Lawshee Run Culvert Replacement Feasibility Study

LAWSHEE RUN CULVERT REPLACEMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Jersey Shore Borough, Lycoming County, PA
Prepared for:
JERSEY SHORE BOROUGH
232 Smith Street
Jersey Shore, PA 17740
Prepared by:
LARSON DESIGN GROUP
1000 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 201
Williamsport, PA 17701
LDG Project No. 5049-098
August 2017
SUBMISSION QUALITY ASSURANCE
Prepared By: JTS Date: 7/19/2017
Checked By: KAB Date: 8/10/2017
QA/QC’d By: KAB/DEG Date: 8/11/2017

Location Maps
Executive Summary
Existing Structure Conditions Map
Project Description........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Site Location and Description .................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Permitting and Hydraulic Capacity Requirements..................................................................... 2
Existing Structure Condition......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 General Description of Existing Culvert .................................................................................... 4
2.2 Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch (Sta. 0+00 – Sta. 0+74.8) ............................................................. 4
2.3 Corrugated Metal Pipe (Sta. 0+74.8 – Sta. 3+09.3) ................................................................... 4
2.4 Stone Masonry Arch (Sta. 3+09.3 – Sta. 3+59.8) ...................................................................... 5
2.5 PennDOT Culvert Under Allegheny Street (Sta. 3+59.8 – Sta. 4+21.1) ................................... 6
2.6 Reinforced Box Culvert (Sta. 4+21.1 – Sta. 6+22.8) ................................................................. 6
2.7 Unreinforced Box Culvert Along Allegheny Street (Sta. 6+22.8 – Sta. 10+62.4) .................... 8
2.8 Unreinforced Box Culvert Below Mall Parking Lot (Sta. 6+62.4 – Sta. 11+80.0).................. 15
2.9 72” x 44” Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch Culvert (Sta. 11+80.0 – Sta. 12+19.0) ...................... 16
2.10 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 17
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study ................................................................................................................ 18
3.1 Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 19
3.2 Hydraulic Analysis................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Sediment Bed Load .................................................................................................................. 24
3.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 24
Culvert Replacement Options and Phasing Alternatives ............................................................................ 25
4.1 Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................. 26
4.2 Replacement and Phasing Options........................................................................................... 26

4.3 Additional Options Considered................................................................................................ 33
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 34
5.1 Feasibility Based on Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................. 35
5.2 Summary of Probable Replacement Costs ............................................................................... 37
5.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 38
Appendix
• Straight Line Diagram of Culvert ......................................................................................... A.2
• Option No. 1 .......................................................................................................................... A.4
• Option No. 2 .......................................................................................................................... A.9
• Option No. 3 ........................................................................................................................ A.14
• Option No. 4 ........................................................................................................................ A.19
• Option No. 5 ........................................................................................................................ A.21
• Option No. 6 ........................................................................................................................ A.23
• Option No. 7 ........................................................................................................................ A.25

PROJECT LOCATION
7.43" WIDE X 9.49" HIGH
PROJECT LOCATION MAP

Lawshee Run Culvert Replacement Feasibility Study
USGS Quadrangle Jersey Shore, PA
2
Drainage Area ± 0.92 mi
Lawshee Run Culvert

SITE LOCATION MAP
N
Jersey Shore Borough

Culvert Location
Culvert Conveying Lawshee Run
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This feasibility report is intended to provide an overview of alternatives for replacing the existing culvert that
conveys Lawshee Run in Jersey Shore Borough, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. This study investigates
feasible alternatives for the replacement of the existing structure with consideration to safety, hydraulics,
projected construction costs, impacts to private property, impacts to utilities, right-of-way requirements, and
maintenance and protection of traffic during construction. The study considers both phased construction and
full replacement and the costs associated with each option.
The study is intended to provide guidance to Jersey Shore Borough, PennDOT and Lycoming County
Planning in determining the best option for replacement and encumbering funding through the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) or other revenue sources.
In order to investigate alternatives for the study, task work completed included; a safety inspection of the
existing culvert and comparison to the previous safety inspection completed in 2011, preliminary hydrology
and hydraulic modeling to evaluate the existing culvert conditions and replacement options, investigation of
slip-lining portions of the existing structure in lieu of replacement, meeting with DEP to review their
requirements for the project, meeting with the Borough to understand their expectations of the project and
sediment bed load initial investigation.
Based on LDG’s meeting with Borough officials on May 2, 2017, safety is the most important of the criteria
used to evaluate replacement and phasing options. There are two areas of immediate concern based on their
structural condition. One area of concern is the 360 lineal feet from the inlet of the culvert to the PennDOT
owned culvert at Allegheny Street, which contains the 5 foot diameter corrugated metal pipe arch. The
second area of concern is approximately 440 feet in length of deteriorated concrete culvert located under the
sidewalk adjacent to Allegheny Street downstream of the Minit Mart. Based on their current condition, these
portions of the culvert are in serious condition and are most likely to fail. The portion of culvert adjacent to
Allegheny Street is more likely to have areas of localized failures, while failure of the 5 foot CMP would
likely result in a large length of the structure failing during a flood event which could have the potential to
damage adjacent properties and streets with flood waters and debris. The phasing options presented in this
report consider replacing these portions of the culvert first based on their existing structural condition.
Based on LDG’s meeting with PA DEP on April 18, 2017 the proposed structure does not necessarily have to
pass the 100-year storm event; however, the replacement structure will need to improve the overall
hydraulics from the existing conditions. All the replacement options presented in this report are able to
convey the 25-year design storm. Whereas there is an improvement over existing conditions as the existing
structure does not convey the 25-year storm. The structure is inlet controlled; therefore, immediate
improvements to the hydraulic performance is seen when the inlet of the existing structure is replaced.
Therefore, options that consider replacing the inlet of the structure during the initial construction phase offer
a hydraulic advantage over other options.
Economically, the options total probable cost estimates range from $4,800,000 to $6,100,000. Individual
Phase I probable costs range from $1,700,000 to 2,000,000. Options that consider replacing the structure on
an improved alignment have an advantage over others in terms of impacts to the Minit Mart gas station and
associated potential environmental impacts, but have the potential to have additional impacts on utilities
located under Allegheny Street and properties on the norther side of Allegheny Street. All options presented
are equal in terms of right-of way. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic; Options 1 through 3 would have
the least impacts since the existing alignment and size is maintained and the PennDOT owned culvert under
Allegheny Street would remain.
This report presents seven viable replacement options for the Lawshee Run culvert. The Borough can choose
any of these options based on available funding or other criteria deemed to be important during the selection
process.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
This feasibility report is intended to provide an overview of alternatives for replacing the existing culvert
that conveys Lawshee Run in Jersey Shore Borough, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. This study is a
result of a meeting held with PennDOT, Jersey Shore Borough, Lycoming County Planning, and Larson
Design Group (LDG) on June 20, 2016 to discuss the status of funding levels to replace the culvert
through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is the next step for the Borough to prepare
and plan for the replacement of the structure through the TIP.
This study investigates feasible options for the replacement of the existing structure with consideration to
safety, hydraulics, projected construction costs, impacts to private property, impacts to utilities, right-of-
way requirements, and maintenance and protection of traffic during construction. This study considers
both phased construction and full replacement and the costs associated with each option.
1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The existing structure is approximately 1219 feet in length with its inlet along Culvert Street and its outlet
below the Tiadaghton Mall. The Borough owns approximately 1163 feet of the structure with the
remaining portion located under Allegheny Street being owned by PennDOT.
The inlet of the structure is located immediately west of the intersection of Hill Street and Culvert Street
in Jersey Shore Borough, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The structure conveys Lawshee Run under
S.R. 3028 (Allegheny Street) and turns south east beneath the Minit Mart gas station, then parallels
Allegheny Street for approximately 440 feet before turning south beneath the Tiadaghton Mall entrance
and continuing for approximately 155 feet before it outlets. Allegheny Street is classified as a minor
arterial and has a legal right-of-way of 50 feet. The legal right-of-way for local roads within the project
site range from 20 feet to 40 feet. There are several residential buildings and commercial businesses that
are in close proximity to the structure. The culvert passes directly under residential driveways and the
parking lot for the Ye Old Print Shop PC along Culvert Street. The culvert passes directly under the gas
pumps at the Minit Mart, a porch for an apartment building, and the sidewalk in front of the entrance to
the Chinese Restaurant along Allegheny Street. The culvert also passes directly beneath the intersection
of Mount Pleasant Avenue and Allegheny Street as well as the entrance, exit and portion of the parking
lot for the Tiadaghton Mall.
There are several drainage structures and small pipes that outlet into the culvert throughout its length.
There are also utilities that are immediately adjacent to the structure and a utility pole that passes though
the top slab of the structure in front of the Tiadaghton Mall.
1.3 PERMITTING AND HYDRAULIC CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
LDG met with PA DEP to discuss the permit requirements for the project on April 18, 2017. LDG
discussed the condition, layout and hydraulic capacity of the existing structure with DEP. It was
determined that DEP would not require the replacement structure to pass the 100-year storm per The
Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 105, Subchapter D, Section 201(b). The replacement structure will
need to improve overall hydraulic performance at the site. During the meeting, it was also determined
that the invert of the structure would not need to be embedded below streambed given the stream
classification of Warm Water Fishery (WWF) and the length of the structure. At the time of the meeting,
DEP could not say what type of permit will be required for the project; however, it is possible that a DEP
waiver could be used for the project in accordance with the Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 105,
Subchapter A, Section 12(b)7 since the structure was built before July 1, 1979 and the drainage area is
less than 5 square miles.
2
EXISTING STRUCTURE
CONDITION
3
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CULVERT
LDG performed safety inspections of the culvert in July 2011 and February 2017. The condition of the
existing structure ranges from satisfactory to serious. The existing culvert is comprised of several
different structure types. The types include: corrugated metal pipe arch (CMP arch), corrugated metal
pipe (CMP), stone masonry arch, reinforced concrete box, and unreinforced concrete box.
The condition of each section of the structure is described below. Please see the Straight Line Diagram
(SLD) in Appendix A for stationing and additional details.
2.2 70”± x 35”± CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ARCH (Sta. 0+00 – Sta. 0+74.8)
The inlet of the Lawshee Run Culvert is comprised of a 70” x 35” CMP arch with gabion headwalls and
wingwalls and a debris gate located upstream from the structure. The culvert’s hydraulic capacity is
reduced at the inlet due to the infill of sediment which restricts the hydraulic opening by approximately
40%. Visible portions of the pipe arch invert exhibit minor to moderate surface rusting. There is
localized significant deformation to the pipe arch at the inlet and moderate deformation at Station
0+19.75.00. There are also random areas of minor deformation throughout the length of the culvert. The
deformation at Station 0+19.75 is localized to the right side of the pipe with minor separation of the
segments in this area. This area coincides with a bituminous patch in the roadway above the culvert. The
overall condition of the inlet corrugated metal pipe arch is fair with localized areas in poor
condition.
Culvert Inlet Interior view of pipe arch
2.3 5’ DIAMETER CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (Sta. 0+74.8 – Sta. 3+09.3)

The 4.1’ long transition between the CMP arch and the 5’ diameter CMP is constructed of dry laid stone
on the left and concrete blocks on the right. The 5’ diameter pipe exhibits a 2’ long by 1’ high area of
100% section loss on the right side at the inlet of the pipe. The section loss has caused approximately 6”
of deformation to the inlet of the pipe measured vertically and a large void in the backfill that is up to 3’
deep. The invert of the pipe exhibits both widespread and localized areas of 100% section loss and severe
deterioration throughout the bottom 1/3 of the pipe. The deterioration runs the entire length of the pipe.
The top of the pipe is crushed downward approximately 1’ at a joint located at Station 2+24.7. There is a
4.9’ long stone masonry transition that connects the 5’ diameter corrugated metal pipe to the downstream
stone masonry arch culvert. There are no loose or missing stones in the transition. Overall, the
corrugated metal pipe is in serious condition.
4
Crushed area 100% Section Loss in Pipe Invert
Looking Stations Ahead along Culvert Street Ye Old Print Shoppe Parking
2.4 9’± x 4’± STONE MASONRY ARCH (Sta. 3+09.3 – Sta. 3+59.8)
The stone arch exhibits missing mortar at the waterline and a few isolated missing stones. Stones are
generally only missing from the surface layer of the arch; however, there is an isolated area located
approximately 7.25’ from the inlet of the arch near a pipe outlet where there is a void that goes back to the
fill around the arch. The stone arch transitions to the state-owned cast in place box culvert. The skewed
transition is comprised of cast in place concrete with the top slab of the transition being supported by
embedded transverse steel rail beams. The stone masonry arch and transition to the state-owned
culvert is in overall satisfactory condition.
5
Transition to Stone Masonry Arch Voids in Stone Masonry Arch
2.5 PENNDOT CULVERT UNDER ALLEGHENY STREET (Sta. 3+59.8 – Sta. 4+21.1)
The section of culvert that is downstream of the stone arch is a cast in place concrete culvert and is owned
by PennDOT. This portion of the culvert and its transition to the reinforced concrete box culvert was not
inspected by LDG.
2.6 7’± x 4’± REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT (Sta. 4+21.1 – Sta. 6+22.8)
This section runs under the property of a Minit Mart gas station. Part of the culvert is located directly
below the left concrete pad at the gas pumps. The vertical walls of the culvert typically exhibit hairline to
open horizontal cracks and isolated open vertical cracks. There are also random of large areas of heavy
deterioration. The top slab in this section of the culvert has a few random spalls with exposed and
corroded rebar as well as isolated areas of delaminated concrete.
The top of the right vertical wall exhibits a 28’ long by 2’ high area of heavy spalling, longitudinal
cracking with heavy efflorescence staining, and exposed and corroded rebar starting at Station 4+40.8.
Some of the rebar exhibits 100% section loss. There is a 1.5’ high by 16’ long area of severe concrete
deterioration at the top of the wall starting at Station 5+38.3. The top 1/3 of the right wall exhibits
hairline longitudinal cracks as well as an open horizontal shear crack located 10” below the top slab. The
cracks are 34.5’ in length and begin at Station 5+64.3. A 1.5’ long by 1.5’ high triangular area of
deterioration is located 1.5’ upstream of Station 5+96.1. A pipe outlet is located at Station 6+04.8. There
is a 3’ wide by full height area of deterioration surrounding the pipe.
6
At the left wall, beginning at Station 4+40.8, there is an area of deterioration that tapers to an 1/8” wide
horizontal shear crack with a total length of 38’. There are several open horizontal cracks surrounding the
shear crack. There is a shear crack with a 1/4” maximum width and up to 1/8” of lateral displacement
that begins at Station 5+75.3 at the top of the wall and ends near the bottom of the wall at station 5+98.8.
The shear crack terminates at a 1.5’ wide by full height area of deterioration located at the downstream
corner of the wall.
At Station 5+32.8, the top slab exhibits a 1’ diameter by 4” deep spall with exposed rebar. There is an
area of deterioration in the right side of the slab that is 1.5’ long by 10” wide by 8.5” deep. An open
crack extends from the deteriorated area and runs down the right wall, through the bottom slab and up the
left wall. The crack has a maximum width of 1/4”. This area is located below a steel plate adjacent to the
gas pumps of the Minit Mart.
The reinforced box culvert transitions to the unreinforced box culvert at Station 6+00.00. The skewed
transition is comprised of cast in place concrete with the top slab of the transition being supported by a
reinforced concrete header beam. The near left face of the header beam exhibits a diagonal hairline to
open shear crack that extends for approximately 2.2’. The crack extends for 4” along the underside of the
beam.
The overall condition of the cast in place reinforced box culvert is fair to poor. The transition from
the reinforced box section to the unreinforced box section is in satisfactory condition.
Looking Stations ahead across Allegheny Street Culvert Alignment under Minit Mart
7
2.7 7.8’± x 3.5’± UNREINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT ALONG ALLEGHENY
STREET (Sta. 6+22.8 – Sta. 10+62.4)
This portion of the culvert begins after the transition from the reinforced cast in place box and ends just
after the culvert turns downstream of the mall entrance. The top slab of the culvert typically consists of
unreinforced concrete with transverse railroad rail beams. The railroad rails are embedded in the concrete
throughout the culvert. The one exception to this is the top slab near Mount Pleasant Avenue where the
slab is reinforced and supported by the railroad rails. The floor slab of the culvert consists of a poured
unreinforced concrete invert. The walls are also composed of unreinforced concrete. In general, this
portion of the culvert is in poor to serious condition.
Due to the length of this section and the variations in deterioration, the culvert will be described in
different segments.
Culvert Station 6+22.8 to Station 7+82.4
The section of the culvert between the upstream transition and the Chinese restaurant is 159.6’ in length.
The right wall throughout this portion of the culvert typically exhibits areas of moderate honeycombing
and minor surface defects.
There is a 20” long by 9” high by 24” deep area of deterioration in the left wall located 6’ below the
upstream transition wall and the base course for Allegheny Street is now visible in this area; however,
there is no sign of distress noted. There is an open horizontal construction joint that starts at the upstream
transition wall and continues to the beginning of the sidewalk repair. There was a previous 10’ long
portion of settled sidewalk and deterioration in the left wall beginning at Station 6+22.8 was repaired in
2011. The repair consists of a new top slab and bearing walls on both the left and right sides and is in
good condition. This repair is identified as “2011 Sidewalk Repair” on the Straight-Line Diagram (See
Appendix A).
There are six holes in the top slab beginning approximately 6’ from the “2011 Sidewalk Repair” and
extending downstream for approximately 15’. The worst hole is 16” wide by 8” long and is covered with
a sign that has been attached to the top of the sidewalk with tap-con screws. The furthermost downstream
hole is adjacent to the parking lot for the apartment building located between the Chinese Restaurant and
the gas station.
The left wall starting at Stations 6+82.3 and 6+98.2 had previously failed and has been repaired. The
repairs are identified as “2011 Repair #5” and “2011 Repair #4” respectively in the Straight-Line
Diagram. There is a 1’ high area at the top of the left wall that has failed. Starting at Station 7+35.4 and
continuing downstream for approximately 7’. The deterioration extends 16” behind the transverse
sidewalk rail bearings and the base course for Allegheny Street is visible behind the deterioration in this
location. The left side of three transverse sidewalk rails have little to no support at this location. A
previous area of severe deterioration on the left wall starting at Station 7+80.4 was repaired in 2011. The
repair is identified as “2011 Repair #3” in the Straight-Line Diagram. The repair is approximately 28’ in
length and exhibits a few isolated hairline vertical cracks. There is moderate efflorescence exuding from
one of the cracks and at the interface of the existing jacket and the repair. The repair areas typically
exhibit a few isolated hairline cracks and are in overall good condition.
There is delaminated concrete in the top slab throughout the span beginning at manhole 4 and ending 21’
downstream. The right wall in this location is typical to its condition upstream. Between Stations 7+80.4
and 7+91.4, the top slab contains rebar which is exposed through the honeycombing and exhibits heavy
8
rust with minor section loss. There are two stacked concrete jackets along the left wall. Both jackets are
sound. The newer jacket on top exhibits a few hairline shrinkage cracks. The right wall has a 3/4 height
concrete jacket that exhibits a few hairline shrinkage cracks and a few areas of moderate honeycombing.
The top slab appears to bear on the original left wall; however, the original wall is not visible due to the
jackets. The visible portion of the original wall on the right side contains no cracks, spalls, or visible
deterioration.
Loss of bearing under transverse sidewalk beam Previous Repaired area
Sidewalk looking towards Minit Mart Holes in sidewalk below Minit Mart
Culvert Alignment Partially under Porch of Building Looking Stations Back Towards Restaurant
9
Mount Pleasant Avenue Crossing - Station 7+91.4 to Station 8+11.9:
The section of the culvert below Mount Pleasant Avenue is 20.5’ in length.
The concrete in the top slab under Mt. Pleasant Ave. is not visible due to plywood forms. Railroad rails
serve as the transverse beams in this area and support the slab. They typically exhibit moderate to heavy
rust with areas of minor section loss. There are several areas of sheet corrosion with advanced section
loss on top of the rails. The rails are 5” deep and are spaced between 4’ and 4.2’ on center. The ends of
the railroad rails are cut into the walls and are encased in grout.
The left wall exhibits no significant cracking or spalling. The right wall exhibits hairline map cracking
and a few random areas of minor deterioration throughout. There are also areas of deterioration along the
top of the wall. The concrete in the right wall exhibits areas of minor deterioration beginning at Station
7+97.9. There is a full height 1/16” wide diagonal crack in the original concrete. There is also a 1/32” to
1/16” wide horizontal crack that runs along the wall at mid-height. The partial height jacket in this area
exhibits a horizontal fracture at the top which tapers to an 1/8” wide crack and continues downstream.
There is minor displacement in the jacket along the crack. At Station 8+07.9, there is a transverse beam
that has lost 75% of its bearing due to the concrete being cut away for the installation of a drainage pipe.
The beam is embedded 5” into the original concrete and is located directly below the right wheel path of
Mt. Pleasant Avenue. There is moderate spalling at mid-height of the jacket beginning 6’ downstream of
the pipe.
The top of the top slab of the culvert in the travel way of Mt. Pleasant Avenue exhibits exposed aggregate
and numerous short open longitudinal cracks throughout. There are 1/16” wide longitudinal cracks that
appear to be located along the front face of the culvert walls. The cracks are concentrated in the
downstream portion of the roadway and all are within the travel way.
Tiadaghton Mall Exit Crossing Station - 8+11.9 to Station 8+37.4

The section of the culvert that is located at the Tiadaghton Mall exit is 25.5’ in length.
The concrete slab under the mall exit is supported by the railroad rails that are typical to those found
throughout the rest of the older portion of the culvert. They are encased in concrete and spaced 1’ on
center. The top slab exhibits moderate to heavy honeycombing with a few areas of heavy concrete
deterioration and delamination throughout.
There is a 1/2 height concrete jacket along the left wall. The jacket exhibits hairline horizontal cracking
with moderate efflorescence throughout. There is a minor hairline diagonal crack in the jacket located at
the end of a drain pipe just upstream of the mall exit. The original portion of the left wall above the
10
jacket contains moderate hairline map cracks and heavy to severe deterioration throughout beginning 15’
upstream from Station 8+26.9. The deterioration is typically 6” to 8” deep. There is a horizontal shear
crack located approximately 8” above the jacket. The wall above the crack is displaced 1” towards the
center of the culvert where the jacket ends at Station 8+27.4.
The half-height jacket along the right wall continues under the mall exit from Mt. Pleasant Avenue. The
jacket has moderate deterioration along the top and a 1/8” horizontal crack at mid-height which continues
from under Mt. Pleasant Avenue. The original concrete wall above the jacket exhibits hairline map
cracking and isolated areas of minor deterioration throughout. The 1/16” wide horizontal crack at mid-
height noted under Mt Pleasant Avenue also continues through the mall exit. There is moderate
deterioration typical along the top of the wall. The culvert widens at Station 8+27.4. The right wall
above the jacket at this location exhibits severe deterioration that is up to 12” deep. There is an open
vertical crack with heavy deterioration at the top of the wall near the end of the mall exit. The jacket is
fractured just below the deteriorated area. The previously mentioned horizontal cracks in the wall and
jacket end at the area of deterioration.
The top of the top slab in the travel way at the mall exit exhibits heavy to severe wear with large
aggregate exposed and open map cracking throughout. There are a few areas that have minor to moderate
surface deterioration. A bituminous patch adjacent to Allegheny Street runs along the top of the left
culvert wall.
Unreinforced Concrete Wall Spalled Areas (Typical)

The section of the culvert is 75’ in length and runs from the mall exit to the start of the previously failed
areas that were identified and repaired in 2011. This portion of the culvert has seen a moderate increase
in deterioration between the 2011 and 2017 inspections.
The top slab of the culvert exhibits moderate to heavy honeycombing with a few areas of heavy concrete
deterioration and delamination throughout. There is a 2” long by 6” wide hole in the middle of the top
slab located approximately 4’ upstream of the utility pole that is new since the 2011 inspection. There is
another hole located on the left side of the top slab adjacent to the utility pole. The hole is located 6”
behind the front face of the left wall and is 3” high by 10” long. The hole extends through the curb along
Allegheny Street and was not noted during the 2011 inspection.
The left wall exhibits areas of up to 10” deep deterioration and hairline to open map cracks throughout.
There are two shear cracks that confine fractured pieces of the wall. Several of the fractured wall pieces
11
are displaced 1 1/8” toward the center of the stream. There has been an 1/8” increase in lateral
displacement since last inspection. Beyond the utility pole, the concrete is fractured typical to the
upstream portion with 1/2” wide shear cracks and up to 1/2” of lateral displacement in the fractured
segments. At Station 8+57.4, the left wall exhibits up to 6” deep by full height heavy deterioration. The
depth of deterioration has increased by 1” since the 2011 inspection. There is one horizontal shear crack
that continues beyond the deteriorated area with up to 1/2” of displacement towards the center of the
culvert. There is heavy cracking and deterioration in the wall above the crack.
The right wall downstream of the mall exit exhibits hairline map cracking throughout. There is an 1/8”
wide horizontal crack near the top of the wall with random areas of deterioration along the crack. The
crack terminates at a full height vertical crack. There is heavy deterioration at the top and bottom of the
vertical crack. There is also a full height area of deterioration located near manhole 5. The deterioration
is up to 8” wide by up to 10” deep.
The sidewalk above the culvert typically exhibits hairline map cracks throughout. There are several full
width transverse cracks that appear to be spaced at the beam locations. There is a previously mentioned
hole in the slab located approximately 4’ upstream from the utility pole.
Unreinforced Wall Area Bulging at Hoizontal Crack Hole in Sidewalk from Inside Culvert

The section of the culvert is located between the Tiadaghton Mall driveways and contains the previously
failed areas in front of the mall that were repaired in 2011.
The concrete in the top slab is typical to that of the previous portions of the culvert.
The previously failed areas along the left and right culvert walls throughout this length have been
repaired. The repair along the left wall begins approximately at Station 9+12.4 and is identified as “2011
Repair #1” in the Straight-Line Diagram. It exhibits a few isolated full height hairline vertical cracks with
minor efflorescence. The repair along the right wall begins at Station 9+32.4 and is identified as “2011
Repair #2 in the Straight-Line Diagram. It continues downstream for approximately 9’. Two large spalls
located just upstream of 2011 Repair #2 were also repaired in 2011. The repairs show no signs of distress
and are in overall good condition.
The sidewalk above the culvert exhibits hairline map cracks and areas of settlement throughout. There
are several full width transverse cracks that appear to be spaced at the beam locations.
12
Repaired Area Repaired Area

This section of the culvert begins immediately downstream from the previously failed areas and is 81.5’
in length. The section ends at the entrance to the Tiadaghton Mall.
The concrete in the top slab is typical to that of the previous portions of the culvert along Allegheny
Street.
The left wall contains a horizontal shear crack that continues from the repaired area. There is extensive
hairline map cracking and areas of moderate to heavy deterioration throughout the wall above the crack
with isolated areas of heavy to severe deterioration below the crack. The crack is laterally displaced and
runs to the end of the left jacket. The next jacket begins at Station 10+20.4. Between the two jackets,
there are two horizontal shear cracks with up to 1/2” of lateral displacement. There is extensive hairline
map cracking and minor to heavy deterioration throughout the full height of the wall.
The right wall has a jacket that begins in the previously repaired area and ends at Station 9+58. It exhibits
continuous deterioration along the bottom beginning immediately at the end of the jacket. The
deterioration is typically 6” to 9” high, is up to 6” deep and ends 5.6’ upstream from manhole 7. There
are three full height 1/8” wide open cracks in the right wall. The first two are located at Station 9+60.6
and have up to 5/16” of lateral displacement. The other crack is located at Station 9+74.4 and has 1/4” of
lateral displacement.
13
Tiadaghton Mall Entrance Crossing Station - 10+22.9 to Station 10+46.4
The portion of the culvert between is located at the entrance to the Tiadaghton Mall is 23.5’ in length.
The steel beams in the top slab of the culvert below the mall entrance contain heavy rust with minor
pitting. A few of the beams exhibit minor to moderate sheet corrosion. There are hairline shrinkage
cracks throughout the slab with a few of the shrinkage cracks being open. There are a few hairline
longitudinal cracks located along the transverse beams. The cracks are typically 4” long. There are
several open longitudinal cracks that are spaced approximately 1’ apart beginning at Station 10+33.5.
The cracks run from half to the full bay width between beams.
The left wall under the entrance typically exhibits extensive hairline map cracking, areas of unsound
concrete and areas of moderate deterioration. There are two horizontal shear cracks that are continued
from the previous section and end at Station 10+25 at the plugged steel pipe. On the downstream side of
the pipe, there is a 6.5’ long open horizontal shear crack that is 1.5’ above the invert and terminates at a
jacket. There is 1/2” of lateral displacement towards the center of the culvert which has not changed
since the 2011 inspection. The left wall above the jacket exhibits areas of extensive map cracking and
unsound concrete typical to the condition of the left wall at the beginning of this section with areas of
severe deterioration up to 5” deep.
The right wall typically has a few minor hairline shrinkage cracks throughout with a few areas of minor
honeycombing. There is a 1/16” wide diagonal crack in the upper half of the wall located at Station
10+43.5.
The top of the top slab in the travel way in this area exhibits heavy wear, exposed aggregate and full
width 1/16” wide transverse cracks throughout. The cracks are typically spaced between 4’ and 4.5’. A
1/16” wide longitudinal crack starts near an upstream inlet box and extends 15’ into the drive. A few
ends of beams are exposed at the surface of the driveway.
Large Horizontal Cracks in Unreinforced Walls Outlet Pipe through Wall

This section of culvert is located where the culvert turns downstream of the Tiadaghton Mall entrance and
runs under the mall parking area and is 16’ in length.
The top slab is typical to that at the between Station 10+22.9 and Station 10+46.4.
14
The left wall through the transition exhibits only minor surface defects. There is an 11.3’ long horizontal
shear crack at mid-height of the right wall. The horizontal shear crack extends 2.2’ around the
downstream corner of the transition. There is slight lateral displacement and moderate deterioration along
the entire length of the crack. A 3/16” wide diagonal crack with slight lateral displacement starts at the
shear crack and extends to the top slab. There is a large area of deterioration that is 0.5’ high by 1.0’ deep
that begins approximately 4.5’ upstream of the turn at the mall parking lot and terminates at the
downstream corner of the turn. The downstream corner exhibits a full height fracture with severe
deterioration along the length of the crack. The fracture is 3” wide at the bottom of the jacket.
There is a localized area of heavy deterioration along the top of the right wall near the beginning of the
transition. The deterioration has caused minor bearing loss for a few of the transverse beams in this
location.
There is severe deterioration visible in the top of the culvert’s top slab in the parking area. The
deterioration has a maximum depth of 1”.
2.8 UNREINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT BELOW MALL PARKING LOT (Sta.
10+62.4 – Sta. 11+80.0)
The overall structural condition of the 7’-9” ± by 3’-7” ± unreinforced Cast In Place concrete
culvert from Station 10+62.4 to Station 11+80 totaling 117.6’ in length is fair.
The top slab is typical to the rest of the culvert.
The walls in the final portion of unreinforced concrete box culvert exhibit isolated areas of hairline
shrinkage cracks throughout. There are random vertical cracks which are typically 1/8” wide with up to
1/4” of lateral displacement. The cracks are typically worse on the right wall. Both walls exhibit
deterioration along the invert. The deterioration is typically 9” high by 5” deep and ends 15’ from the
transition to the outlet corrugated metal pipe arch. The deterioration has been repaired with grout for the
remaining length of the box. The left wall exhibits an area of deterioration that is 6’ long by 22” high and
has an average depth of 6” with an isolated area of 6” in diameter having a maximum depth of 2’. A 38’
long jacket begins at Station 10+97.6. The jacket is severely deteriorated with nearly 100% of its section
lost. There is a large full height vertical crack in each wall 15’ upstream from the transition to the
corrugated metal pipe arch. The crack in the left wall is 3/4” wide and is displaced 2.5” at the top. The
crack in the right wall is 1/2” wide and is displaced 1.5” at the top.
The top of the top slab is not visible in this area due to the bituminous pavement in the mall parking lot.
15
Looking Stations Ahead from Allegheny St. towards Outlet Looking Stations Back along Allegheny St.
2.9 72”± x 44”± CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ARCH CULVERT (Sta. 11+80.0 – Sta.
12+19.0)
The overall structural condition of the 72” by 44” Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch Culvert from
Station 11+80 to Station 12+19 totaling 39’ in length is fair.
The corrugated metal pipe arch exhibits minor to moderate rusting along the invert for its entire length.
There are a few isolated areas of minor to moderate section loss throughout the invert. The pipe is
separated and crushed at a joint located at Station 11+89. There is 4” of downward displacement at the
top and 2” of lateral displacement at the invert due to crushing. An area of very minor distortion is
located above a clay pipe that outlets on the right side of the pipe.
16
Separation at Joint Culvert Outlet
2.10 CONCLUSION
Based on the inspection findings and overall condition of the structure, the lengths of the structure in
worst structural condition are listed in order of for consideration of replacement in a phased construction
scenario.
1. 5’ Diameter CMP (Sta. 0+74.8 to Sta. 3+09.3)*
2. Unreinforced Concrete Box (Sta. 6+22.8 to Sta. 10+62.4)*
3. Reinforced Concrete Box (Sta. 4+21.1 to Sta. 6+22.8)
4. Inlet Pipe Arch (Sta. 0+00 to Sta. 0+74.8)
5. Unreinforced Concrete Box (Sta. 10+62.4 to Sta. 11+80.0)
6. Outlet Pipe Arch (Sta. 11+80.0 to Sta. 12+19.0)
7. Stone Masonry Arch (Sta. 3+09.3 to Sta. 3+59.8)
*Lengths of structure are of equal safety concern due to structural condition.
The 5’ diameter CMP and the unreinforced concrete box along Allegheny Street are of equal concern
from a structural condition standpoint. The entire length of the 5’ diameter CMP has the potential to fail
due to crushing or piping/loss of fill during a high-water event. There is a void at the inlet on the right
side of the CMP due to loss of fill and the inlet of the pipe has started to crush due to section loss. More
localized areas of failure are likely to occur in the unreinforced box section along Allegheny Street.
There are holes in the top slab/sidewalk in the upstream portion of this section, localized areas where the
top of the left wall has deteriorated exposing the pavement/curbing along Allegheny Street and causing
loss of support for the top slab, and areas where the left wall exhibits longitudinal shear cracks with
displacement. Replacement of either of these two portions of the existing structure would increase the
overall safety.
The concrete box beneath the Minit Mart and the inlet pipe arch have a similar structural condition.
However, the portion of the structure below the gas station is reinforced and has less of a concern for
failure than other portions of the culvert that are unreinforced. Therefore, replacement of the reinforced
box section is of a lesser priority from a safety standpoint than other portions of the structure.
17
HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC
STUDY
18
3.1 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
The drainage area of the watershed above the culvert is approximately 0.92 mi2 and is irregular in shape
with the long axis slightly oriented in the northeast/southwest direction. The terrain consists of mountains
and forested land with elevations ranging from 580’ to 1080’ above mean seal level. The Borough of
Jersey Shore is located within the southern portion of the drainage area and accounts for approximately
21% of urban development within the watershed. The remainder of the watershed is forested terrain. The
watershed is located in western Lycoming County. There is approximately 66.0% forested cover, 21.0%
urban development, and 0% carbonaceous rock. The drainage area was determined using the USGS
Streamstats website.
In accordance with PennDOT Design Manual 2 (2015 Edition – Change #1), Chapter 10.6C, and the
Boroughs stormwater management plan, the estimated peak runoffs for the 25-year design storm and the
100-year flood event were computed using USGS SIR-2008 5102. Flows were also calculated using
EFH-2 for comparison.
As seen below, the EFH-2 model yields much higher results for all storm events. Although the drainage
area for the Lawshee Run watershed falls just outside of the limitations for USGS SIR-2008 5102,
preliminary hydraulic runs with the USGS flows indicated that they were acceptable based on Borough
accounts of past flooding events compared to the preliminary HEC-RAS models. A summary of the flow
data can be seen in the table below:
Frequency USGS 5102 EFH-2

(Year) Flow (cfs) Flow (cfs)
2 64.8 139
5 119* 239*
10 163 329
25 226* 490
50 281 645
100 341 836
*Interpolated value
Gumble plots were used to approximate the 5-year storm flows for both USGS and EFH-2 and the 25-year
storm flows for USGS.
LDG met with PA DEP on April 18, 2017 to discuss permitting requirements and review the conveyance
of the appropriate design storm for the culvert. Preliminary hydraulic analysis indicated that the existing
structure overtopped during the 5-year storm event. During the meeting, it was determined that the
replacement structure would not necessarily need to pass the100-year flood event due to the excessive
costs and difficulties of constructing a structure with a larger opening within the footprint of the existing
culvert per Chapter 105, Subchapter D, Section 201(b). The proposed structure will be required to
improve upon the existing hydraulic conditions and provide acceptable conveyance of the storms based
on the costs/available funding and proposed conditions acceptable to the Borough.
LDG met with the Borough on May 2, 2017 and discussed the history of flooding at the site. According
to Borough officials, minor overtopping occurs approximately once per year on average. The culvert
overtopped two to three times in 2011 and three times in 2016. The worst overtopping in recent history
occurred in September of 2011 and October of 2016. Water filled the basement of the nearby YMCA in
both 2011 and 2016 due to Lawshee Run overtopping the culvert. In 2016, flood waters from Lawshee
19
Run extended to Wilson Street. The Borough also cited that Lawshee Run overtops the channel banks
upstream of the rail road crossing more frequently than the culvert overtops.
3.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

HEC-RAS V5.0.3 was used to determine the floodwater elevations and velocities for the existing
hydraulic model and to size possible replacement structures. Cross sections used in the model are based
on actual field survey and NAD 1983 datum.
The existing structure is comprised of several different transitions, turns, and section types with varying
sizes. The section types that make up the culvert from inlet to outlet are as follows: corrugated metal pipe
arch; corrugated metal pipe; stone masonry arch; PennDOT’s concrete culvert; reinforced concrete box;
header beam at transition from reinforced concrete box to unreinforced concrete box; unreinforced
concrete box; unreinforced concrete box with jackets; unreinforced concrete box; and corrugated metal
pipe arch. See table below for size, hydraulic opening and approximate length of each section.
Approximate Ope ning Le ngth
De s cription
Span/Ris e (ft-in) (s f) (ft)*
Inlet Pipe Arch 5'-10" / 2'-9" 13.4 75
Corrugated Metal Pipe 5'-0" Dia. 19.6 239
9'-0" / 3'-8.5"
Stone Masonry Arch 27.4 46
(avg)
State owned Concrete Culvert (below

10'- 1.5" / 3'-3" 32.9 61
Allegheny Street)
RC Box Culvert (below Minit Mart) 7'-0" / 4'-0" 28.0 179
Header Beam at Transition from RC

Box Culvert to Unreinforced Box 13'-5" / 2'-5.75" 33.3 20
Culvert
Unreinforced Box Culvert 7'-10" / 3'-6" 27.4

443
Unreinforced Box Culvert with Jackets 5'-2" / 3'-9" 19.4
Unreinforced Box Culvert (below

7'-9" / 3'-7" 27.9 117
Tiadaughton Mall Parking Lot)
Outlet Pipe Arch 6'-0" / 3'-9" 17.3 39
* Lengths include transitions
Due to the internal section changes and transitions within the culvert system, a conventional hydraulic
analysis was not applicable. In order to construct an analog of the existing and proposed conditions of the
culvert within HEC-RAS, “Lids” were used to approximate the openings that either exist, or would exist,
20
in series within the culvert system. The modeling approach does not account for entrance or exit
headwalls, and therefore does not consider the efficiencies gained by these structures. Though
unconventional, the models created for the study are consistent and share the considerations made for the
system and, are therefore, analogous for the existing and proposed conditions. The evaluation of both the
hydraulic performance and construction sequence of the culvert system were considered for the study.
Manning’s n-values are based on a site visit in February 2017. Expansion and contraction coefficients are
based on recommended values from the program manual (0.1-0.3).
The cross-sections used for the model were aligned perpendicular to flow in the channel. Reach lengths
between cross-sections were balanced based on the field survey data. Additional adjustments were made
as necessary. The total study length for Lawshee Run modeled in HEC-RAS is over 2,936 feet in length.
As the preliminary hydraulics for the project were completed, it was determined that the existing structure
overtops during the 5-year storm event. This coincides with Borough’s accounts of minor overtopping
occurring once per year on average. The annual minor overtopping is likely due to reductions in
hydraulic opening at the inlet of the culvert due to deposition of the sediment bed load. The site sediment
bed load issues are caused by the instability of the channel upstream of the railroad crossing and the
visible evidence of lateral scour of channel banks and degradation upstream.
According to the Borough, the channel upstream of the railroad arch culvert overtops more frequently
than the culvert with weir flow through the railroad arch culvert and along culvert street.
Per LDG’s April 18, 2017 meeting with PA DEP, the replacement structure would not need to pass the
100-year storm, but will need to have an increased efficiency compared to the existing culvert. Therefore,
for the purposes of this study, the maximum cross-sectional opening of the existing culvert along
Allegheny Street was maintained to lessen potential impacts to properties, utilities and traffic during
construction. Phasing options and cost estimates were derived based on maintaining this structure size.
This study also investigated the cross-sectional opening size required to pass the 100-year storm. The
cross-sectional area required to pass the 100-year storm was determined to be 41 square feet. This
hydraulic opening was used to develop an idealized box section for the development of additional options
and cost estimates.
Under proposed conditions several phasing options were studied. The options included four construction
phases. The construction phases considered are as follows:
• Option 1:
o Phase I – Replace 360 feet of the structure from the inlet to the PennDOT owned culvert
under Allegheny Street.
o Phase II – Replace 443 feet of the structure from the transition downstream of the Minit
Mart gas station to the turn below the mall parking lot.
o Phase III – Replace the 156 feet of the structure below mall parking lot to the outlet.
o Phase IV – Replace 179 feet of the structure from the PennDOT structure to the transition
downstream of the Minit Mart gas station.
• Option 2:
o Phase I – Replace 360 feet of the structure from the inlet to the PennDOT owned culvert
o Phase II – Replace 443 feet of the structure from the transition downstream of the Minit
21
o Phase IV – Repair 179 feet of the structure from the PennDOT structure to the transition
• Option 3:
o Phase I – Replace 443 feet of the structure from the transition downstream of the Minit
o Phase II – Replace 360 feet of the structure from the inlet to the PennDOT owned culvert
o Phase IV – Replace 179 feet of the structure from the PennDOT structure to the transition
• Option 4:
o Phase I – Replace the entire length of the structure on existing alignment with typical
existing box section.
• Option 5:
o Phase I – Replace the entire length of the structure on existing alignment with idealized
box section.
• Option 6:
o Phase I – Replace the entire length of the structure on improved alignment with typical
existing box section.
• Option 7:
o Phase I – Replace the entire length of the structure on improved alignment with idealized
box section.
HEC-RAS models for each of the phasing options listed above were developed to compare water surface
elevations for each phase with existing water surface elevations. A summary table comparing water
surface elevations, velocities and weir flow depths is included.
22
Existing vs. Proposed Table
Approximate
Storm Water Surface Water Surface Inlet Outlet
Option No. Overtopping Inlet Weir Flow
Event Elevation Elevation Velocity Velocity
Depth
Upstream Downstream
(Yes/No) (feet) (feet) (feet) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
Existing Structure 2- Year No 567.26 0 550.19 2.41 5.08
5-Year Yes 570.37 0 550.72 1.4 6.48
25-Year Yes 572.1 1.21 551.22 1.37 7.83
100-Year Yes 572.79 1.9 552.22 2.04 8.68
Options 1 & 2
Phase 1 2- Year No 565.95 0 550.19 5.97 5.08
5-Year No 567.13 0 550.72 4.74 6.48
25-Year No 568.22 0 551.22 4.55 7.83
100-Year Yes 572.47 1.58 552.22 2.21 8.68
Phases 1, 2 & 3 2- Year No 565.95 0 550.19 5.97 5.08
5-Year No 567.13 0 550.72 4.74 6.48
25-Year No 568.22 0 551.22 4.55 7.83
100-Year Yes 572.47 1.58 552.22 2.22 8.68
Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 2- Year No 565.95 0 550.19 5.97 5.08
5-Year No 567.13 0 550.72 4.74 6.48
25-Year No 568.33 0 551.22 4.55 7.83
100-Year Yes 572.48 1.59 552.22 2.21 8.68
Option 3
Phase 1 2- Year No 567.26 0 550.19 2.41 5.08
5-Year Yes 570.37 0 550.72 1.4 6.48
25-Year Yes 572.1 1.21 551.22 1.37 7.83
100-Year Yes 572.79 1.9 552.22 2.04 8.68
Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4 2- Year No 565.95 0 550.19 5.97 5.08
5-Year No 567.13 0 550.72 4.74 6.48
25-Year No 568.33 0 551.22 4.55 7.83
100-Year Yes 572.48 1.58 552.22 2.21 8.68
Option 4
2- Year No 565.95 0 550.19 5.97 5.08
5-Year No 567.13 0 550.72 4.74 6.48
25-Year No 568.33 0 551.22 4.55 7.83
100-Year Yes 572.48 1.59 552.22 2.21 8.68
Option 5
2- Year No 565.95 0 550.19 6 5.08
5-Year No 566.56 0 550.72 6.79 6.48
25-Year No 567.9 0 551.22 5.2 7.83
100-Year No 570.43 0 552.25 3.97 8.68
Option 6
2- Year No 565.95 0 550.41 6 4.99
5-Year No 567.17 0 551.14 4.64 6.38
25-Year No 568.63 0 551.94 3.89 7.63
100-Year Yes 571.97 1.08 556.41 2.55 8.67
Option 7
2- Year No 565.95 0 550.46 6.2 4.32
5-Year No 566.56 0 551.14 7.59 5.68
25-Year No 567.89 0 551.94 8.87 6.8
100-Year No 570.42 0 553 10.78 9.16
23
3.3 SEDIMENT BED LOAD
There are sediment bed load issues that affect the hydraulic performance of the existing culvert which if
not addressed would affect the hydraulic performance of any replacement structure. The sediment bed
load is being caused by the instability of the channel upstream of the railroad arch culvert. Possible
solutions for mitigating sediment bed load are as follows:
• Constructing a sediment trap and clean-out upstream of the inlet of the structure to catch sediment
before entering the culvert inlet.
• Developing a long-term maintenance plan to regularly remove sediment and maintain the
proposed hydraulic opening.
• Stabilizing the upstream channel with a combination of weirs and/or vane deflectors and rock
protection.
• Paving the channel upstream of the rail road culvert.
Construction cost estimates completed for each alternative do not include any costs to mitigate the
sediment bed load. Additional in-depth studies of sediment bed load should be completed and evaluated
prior to replacing the culvert.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the hydraulic analysis completed for this study, replacing the inlet of the existing structure
significantly improves the hydraulic performance of the culvert. From a hydraulics standpoint, Options 1,
2, & 4 are identical. Option 3 is similar to Options 1, 2, & 4 in terms of overall performance; however, it
does not improve hydraulics until after construction of Phase II. Although Option 6 maintains the typical
existing hydraulic opening, it is on an improved alignment which increases efficiency and reduces weir
flow by approximately 6” when compared to the previously mentioned options. Options 5 and 7 utilize
the idealized box section and can pass the 100-year storm. However, inlet velocities are significantly
increased for Option 7. All options replacing the inlet during the first phase of the project will have an
advantage in hydraulics.
24
CULVERT REPLACEMENT
OPTIONS AND PHASING
ALTERNATIVES
25
4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Feasible replacement options and phasing alternatives were compared using the following criteria.
• Safety
• Hydraulics
• Economics
• Impacts to Properties
• Environmental Considerations
• Utilities
• Right of Way
• Maintenance and Protection of Traffic
4.2 REPLACEMENT AND PHASING OPTIONS
OPTION No. 1
Option No. 1 consists of replacing approximately 1163 ft of Borough owned portions of the culvert
utilizing phased construction. This option utilizes a precast culvert section with a span of 7’-10” and rise
of 3’-6” to match the typical size of the existing structure.
• Phase I - Replace the first 360 ft of the culvert from the inlet at Culvert Street to the existing
PennDOT structure.
• Phase II - Replace approximately 443 ft of the unreinforced culvert section along Allegheny
Street from the transition downstream of the gas station to where the culvert turns under the
Tiadaghton Mall parking lot.
• Phase III - Replace approximately 156 ft of the culvert located under the mall parking lot to the
outlet.
• Phase IV - Replace approximately 179 ft of the culvert located below the Minit Mart gas station.
This option replaces the CMP arch at the inlet that is in fair to poor condition and the 5 ft CMP that is in
serious condition during Phase I. This option addresses safety concerns by eliminating a portion of the
culvert that is in serious condition while overall improving hydraulics for the structure. As seen in the
table on page 23, replacing the inlet of the culvert during Phase I decreases inlet water surface elevations
for all storm events and will allow the culvert to pass the 25-year storm event as opposed to the 5-year
storm event conveyed by the existing structure. Phase II addresses safety concerns by eliminating
approximately 443 ft of culvert along Allegheny Street that is in poor to serious condition. The culvert’s
hydraulics are controlled by the inlet; therefore, there are no improvements to the hydraulic performance
of the structure for Phase II through Phase IV. Phases II through IV are ranked in order of the safety
assessment and structural condition of the existing structure.
Option 1 Advantages
1. The portions of the culvert with the highest probability of failure as indicated by the February
2017 safety inspection are replaced during Phases I & II.
2. Significant improvements in upstream water surface elevations is seen during Phase I. Once
Phase I is completed, the structure will be able to convey the 25-year storm event.
3. Utilizes the existing alignment and similar typical existing structure size to help minimize
impacts to existing utilities and properties.
26
4. Utilizing the existing alignment and similarly sized structure would minimize or eliminate the
need for any permanent right-of-way to be acquired.
5. Utilizing phased construction would allow portions of the culvert to be replaced as funding
becomes available.
6. Repairs could be completed to maintain portions of the culvert that are not replaced during early
construction phases while waiting for additional funds to become available.
7. Phased construction helps to minimize the areas of disturbance and impacts to traffic during
construction.
Option 1 Disadvantages
1. The portion of the culvert replaced in Phase II is in poor to serious condition, lies beneath the
existing sidewalk and is immediately adjacent to Allegheny Street. Localized failures in this
portion of the culvert could lead to the collapse of the sidewalk or settlement of Allegheny Street.
2. Option 1 utilizes the existing alignment. On the existing alignment, the culvert has several turns
which induce energy losses and decrease overall efficiency.
3. The existing invert of the culvert is inconsistent throughout its length. Existing invert elevations
would need to be maintained if phased construction is used.
4. Cannot pass the 100-year storm.
5. Phased construction would require cast-in-place concrete transitions to be constructed between
new culvert sections and existing culvert sections/PennDOT owned structure. Cast-in-place
transitions are an additional expense and can have a negative impact of hydraulic performance.
6. The overall preliminary construction cost estimate for Option No. 1 is $6,000,000.00 with the
estimated cost of Phase I being $1,700,000.00.
7. The existing alignment passes underneath the Minit Mart gas station. There are environmental
and safety concerns due to excavating near the existing gas pumps and the potential risk of
contaminated soils.
8. There are potentially additional costs involved with construction of Phase IV due to possible
hazard mitigation requirements for potentially contaminated soils and having to remove and re-
install the gas pumps during construction.
OPTION No. 2
Option 2 is similar to Option 1 in terms of phasing; however, this option would only replace
approximately 983 feet of the existing Borough owned portions of the culvert. The remaining 179 ft of
culvert located underneath the Minit Mart gas station would be repaired.
• Phase I - Replace the first 360 ft of the culvert from the inlet at Culvert Street to the existing
PennDOT structure.
• Phase II - Replace approximately 443 ft of the unreinforced culvert section along Allegheny
Street from the transition downstream of the gas station to where the culvert turns under the
Tiadaghton Mall parking lot.
outlet.
• Phase IV - Repair approximately 179 ft of the culvert located below the Minit Mart gas station.
Option 2 Advantages
27
2. Significant improvements in upstream water surface elevations is seen during Phase I. Once
Phase I is completed, the structure will be able to convey the 25-year storm event.
4. There is a significant cost saving for repairing the existing culvert in Phase IV.
5. The portion existing culvert beneath the Minit Mart is reinforced and has a uniform existing
section throughout its length making it a better candidate for rehabilitation vs. replacement.
6. Repairing the portion of the culvert located beneath the Minit Mart gas station eliminates
environmental concerns of encountering potentially contaminated soils near the gas pumps.
7. There would be no impacts to the existing gas pumps at the Minit Mart during Phase IV.
becomes available.
construction.
1. The portion of the culvert replaced in Phase II is in poor to serious condition, lies beneath the
4. Cannot pass the 100-year storm.
6. Phase IV proposes to repair a portion of the existing culvert that is in fair to poor condition rather
than replacement.
7. Rehabilitating the existing structure during Phase IV could be difficult due to difficult access and
tight work space inside of the structure.
8. There was an increase in deterioration in the reinforced culvert section between the 2011 and
2017 inspections. Rehabilitation costs could escalate if deterioration continues at its current rate.
OPTION No. 3
Option No. 3 is like Option 1; however, the phasing is different. This option consists of replacing
approximately 1163 ft of Borough owned portions of the culvert utilizing phased construction. This
option utilizes a precast culvert section with a span of 7’-10” and rise of 3’-6” to match the typical size of
the existing structure.
28
• Phase I - Replace approximately 443 ft of the unreinforced culvert section along Allegheny Street
from the transition downstream of the gas station to where the culvert turns under the Tiadaghton
Mall parking lot.
• Phase II - Replace the first 360 ft of the culvert from the inlet at Culvert Street to the existing
PennDOT structure.
outlet.
• Phase IV - Replace approximately 179 ft of the culvert located below the Minit Mart gas station.
This option replaces the section of unreinforced box culvert from the transition downstream of the
reinforced box section to the turn below the mall entrance in Phase I. This option eliminates a large
portion of the culvert in poor to serious condition in Phase I. There are no improvements to the hydraulic
performance of the culvert seen during Phase I due to the culvert being under inlet control. As seen in the
table on page 23, replacing the inlet of the culvert during Phase II decreases inlet water surface elevations
for all storm events and will allow the culvert to pass the 25-year storm event as opposed to the 5-year
storm event conveyed by the existing structure. Phase II addresses safety concerns by eliminating
approximately 360 ft of culvert from the inlet to the PennDOT owned culvert that is in fair to serious
condition. The culvert’s hydraulics are controlled by the inlet; therefore, there are no improvements to
the hydraulic performance of the structure for Phases III & IV. Phases II through IV are ranked in order
of the condition of the existing structure.
Option 3 Advantages
2. The portion of the culvert replaced in Phase I is in poor to serious condition, lies beneath the
becomes available.
construction.
1. The portion of the culvert replaced in Phase II is in serious condition.
2. Repairs could be required to maintain the portion of the culvert to be replaced during Phase II
prior to funding being available for replacement. Repairing this portion of culvert would help
mitigate safety concerns, but would not improve hydraulic performance of the structure.
3. Significant improvements in upstream water surface elevations are not seen until Phase II is
completed.
29
concerns due to excavating near the existing gas pumps due to possible contamination of the soil
in this area.
9. There are potentially additional costs involved with construction of Phase IV due to possible
contaminated soils and having to remove and re-install the gas pumps during construction.
Option No. 4
Option No. 4 consists of replacing the entire culvert on the existing alignment without utilizing phased
construction. This option proposes a precast box section with a span of 7’-10” and a rise of 3’-6” to
match the typical size of the existing structure.
This option addresses safety concerns by replacing the entire length of the culvert at one time which
mitigates safety concerns while improving hydraulics. As seen in the table on page 23, the inlet water
surface elevations are decreased for all storm events and the proposed culvert will pass the 25-year storm.
Option4 Advantages
1. Replaces the entire length of the culvert.
2. No waiting between phases to replace portions of the culvert in serious condition.
3. The proposed structure will convey the 25-year storm event.
4. Eliminates inefficient transitions and can maintain a constant slope from inlet to outlet.
5. Using a section size similar to that of the typical existing section makes it easier to maintain
existing sidewalk elevations.
6. One time replacement with less impacts on the local community than with phased construction.
7. Utilizing the existing alignment helps to lessen the impacts to existing utilities.
1. On the existing alignment, the culvert has several turns which induce energy losses and decrease
overall efficiency.
in this area.
3. There is the potential for additional costs involved with construction in the area of the Minit Mart
gas station due to possible contaminated soils and having to remove and re-install the gas pumps
during construction.
4. Will not pass the 100-year storm event.
5. Higher up-front construction cost when compared to phased construction.
6. The overall preliminary construction cost estimate for Option No. 4 is $5,400,000.00.
30
7. Traffic may have to be detoured around Allegheny Street during the replacement of the PennDOT
owned structure. Local businesses and residents would be affected by the detour.
OPTION No. 5
Option No. 5 consists of replacing the entire culvert on the existing alignment without utilizing phased
construction. This option is similar to Option 4, but utilizes an idealized precast box section with a span
of 8’-9” and a rise of 4’-8” and will pass the 100-year storm event.
Option 5 Advantages
5. One time replacement with less impacts on the local community than with phased construction.
6. Utilizing the existing alignment helps to lessen the impacts to existing utilities.
1. On the existing alignment, the culvert has several turns which induce energy losses and decrease
overall efficiency.
in this area.
3. There is the potential for additional costs involved with construction in the area of the Minit Mart
gas station due to the potential for encountering contaminated soils and having to remove and re-
install the gas pumps during construction.
4. More difficult to maintain existing sidewalk/invert elevations due to larger structure size.
5. Traffic may have to be detoured around Allegheny Street during the replacement of the PennDOT
owned structure. Local businesses and residents would be affected by the detour.
6. Potential to have a greater impact private properties and utilities due to the larger structure size.
Option No. 6
Option No. 6 consists of replacing the entire culvert on an improved alignment. This option utilizes a 7’-
10” span x 3’-5” rise culvert section that will closely match that of the typical existing section.
Option 6 Advantages
5. Easier to maintain existing sidewalk elevations due to using similar typical structure size.
6. Utilizing an improved alignment will improve efficiency.
7. Decreases the overall length of the structure.
31
9. This option abandons the portion of culvert beneath the Minit Mart gas station eliminating
environmental concerns and costs involved with removing and replacing the existing gas pumps.
3. Utilizing an improved alignment could have a greater impact on existing utilities under Allegheny
Street.
4. The potential to impact additional private properties such as the YMCA.
5. A longer portion of the culvert would be relocated under Allegheny Street.
6. Replacing the existing structure on a new alignment would require traffic to be detoured around
Allegheny Street. Local businesses and residents would be affected by the detour.
OPTION No. 7
Option No. 7 consists of replacing the entire culvert on an improved alignment. This option is similar to
Option 6, but utilizes an idealized precast box section with a span of 8’-9” and a rise of 4’-8” and will
pass the 100-year storm event.
Option 7 Advantages
6. Utilizing an improved alignment will improve efficiency.
7. Decreases the overall length of the culvert.
8. This option abandons the portion of culvert beneath the Minit Mart gas station eliminating
environmental concerns and costs involved with removing and replacing the existing gas pumps.
3. Utilizing an improved alignment could have a greater impact on existing utilities under Allegheny
Street.
4. Potential to have a greater impact private properties and utilities due to the larger structure size
5. The potential to impact additional private properties such as the YMCA.
6. Harder to maintain existing sidewalk elevations due to using idealized structure section.
7. A longer portion of the culvert would be relocated under Allegheny Street.
8. Replacing the existing structure on a new alignment would require traffic to be detoured around
Allegheny Street. Local businesses and residents would be affected by the detour.
32
4.3 ADDITIONAL OPTIONS CONSIDERED
One option considered for this study was to slip line the unreinforced box along Allegheny Street and the
5’ diameter CMP; however, it was determined early on that slip lining of the existing structure is not a
viable option due to the reduction in the hydraulic capacity of each structure due to a reduced hydraulic
opening and overall performance of the slip lined sections when compared to the existing structure. The
slip lined sections would not meet DEP or Borough requirements for hydraulic improvements and was
therefore deemed unfeasible as an alternative for replacement.
LDG investigated several possible replacement structure types including; various sizes of elliptical
concrete pipes, various sizes of corrugated metal pipes, and various sizes of CMP arches along the culvert
systems total length. Structures of these types that are large enough to improve hydraulic conditions
would require a significant increase in rise and span when compared to the existing structure. These
structure types would make it difficult to replace the structure in phases while maintaining existing invert
elevations due to hydraulic opening and cover requirements. An increase in rise coupled with fill cover
requirements over the structure make these structure types impractical replacement options given the
project’s urban location where maintaining existing sidewalk, driveway and roadway elevations would be
required. For example, a CMP arch large enough to convey the 25-year storm would have a rise of 4’-11”
and cover requirements of 1’ measured from the apex of the arch to the bottom of pavement or sidewalk.
Another downfall to these structure types is that an increase in span length would be required to improve
hydraulic performance and these structure types are fabricated in straight sections that cannot easily
conform to the turns associated with the existing or improved alignments without constructing transitions
at the location of each turn. This would make These structure types were determined to be unfeasible
replacement alternatives due to their inability to be used for phased construction, transition requirements
and inability to maintain existing sidewalk, driveway and roadway elevations over the length of the
structure.
33
CONCLUSION
34
5.1 FEASIBILITY BASED ON EVALUATION CRITERIA
Safety
Based on LDG’s meeting with Borough officials on May 2, 2017, safety is the most important of the
criteria used to evaluate replacement and phasing options. There are two areas of more immediate
concern based on their structural condition. The first area of concern is the 360 feet from the inlet to the
PennDOT owned culvert which contains the 5 foot diameter corrugated metal pipe arch in serious
condition. The second area of concern is approximately 440 feet in length and is located under the
sidewalk adjacent to Allegheny Street and is in serious condition. Based on their current condition, these
portions of the culvert are most likely to fail. The portion of culvert adjacent to Allegheny Street is more
likely to have areas of localized failures, while failure of the 5 foot CMP would likely result in the failure
of a large length of the structure and would have the potential to damage adjacent properties and streets.
The phasing options presented in this report consider replacing these portions of the culvert first based on
their existing condition. For more details regarding the condition of the existing structure see Section 2.
Hydraulics
Based on LDG’s meeting with PA DEP on April 18, 2017 the proposed structure does not necessarily
have to pass the 100-year storm event; however, the replacement structure will need to improve the
overall hydraulics. All the replacement options presented in this report are able to convey the 25-year
design storm. Whereas there is an improvement over existing conditions as the existing structure does not
convey the 25-year storm. The structure is inlet controlled; therefore, immediate improvements to the
hydraulic performance is seen when the inlet of the existing structure is replaced. Therefore, options that
consider replacing the inlet of the structure during the initial construction phase offer a hydraulic
advantage over other options.
Economics
A probable construction cost estimate was completed for each replacement option (for comparison
purposes only). Option No. 6 was the most economical at an overall cost of $4,800,000.00. Therefore,
Option No. 6 provides a distinct economical advantage over any other option. However, if limited
funding is available and completing construction in phases is necessary, Option 2 is most economical at
an overall estimated construction cost of $5,000,000.00 with Phase 1 having an estimated cost of
$1,700,000.00. See Section 5.2 for a summary of the engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs.
Impacts to Properties
Because the existing structure is located in an urban area and is in close proximity to local homes and
commercial businesses, all options presented will have some impacts to both private and commercial
properties.
All options have the potential to impact the driveways of the homes and Ye Old Print Shop PC adjacent to
and/or above the culvert on Culvert Street. There is also the potential to impact an existing garage.
Properties with the potential for the greatest impacts are the Minit Mart gas station, the apartment
building located downstream of the gas station, and the Chinese Restaurant if the culvert is replaced on
the existing alignment. The Minit Mart gas station has the potential for the largest impacts due to the
portion of the culvert that runs directly beneath the gas pumps if Options 1, 3, 4 or 5 are chosen.
Options 6 & 7 have the potential to impact properties on the north side of Allegheny Street such as the
YMCA and residential dwellings.
35
The use of temporary shoring during construction can help minimize the impacts to properties during the
replacement of the culvert.
Environmental Considerations
Options 1, 3, 4, and 5 have the greatest potential for environmental impacts. These options consider
replacing the portion of the culvert beneath the Minit Mart gas station on the existing alignment. There is
the potential to encounter hazardous waste mitigations associated with contaminated soils in this location
due to the close proximity of the gas pumps. No soil testing was completed to determine if there is any
contamination of the soils in the location of the gas pumps during this study. Other options have a
distinct advantage over Options 1, 3, 4, and 5 in terms of environmental considerations involving the
potential for hazard mitigation.
Utilities
All of the options will have some impact on utilities. Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 will have less impacts on
existing utilities because they utilize the existing alignment and structure similar in size to the typical
existing section. Options 5 and 7 would have more impacts to utilities than Options 1 through 4 due to
the larger culvert size considered for this option. Options 6 and 7 could potentially have a greater impact
on existing utilities due to more of the structure being located under Allegheny Street using the improved
alignment. Options 1 through 4 have an advantage over the other options in terms of impacts to utilities
since they utilize a structure size that is similar to the existing structure on the existing alignment.
Right-of-Way
All of the options will require work to be completed within the right-of-way for Allegheny Street and
Borough Streets with some impacts to private properties. Therefore, all options are equal in terms of
right-of-way.
Maintenance and Protection Of Traffic
Each option will require traffic restrictions for Allegheny Street. Options that utilize the existing
alignment and retain the existing PennDOT owned structure under Allegheny Street will have less
impacts on traffic. Options 4 and 5 consider replacing the PennDOT owned culvert under Allegheny
Street and would require traffic to be detoured around Allegheny Street during replacement of the
PennDOT culvert. Options 6 and 7 propose an improved alignment and would require traffic to be
detoured around Allegheny Street on a more long-term basis. Options 4, 5, 6, and 7 have a disadvantage
in terms of maintenance and protection of traffic when compared to the other options.
36
5.2 SUMMARY OF ENGINEER’S OPIONION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(FOR COMPARISION PURPOSES ONLY)
Below is a summary of the construction cost estimates for each replacement option. These estimated
construction costs do not account for costs associated with utility relocations, right-of-way, design or
construction inspection. The costs below are just construction costs for comparison purposes only.
SUMMARY TABLE
OF
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
Option No. 1 - Replace Borough Owned Culvert Sections Using Phased Construction $6,000,000
Phase I - Replace 360' at Inlet $1,700,000 (2022)
Phase II - Replace approx. 440' along Allegheny Street $2,000,000 (2023)
Phase III - Replace approx. 155' below mall parking lot to outlet $900,000 (2024)
Phase IV - Replace approx. 180' under Minit Mart gas station $1,400,000 (2025)
Option No. 2 - Replace/Repair Borough Owned Culvert Sections Using Phased Construction $5,000,000
Phase I - Replace 360' at Inlet $1,700,000 (2022)
Phase II - Replace approx. 440' along Allegheny Street $2,000,000 (2023)
Phase IV - Repair deteriorated culvert under Minit Mart gas station $400,000 (2025)
Option No. 3 - Replace Borough Owned Culvert Sections Using Phased Construction $6,100,000
Phase I - Replace approx. 440' along Allegheny Street $2,000,000 (2022)
Phase II - Replace 360' at Inlet $1,800,000 (2023)
Phase IV - Replace approx. 180' under Minit Mart gas station $1,400,000 (2025)
Option No. 4 - Replace entire structure on existing alignment (7.8'x3.5') $5,400,000

New 7'-10" x 3'-6" precast box culvert $5,400,000 (2022)
Option No. 5 - Replace entire structure on existing alignment (9.75'x4.67') $5,900,000

Option No. 6 - Replace entire structure on improved alignment (7.8'x3.5') $4,800,000

Option No. 7 - Replace entire structure on improved alignment (9.75'x4.67') $5,400,000

37
5.3 CONCLUSIONS
Upon evaluation of all criteria, options that consider replacing portions of the culvert that are in serious
condition during the early phases of construction are ranked more feasible than others. Each of the
options considered in this study will improve the overall hydraulic performance of the structure and are
capable of conveying a minimum of the 25-year storm event; however, improvements to hydraulic
performance would not occur until after construction of Phase II for Option 3. Economically, Option 6
has the lowest estimated cost; however, all options are within a 12% range from the average probable
construction cost. Options that consider replacing the structure on an improved alignment have an
advantage over others in terms of impacts to the Minit Mart gas station and associated potential
environmental impacts, but have the potential to have additional impacts on utilities located under
Allegheny Street and properties on the norther side of Allegheny Street. All of the options presented are
equal in terms of right-of way. In terms of Maintenance and Protection of Traffic, Options 1 through 3
would have the least impacts since the existing alignment and size is maintained and the PennDOT owned
culvert under Allegheny Street would remain.
This report presents seven viable replacement options for the Lawshee Run culvert. The Borough can
choose any of these options based on available funding or other criteria deemed to be important during
the selection process.
38
APPENDIX
• STRAIGHT LINE DIAGRAM OF CULVERT
• OPTION 1 COST ESTIMATE AND PLAN
A.1
100% SECTION LOSS AND
VOID IN FILL BEHIND PIPE.
NEW THIS INSPECTION.
2011 2011 REPAIR #3

REPAIR #4 Sta. 7+80.4
Sta. 6+98.2
2011
REPAIR #5
Sta. 6+82.3
2011 REPAIR
2011 #2
FAILED AREA AT TOP OF LEFT
SIDEWALK Sta. 9+32.4
WALL WITH BEARING LOSS AT
REPAIR
LEFT SIDE OF 3 TRANSVERSE HOLE IN SIDEWALK. 2011 REPAIR
Sta. 6+22.8
BEAMS. NEW THIS NEW THIS #1
INSPECTION. INSPECTION. Sta. 9+30.4
HOLE IN TOP SLAB/

CURB. NEW THIS
5 ADDITIONAL HOLES IN INSPECTION.
SIDEWALK. NEW THIS
INSPECTION.
A.2
2
A.3
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 1 OF 4
CALCULATED BY JTS DATE 7/18/2017
CHECKED BY SBJ DATE 8/11/2017
SCALE
OPTION 1 - PHASE I ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARY
1 MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION $ 80,000.00

2 MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC $ 50,000.00
3 STREAM DIVERSION SYSTEM $ 15,000.00
4 E&S CONTROL MEASURES $ 5,000.00
5 REMOVAL OF PORTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE $ 40,000.00
6 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL $ 114,000.00
7 PRECAST BOX CULVERT $ 432,000.00
8 CIP TRANSITION TO PENNDOT CULVERT $ 15,000.00
9 INLET ROCK PROTECTION $ 1,000.00
11 INLETS AND MANHOLES $ 11,000.00
12 PAVING $ 25,000.00
13 GUIDE RAIL $ 2,000.00
14 TEMPORARY SHORING $ 363,000.00
15 GABIONS $ 4,000.00
16 GARAGE/FENCE REPLACEMENT $ 30,000.00
17 SIDEWALK, CURB RAMPS $ 5,400.00
* SUBTOTAL (PRESENT DAY) $ 1,200,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2022) $ 1,400,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 300,000.00
* PHASE 1 TOTAL $ 1,700,000.00
* Note: Values rounded to the nearest $100,000.00. Values do not include costs associated with Utility Relocations,
Right-of-way, Design, or Construction
ENGINEER'S OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ARE MADE ON THE BASIS

OF ENGINEER'S EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS AND REPRESENT THE ENGINEER'S
BEST JUDGMENT AS AN EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL GENERALLY
FAMILIAR WITH THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ENGINEER
HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE COST OF LABOR, MATERIALS EQUIPMENT, OR SERVICES
FURNISHED BY OTHERS, OR OVER CONTRACTOR'S METHODS OF DETERMINING
PRICES, OR OVER COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR MARKET CONDITIONS, THE ENGINEER
CANNOT AND DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT PROPOSALS, BIDS OR ACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS WILL NOT VARY FROM OPINIONS OF PROBABLE
CONSTRUCTION COST PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER.
A.4
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 2 OF 4
SCALE
OPTION 1 - PHASE II ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

8 CIP TRANSITION FROM RC CULVERT UNDER GAS STATION $ 15,000.00
9 REMOVE AND REBUILD PORCH $ 12,000.00
11 PAVING $ 20,000.00
13 BUILDING FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS $ 10,000.00
14 SIDEWALK, CURBS & RAMPS $ 24,200.00

* SUBTOTAL (2023) $ 1,600,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 400,000.00
* PHASE II TOTAL $ 2,000,000.00

A.5
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 3 OF 4
SCALE
OPTION 1 - PHASE III ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

8 OUTLET ROCK PROTECTION $ 2,000.00
10 PAVING $ 44,000.00
* SUBTOTAL (PRESENT DAY) $ 500,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2025) $ 700,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 200,000.00
* PHASE III TOTAL $ 900,000.00

A.6
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 4 OF 4
SCALE
OPTION 1 - PHASE IV ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

9 HAZARDOUS WASTE MITIGATION $ 125,000.00
10 PAVING $ 24,000.00
12 REMOVE AND REPLACE GAS PUMPS $ 100,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2025) $ 1,100,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 300,000.00
* PHASE IV TOTAL $ 1,400,000.00

A.7
A.8
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 1 OF 4
SCALE
OPTION 2 - PHASE I ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

9 INLET ROCK PROTECTION $ 1,000.00
11 PAVING $ 25,000.00
12 GUIDE RAIL $ 2,000.00
14 GABIONS $ 4,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2022) $ 1,400,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 300,000.00
* PHASE I TOTAL $ 1,700,000.00

A.9
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 2 OF 4
SCALE

11 PAVING $ 19,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2023) $ 1,600,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 400,000.00
* PHASE II TOTAL $ 2,000,000.00

A.10
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 3 OF 4
SCALE

10 PAVING $ 44,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2024) $ 700,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 200,000.00

A.11
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 4 OF 4
SCALE

5 DETERIORATED CONCRETE REPAIRS $ 80,000.00
6 EPOXY CRACK INJECTION $ 67,500.00

* SUBTOTAL (2025) $ 300,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 100,000.00
* PHASE IV TOTAL $ 400,000.00

A.12
A.13
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 1 OF 4
SCALE
OPTION 3 - PHASE I ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

11 PAVING $ 19,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2022) $ 1,600,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 400,000.00
* PHASE I TOTAL $ 2,000,000.00

A.14
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 2 OF 4
SCALE

9 INLET ROCK PROTECTION $ 715.00
11 PAVING $ 25,000.00
12 GUIDE RAIL $ 2,000.00
14 GABIONS $ 4,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2023) $ 1,500,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 300,000.00
* PHASE II TOTAL $ 1,800,000.00

A.15
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 3 OF 4
SCALE

10 PAVING $ 44,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2024) $ 700,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 200,000.00

A.16
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 4 OF 4
SCALE

11 PAVING $ 24,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2025) $ 1,100,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 300,000.00
* PHASE IV TOTAL $ 1,400,000.00

A.17
A.18
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
SCALE
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST

OPTION 4 - FULL REPLACEMENT ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT
7 PRECAST BOX CULVERT $ 1,470,000.00
8 CIP TRANSITIONS $ 30,000.00
9 ROCK PROTECTION $ 3,000.00
11 PAVING $ 110,000.00
12 GUIDE RAIL $ 2,000.00
14 GABIONS $ 4,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2022) $ 4,500,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 900,000.00
* GRAND TOTAL $ 5,400,000.00

A.19
A.20
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
SCALE

OPTION 5 - FULL REPLACEMENT ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT (IDEALIZED STRUCTURE)
8 CIP TRANSITIONS $ 30,000.00
11 PAVING $ 110,000.00
12 GUIDE RAIL $ 2,000.00
14 GABIONS $ 4,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2022) $ 4,900,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 1,000,000.00
* GRAND TOTAL $ 5,900,000.00

A.21
A.22
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
SCALE

OPTION 6 - FULL REPLACEMENT ON IMPROVED ALIGNMENT
8 BACKFILL PORTIONS OF EXISTING CULVERT TO BE ABANDONED $ 54,000.00
10 PAVING $ 161,868.00
14 GUIDE RAIL $ 2,000.00
15 GABIONS $ 4,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2022) $ 4,000,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 800,000.00
* GRAND TOTAL $ 4,800,000.00

A.23
A.24
JOB 5049-098
SHEET NO. 1 OF 1
SCALE

OPTION 7 - FULL REPLACEMENT ON IMPROVED ALIGNMENT (IDEALIZED)
8 BACKFILL PORTIONS OF EXISTING CULVERT TO BE ABANDONED $ 54,000.00
10 PAVING $ 162,000.00
14 GUIDE RAIL $ 2,000.00
15 GABIONS $ 4,000.00

* SUBTOTAL (2022) $ 4,500,000.00
* CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 900,000.00
* GRAND TOTAL $ 5,400,000.00

A.25
A.26

Lawshee Run Culvert Replacement Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawshee Run Culvert Replacement Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAWSHEE RUN CULVERT REPLACEMENT

LDG Project No. 5049-098

SUBMISSION QUALITY ASSURANCE

Prepared By: JTS Date: 7/19/2017

Checked By: KAB Date: 8/10/2017

QA/QC’d By: KAB/DEG Date: 8/11/2017

Existing Structure Conditions Map

1.1 Project Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Site Location and Description .................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Permitting and Hydraulic Capacity Requirements..................................................................... 2

Existing Structure Condition......................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 General Description of Existing Culvert .................................................................................... 4

2.3 Corrugated Metal Pipe (Sta. 0+74.8 – Sta. 3+09.3) ................................................................... 4

2.4 Stone Masonry Arch (Sta. 3+09.3 – Sta. 3+59.8) ...................................................................... 5

2.6 Reinforced Box Culvert (Sta. 4+21.1 – Sta. 6+22.8) ................................................................. 6

2.10 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 17

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study ................................................................................................................ 18

3.1 Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 19

3.2 Hydraulic Analysis................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Sediment Bed Load .................................................................................................................. 24

3.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 24

Culvert Replacement Options and Phasing Alternatives ............................................................................ 25

4.1 Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Replacement and Phasing Options........................................................................................... 26

5.1 Feasibility Based on Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................. 35

5.2 Summary of Probable Replacement Costs ............................................................................... 37

5.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 38

• Straight Line Diagram of Culvert ......................................................................................... A.2

• Option No. 1 .......................................................................................................................... A.4

• Option No. 2 .......................................................................................................................... A.9

• Option No. 3 ........................................................................................................................ A.14

• Option No. 4 ........................................................................................................................ A.19

• Option No. 5 ........................................................................................................................ A.21

• Option No. 6 ........................................................................................................................ A.23

• Option No. 7 ........................................................................................................................ A.25

7.43" WIDE X 9.49" HIGH

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

Jersey Shore Borough

Culvert Inlet Interior view of pipe arch

2.3 5’ DIAMETER CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (Sta. 0+74.8 – Sta. 3+09.3)

Loss of bearing under transverse sidewalk beam Previous Repaired area

Tiadaghton Mall Exit Crossing Station - 8+11.9 to Station 8+37.4

Unreinforced Concrete Wall Spalled Areas (Typical)

Culvert Station 8+37.4 to Station 9+12.4

Culvert Station 9+12.4 to Station 9+41.4

Culvert Station 9+41.4 to Station 10+22.9

Large Horizontal Cracks in Unreinforced Walls Outlet Pipe through Wall

Culvert Station 10+46.4 to Station 10+62.4

Frequency USGS 5102 EFH-2

3.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

Inlet Pipe Arch 5'-10" / 2'-9" 13.4 75

Corrugated Metal Pipe 5'-0" Dia. 19.6 239

State owned Concrete Culvert (below

RC Box Culvert (below Minit Mart) 7'-0" / 4'-0" 28.0 179

Header Beam at Transition from RC

Unreinforced Box Culvert 7'-10" / 3'-6" 27.4

Unreinforced Box Culvert with Jackets 5'-2" / 3'-9" 19.4

Unreinforced Box Culvert (below

Outlet Pipe Arch 6'-0" / 3'-9" 17.3 39

* Lengths include transitions

Option No. 4 - Replace entire structure on existing alignment (7.8'x3.5') $5,400,000

Option No. 5 - Replace entire structure on existing alignment (9.75'x4.67') $5,900,000

Option No. 6 - Replace entire structure on improved alignment (7.8'x3.5') $4,800,000