirements for the Design and Construction o,f Underground Utility Installations
within the State Highway Right-of Way, states that no open cuts will be allowed unless
no other means is feasible. The increased cost of alternative m,,ethods shall not be
considered as sufficient justification for open cut excavations. 17NYCRR Part
131.8a(2) also dictates that ail underground facilities must also be located outside the
shoulder, next to the edge of the right-of-way, unless a specific exception is granted.
DOT has expressed a general reluctance ~vith respect to the proposed work in the
shoulder, and it is generally felt that they would be unlikely to relax the costly sheeting
requirement as a condition of permitting
DOT s roadway and bridge drawings were also obtained through a freedom of
.
information request. These documents indicate that the bridge at the west end of the
project was reconstructed in the nineties. The construction documents indicate that 2
conduits were embedded in the concrete construction to accommodate the LIPA
underground I3.8 kV transmission line and the existing gas main. The electrical conduit
can be reused for one (1) of the four (4) required underground conduits to be installed for
distribution.
DOT will not permit the attachment of conduits to the exterior of the bridge structure.
This will require that these conduits be directional drilled, bored or jacked under the
bridge structure. DOT also has significant restrictions with respect to the proximity of
jacking and receiving pits to the paved roadway. The proposed work will not be able to
comply with these requirements due to limitations of real estate in the area of these pits.
DOT will have review authority over the design and installation of these pits, and it
should be assumed that their requirements will be stringent at best.
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise High~vay
West ][slip, NY 11795
4.4 BICYCLE PATH
The project scope includes the implementation of improvements in the use of the
causeway area for bicycling. The narrow public areas adjacent to the roadway, the close
proximity of the wetlands along much of the route and the private property ownership of
other areas largely precludes the establishment of discreet separated bicycle path in all
but one location. This isolated location is the area of the old highway alignment, where it
diverges along the north side of the current roadway for a distance of approximately 1000
ft. in the middle of the project. This former roadway alignment could be utilized, with
some minor clearing and pathway paving for a separated bicycle path. The widened
shoulder area of the causeway, located at the western end of the project can easily
accommodate a separated use designated bicycle path marked along the extreme south
edge of the widened shoulder. Portions of this widened shoulder could conceivably also
be re-landscaped to eliminate some of the paving, in lieu of more environmentally
pleasing plantings. In these isolated areas where the shoulder is ,,vide enough to
accommodate this, the elimination of the need for costly sheet piling might be realized.
The potential cost benefit of this approach could be as much as several hundred thousand
dollars. In most other areas, a simple marked bicycle path along the shoulder is the only
accommodation feasible.
Bicycle path design guidelines for such bicycle path marking call for a 5' wide marked
lane on the shoulder of the road. The existing shoulders are typically wide enough to
accommodate this. Only isolated areas where tums are made exist along the route,
particularly if the south side of the road is typically utilized. Two concerns, however,
arise from this acco ,m, modation along this roadway. The first involves the relative
proximity of such a designated" path along such a highly traveled and fast moving
highway. It would normally be our recommendation to site such a designated pathway
more remotely from such a roadway. Wetlands, narrow right-of way widths and private
property constraints preclude this. The second concern is that the project will involve the
removal of the current street lighting, when the poles on which the lights are mounted are
removed. This street lighting is not a DOT requirement, and DOT has indicated no
requireme, nt to reinstall such lighting. It is DOT feeling that the lighting was placed at
the Town s request. Once again, the designation of a bicycle path along such an unlit
highway gives rise to safety concerns as well.
Report No. 2005-128-Rpt-O1 Page 16
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 1 I795
4.5 KAYAK ACCESS
Several locations within the project site boundaries were inspected for use as an
improved kayak launch area. These included the south side of the causeway at the
widened shoulder areas both just east of the Dam Pond inlet and bridge, and at the eastem
end of the widened shoulder area further east from this inlet. The requirements for such
an improved launch site are not severe, however, they do include the ability to park in
close proximity to the launch area, the ability to portage the kayak conveniently to the
site from the parking, and a shoreliue that is relatively calm, shallow and only mildly
sloped.
The best area for parking exists at the west end of the project, adjacent to the bridge, on
the south side of the roadway. The waterfront in this area, however, is fully armored with
heavy stone rip rap making portaging from the roadway all but impractical. While better
launching access conditions exist on the north side of the roadway and on the south side
of the bridge along the west bank of the inlet, no adequate area for parking is available.
DOT had obtained a temporary easement on the property at the southwest side of the
bridge, during the bridge reconstruction, however this area does not remain in the DOT
right-of-way at this time, and is therefore under private ownership. Removal of the rip
rap on the south side, to create a convenient portaging path, is not feasible and would not
be considered by DOT.
The eastern end of the widened shoulder, approximately 2000' further east from the
bridge site, is immediately adjacent to the open sand beachfront. This location is at the
eastern terminus of the concrete seawall and riprap shoreline armoring. This site is also
the location ora current project feasibility study and schematic design by DOT to
eliminate the scouring problems associated with the sandy beachfront close to the road.
DOT has indicated that it most likely will try to permit and install a continuation of the
concrete seawall, along with some attendant riprap installation. It was suggested that the
new reach of sea~valI could possibly be offset several feet either north or south of the
existing wall, to create a walk through area where a or shallow could be
ramp
steps
installed to gain access to the sandy beach to the east. This would have to be
incorporated into the yet undefined DOT improvements for this area. Both this plan and
DOT's schematic approaches involve potential infringement on private property owned
in conjunction with the three (3) lots on the north side of the road. Appropriate further
development of this location for a kayak launch site will require coordination with DOT
as they continue to develop their scour protection plan.
potential a kayak launch ramp is on Dam Pond, in the Dam
An
alternate
location
for
Pond Maritime Reserve. The most appropriate location would be along the west side of
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
the pond. Vehicle access limitations to this area preclude parking close to any such ramp
site, however, and this is would create a significant deterrent to such usage. Extending
automobile access to a launch site would be inappropriate in such a preserve, as it is felt
the intrusiveness of such vehicle traffic would outweigh the potential benefit of the
launch site.
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
4.6 COST ESTIMATE
Included with this report is a detailed cost estimate. The estimate is based on 2007
dollars and should be escalated accordingly. The underlying construction approach for
the estimate is that the Town would provide all of the civil work involved in the
establishment of underground conduit runs for use by the various utilities. In so doing,
these costs would be assumed once for all utilities, particularly on the north side where
LIPA, Verizon and Cablevision must all locate their cables. The utility responsibility
would lie in the actual cable installation within pre-installed underground conduits,
terminations, service connections and general oversight of the To~vn's work to ensure
compliance with utility standards.
The estimates provided by the utilities have been adjusted where necessary to account for
the common trench work to be performed directly by the Town.
By far the most costly aspect of the project is the provision of the tight sheeting for most
of the project length.' This requirement arises out of the combined regulations of DEC
and DOT as noted above. Initial utility budget estimates for performing the work
independently did not include this costly requirement, as their schematic construction
estimates did not fully explore the regulatory restrictions of the specific area. The total
installed cost, as indicated in the attached spreadsheet is $24 million. Of this amount,
approximately $14 million is directly attributable to tight sheeting installation for
roadway protection. A conceptual scheme involving the removal of asphalt shoulder
paving, and re-vegetation along approximately I000 feet of the widened shoulder area
could reduce the costs by several hundred thousand dollars as the result of the potential
elimination of the sheeting requirement in this area.
Report No. 2005-128-Rpt-O1 Page 19
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
4.7 SOURCES OF FUNDING
Several of funding where investigated. These included utility contributions to the
sources
effort, governmental grant programs and private fund raising. Of all of the sources
investigated, none were optimistic or significant with respect to ameliorating the costs of
the project.
Each of the utilities was approached with a request to review their costs with a mind to
discounting such costs. The potential benefits of increased reliability, public relations,
environmental condition improvement and future capacity were raised.
In each case, the utilities indicated a disagreement with the basic tenet that reliability
would necessarily be increased as a result of undergrounding effort. Although
underground utilities are not subject to the same effects of high winds and falling
branches, they are more susceptible to problems resulting from water table intrusion and
potential storm breaching of this narrow spit of land between Peconic Bay and the Sound
during a major storm. Both normal maintenance, and post storm damage repairs also
have the potential for being considerably more costly on such underground systems,
particularly if the area is breached in a storm. Such repairs can also be considerably more
time consuming as well, resulting in longer outages.
Although the project would result in a public relations benefit from those individuals who
live and/or visit the areas, each of the utilities were also quick to point out that any costs
incurred would also be subject to scrutiny by the ratepayers, not all of whom may feel
such costs are justified from a cost/benefit perspective. This is often compounded by the
"why not in my area instead" attitude regarding undergrounding.
The cun'ent managements of Verizon and Cablevision indicated no desire to underwrite
any portion of the costs. LIPA, similarly indicated no desire to discount any of its costs,
and has more recently become even more cautious about unnecessary expenditures in
light of its proposed purchase by National Grid, and the recent change in upper
management.
Contacts with governmental agencies included the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) and the New York State Department
of State. Carolyn Casey, of N YSOPRHP indicated that of all the work proposed, only a
relatively small amount of grant money might be available for the kayak launch area.
Even this was tenuous at best. She did not feel any funds would be made available for
the general undergrounding, and further noted that the bicycle path costs would not be
fundable if the work were done in the roadway or sidewalk areas. It is likely that the
~~ Page20
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
costs associated with grant funding application from NYSOPRFiP for this project would
outweigh the ultimate grant.
The New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources has several
programs available that have at least a limited potential for being adapted to portions of
this work. The range of funding, here again, however, will be extremely limited from a
percentage of overall project cost perspective. Funding through grants from programs
such as the Waterfront Revitalization Program, Quality Communities Grant Program,
Land and Water Conservation Fund were investigated. None of the programs have a
significant track record (if any) of applying grant funds to a project such as this, with the
exception of the bicycle path and kayak ramp aspects. It is unlikely that funding on the
order of magnitude of a significant percentage of the project cost would be forthcoming.
Contact was made with a prominent private fund raising firm, M3 Development, to
determine the potential for private funds. It was the opinion of M3 that the potential was
limited, and that any expectation for funding in excess of potentially tens of thousands of
dollars was unrealistic.
~ Page21
Island Structures Engineering, PC
325 Sunrise Highway
West Islip, NY 11795
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project scope includes the relocation of LIPA distribution, LIPA transmission,
Verizon and Cablevision cabling underground. The project scope starts at the west side
of the bridge over the Dam Pond inlet, and extends to the utility pole just west of Pete
Hill Rd.
The undergrounding will require conduit runs on both the north and south side of Rt 25 in
order to comply with LIPA's separation requirements for transmission and distribution
lines.
DEC is not likely to approve construction activities in or immediately adjacent to the
wetlands that exist along much of the project route. DOT has indicated that all trenching
within their paved shoulder will require tight sheeting, and' the sheeting must be left in
place, cut immediately below grade when backfilling. This requirement alone has more
than doubled the cost of the overall project. .
The utilities have been reluctant to provide firm costs associated with their respective
cable work, however we believe that the costs provided are a fair indication of the value
of the work to be performed.
No source of significant funding for the project has been identified. The current cost
estimate for the entire project is approximately $24 million. Of this amount, it is
anticipated that an optimistic estimate of currently identifiable grant funding is under
$100,000. This funding would primarily be related to efforts associated with the limited
bicycle path and kayak launch area improvements. The utilities have indicated no desire
to discount or absorb any portion of their costs. It is not expected that significant private
sources of funding would be available.
~~ Page22
Island Structures Engineering, PC
6.0 APPENDICES
Page 23
Island Structures Engineering, PC
6.1 COST ESTIMATE
Report No. 2005-128-Rpt-O1 Page 24
:)rient Causeway Scenic Byways Project
~chemaEc Design Cost Estimate:
I
I
MATERIALS LABOR & EQUIPMENT ;OMBINED LABOR & MATERIAL EXTENDED REMARKS
TASK Quan Units Unit Price, Extension Quart Units Liner Price Extensiol Quart Units
TemporaryPole Guying Where Req'd 10 each $1 0~1 $10,000 $10,000
Pdmar~ Trenching-North Side (8500 If)
For LIPA:
4-6" Dia (Sch 40 PVC) 34000 $1
For Cablevi$ion I
~Warning Tape I 85 :If $25 $2,12~ $2,125
For LIPA:
-- Distdbuliol~ PuIlir~.~ Ma,holes (C M--0) [ 15lee $510001 $75.000 375.000
Dislribution Se~ice Handholes
Transmission Pulling Manholes (CM 11-~
For Verizon:
$50,000
~P ulling Manholes (Ins(all Only)
Dewa~tedng Removals
BackPlI.Manholes and Handholes
Service Entrance Trenching (470~0 Ir*)
Brfdge Reach Underg~rounding (nodh side):
Pavement Removals
Approach and Receivin(
Pit Excavation
Trench Dewalering Selu~p
Trench Dewatedng-OPeration
Trench Dewaterfng-Removars
Directional Drilling
Ear LIPA:
4-4" Die
For Cablevision
2-Ceble-in-cand uil (install only)
Backfill Pit
Approach a~nd Receivin,
Pit Excavation
Trench Dewa~
Trench Dewatedng Operation
LIPA Underg~rOund Removals
Verizon Aerial Removals
Cablevlsion Aerial Removals
Exi~sting Pole Removal
cable cost below
C~ble cost below
cable work below
cable cost below
cable cost below
Pavemenl/Shoulder As~phall Restoration
General Site Restoration
Private Properly Restoration allow I $500001 $50,000 $50,00( __
~icycle Palh Markings -- - ! 8500 if , $5' $42,500 $42,50(
Kayak Launch Ramp Access Amenities - --
Is $10,000 $10,000 $10,00(
Subtotal
General Contract O&P (15%) $2,404,90E
$22,042,5~5 --
Construction Management (4%)
4 % $22,042,565 $881,703 $881,703
Misc Permitting
$25,000[ ~$25,00£ $25,000
I
Island Structures Engineering, PC
3W2 ess tS ~sTir~ ~q~ i glhl~5Y
6.2 PR POSED ROAD PROFILE DRAWING
Report No. 2005-128-Rpt-O1
Page 25
NORTH
(TYPICAL UJESTEP-.N SECTION)
NORTH
(TYPICAL EASTERN $ECTION)
P~POSED ROAD
~ILE
50UTHOLD t.~DE~ROUND UTILITIES
LONG tSLAND, NE~J ¥0~
ISLAND STRUCTURES ENGINEERING, P.C.
[ PR-1
/
/
/
/
/
A~A PLAN - PART C~NE
ISLAND STRUCTURES ENGINEERING, P.C,
Island Structures Engineering, PC
6.3 PARITAL UTILITY PLANS
·
Page 26
~. 0g
AP. EA PL~'~ - pA~T TWP. EE
ISLAND STRUCTURES ENGtNEEF~ING, P.C.
0
0
A~EA I~L~ - pAInT F~
ISLAND STRUCTURES ENGINEERING, P.C.
A4
/
,/
PARTIAL UTILfTT PLAN
AREA ONE
5OUTHOLD UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES
LON~ I~LAND, NE~I TOR~
/ /
/
/
/
/
PARTIAL UTILITY PLAN
",REA 2
PP'gJ~T 50~JTNOLD UNDEF~RO~JND UTILITIES
LCNG 15LANID, NE~II ¥0~
tSLAND STRUCTURES ENGINEERING, P.C.
UTILITIES
Island Structures Engineering, PC
6.4 PROJECT AERIAL VIEW
Page 2 7
Orient -
East Marion
Causeway
Project
Beginning
Project
Ending
Scale: 1" = 1,000'