csx worcester intermodal terminal … worcester intermodal terminal expansion challenges of terminal...

CSX WORCESTER INTERMODAL TERMINAL EXPANSION Challenges of Terminal Expansion in an Urban Setting

Ken Grula

CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. 550 Water Street, 11th Floor

Jacksonville, FL 32202 (904) 633-1075

[email protected]

David Irving TranSystems Corporation 1475 East Woodfield Road

Suite 600 Schaumburg, IL 60173

(847) 407-5274 [email protected]

ABSTRACT CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS, INC.

WORCESTER INTERMODAL TERMINAL EXPANSION WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS

As part of an historic agreement between CSX Transportation (CSX) and the Commonwealth, CSX Intermodal Terminals’ Development Group expanded its land-locked, downtown Worcester, Massachusetts Intermodal Terminal one and a half times its original size in 20 months. The expansion was a complex undertaking that required multiple parallel actions to meet the terms of the agreement with the Commonwealth. The challenges included: Keeping the terminal in-service throughout construction for CSX Intermodal’s largest customer;

(UPS) Constructing a new bridge to carry city traffic over the terminal - while keeping the road open

and UPS in service; Stabilizing a deep organic subgrade layer under the bridge approaches; Constructing 8 separate retaining walls (involving heights from 3’ to 50’, incorporating various

engineering types, including tied-back sheet piling, MSE, soil nail, large gravity block, stone gabion, and cast-in-place concrete;

Closing as existing 100 year old main line bridge and relocating all of the city’s main utilities that crossed underneath, and keeping them operational throughout;

Providing required drainage detention utilizing infiltration ponds, below grade detention and standard detention ponds;

Carving out a new 2,500’ siding requiring the excavation of 50,000 CY of rock, adjacent to CSX’s double main line (and Boston commuter rail) and in very close proximity to neighbor’s homes;

Modifying an existing interstate entrance ramp to align with the new terminal entrance. Though the finished terminal encompasses less than 75 acres, its location & proximity to

neighbors, operational mandate, and the unknowns realized in a century old train yard make the Worcester Expansion one of the most complex engineering endeavors undertaken by CSX.

© AREMA 2014 1

Owner – CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. Design-Builder – Ragnar Benson Construction Lead Designer – TranSystems Corporation Presenters: Ken Grula – CSX Intermodal Terminals, Inc. David Irving – TranSystems Corporation

WORCESTER INTERMODAL TERMINAL EXPANSION

The Worcester Intermodal Termination Expansion Project is part of a historical Agreement among CSX Transportation (CSX) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Commonwealth”). CSX Intermodal Terminal Development Group worked countless hours to expand its land-locked, downtown Worcester, Massachusetts Intermodal Terminal (the “Terminal”) to one and a half times its original size in 20 months – beginning in March, 2011 and its final completion in November, 2012. The plan called for the sale and closing of the Boston terminal and the construction of 45 miles of mainline for the MBTA central Massachusetts commuter rail. The total Worcester reconstruction and expansion to consolidate these terminals was a complex undertaking, which required multiple parallel events to meet the terms of the Agreement with the Commonwealth as follows:

Extensive permitting and rezoning – 12 months prior to construction; Purchase of 14 properties totaling 24 acres; Acquisition of temporary or permanent construction easements on 15 other properties; Construction of over 6,500 linear feet of retaining wall along the south property line and

Franklin Street; Construction and rehabilitation of 8 miles of new yard track and 20 turnouts including the

installation of a new mainline signal system; establishment of a new 2,500’ long siding requiring excavation of 50,000 cubic yards of rock;

Installation of 33 acres of Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) concrete paving; Construction of four (4) new buildings totaling 15,000 S.F. (two of which were required to

achieve LEED Silver Certification by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, (MDEP)), and a 1,000 S.F health and wellness center for Terminal employees;

Closure of a 100-year old single lane street (Putnam Lane) underpass and associated double main line bridge. Permanent closure required filling with select material and pumped concrete to provide continuous support to the bridge deck under traffic;

Relocation of miles of underground utility mains; Construction of a new Franklin Street overpass to separate terminal vehicles from public

vehicles in the expanded Terminal Facility, while maintaining existing traffic patterns/uses; and

Accomplish the objective, while maintaining the busy MBTA Commuter Rail service to Boston; existing CSX intermodal and manifest service to CSX’s Boston intermodal terminal and customers, and keeping the Worcester Intermodal Terminal active for CSX Intermodal’s main customer – UPS.

© AREMA 2014 2

PROJECT BACKGROUND & PROPERTY OVERVIEW

Worcester, Massachusetts, proudly pronounced “WOOSTAH” to locals, is the second largest city in New England, an hour’s drive west of Boston. It is an old industrial city, with extensive rail and meat processing roots. The Worcester Terminal Expansion created efficiencies in the movement of goods between modes of transportation which, when combined with modernization of the new terminal’s equipment and container management, resulted in reductions of air emissions and noise. The consolidation of intermodal functions to the existing Worcester location further reduced air emissions on a regional level, making Worcester one of the “greenest” intermodal facilities in the nation.

THE TERMINAL

As shown in Figure 1, Worcester is a densely populated area, with much topography. The original terminal occupied approximately 45 acres bordered by the CSX main line/MBTA commuter rail line to the north, Interstate 290 to the West, and Franklin Street to the south and southeast. In order to accommodate the combination of terminals and similar capacities, an additional 24 acres to the south and east was purchased.

By the time the layout was finished on the odd shaped property; 19,000’ of process & support track was constructed; four miles of new siding track and mainline rehabilitation/ realignment: 20 turnouts installed and 580 parking spaces were distributed across 160,000 square yards of 9” and 16” Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC).

© AREMA 2014 3

Figure 1. Completed Terminal footprint (North is to the left).

© AREMA 2014 4

RETAINING WALLS

In order to make room for the processing tracks, the existing terminal footprint needed to be expanded in both length and width. This widening of the long axis of the terminal proved to be the most complex activity of the Project’s 20-month duration - carving out space from the side of the mountain – toward Franklin Street, 50’ above the Terminal floor. To achieve this, a 3,400’ long retaining wall was constructed in 13 months – the specific type of wall varied depending on the geology. For continuity, the visible surface of all of the walls are the same – providing a seamless, continuous block face – the largest of its kind in New England. The wall uses over 78,000 “hand laid” block and over 140,000 LF of soil nail as shown in Figure 2. Because the City’s busy restaurant district on Shrewsbury Street (parallel and immediately to the north of the terminal) is a much lower elevation than the terminal, the “Great Wall of Worcester” as it has become to be known, is a highly visible landmark from miles around.

Due to the geologic conditions, controlling groundwater became critical. Many times throughout construction, large volumes of ground water would visibly flow from PVC drains installed in the soil face.

Figure 2. Soil Nail Wall along Franklin Street.

© AREMA 2014 5

Figure 3. Sheet pile wall looking east.

Figure 4. Retaining Wall Finished Product

35‐45 ft. high

© AREMA 2014 6

Figure 5. Aerial view highlighting Franklin Retaining Wall.

Franklin St. Retaining wall

© AREMA 2014 7

EAST END SIDING EXCAVATION

In order to have trains access the new Terminal from the east and have switching headroom, a 2,500’ long siding was engineered, alongside the active main line.

Figure 6. Location of East End Cut (Wells Street).

The existing double track main at this location was cut out of the rock decades earlier, forming a natural gulley over which the Plantation Street city bridge passed over. To make room for the new siding, the entire length of rock had to be mechanically excavated which was approximately 50,000 CY rock. Due to the close proximity of residential and commercial property, noise and vibration monitoring was critical.

The one key element that stood out during this activity was that both main line tracks were active for the duration of construction including busy daily morning and afternoon commuter service to Boston along with Amtrak. Contractor safety quickly became the number 1 concern, every minute of every day! The contractors worked hand-in-hand with CSX Flagmen, stopping work for each train passing, with zero incidents and a perfect safety record.

Right of Way widened for

new siding to Terminal

© AREMA 2014 8

Figure 7. Rock excavation at east end.

Figure 8. Rock excavation at east end.

Active Main Line / Boston

Commuter Traffic

Neighbor

© AREMA 2014 9

Terminal and West End Lead Track The Franklin Street retaining wall was only one (1) of eight (8) retaining walls engineered and constructed throughout the project. Other retaining walls included large block gravity walls, small block MSE style walls, and exposed rock bolt and soil nail designs. To access the Terminal from the west, an existing siding was reconstructed and extended through a main line corridor, which was narrowed by several street underpasses. To accomplish this siding construction, several smaller retaining walls were constructed on multiple private properties. Given their visibility, an aesthetically pleasing large block gravity wall design was chosen.

Figure 9. Large Block Gravity Wall supporting the re-profiled west lead.

© AREMA 2014 10

Figure 10. East End Siding Soil Nail Retaining Wall (underground easements required). ENVIRONMENTAL

Every aspect of the project development considered the environmental impact and surrounding areas. In 2012, the Environmental Business Council of New England presented CSX with The John A.S. McGlennon Environmental Award for Corporate Leadership. The award is presented to a public or private corporation in recognition of their outstanding, corporate environmental leadership and contribution to the quality of the environment in New England.

CSX’s intention was to utilize green construction materials as often as possible. CSX selected steel crossties within the Terminal. These ties are manufactured with 100% recycled steel and can be recycled or salvaged at the end of their useful life.

To handle locomotive fueling, an underground liner manufactured by MPC Containment of Chicago was used in the Terminal’s west end mobile fueling area. The liner, specially designed to be impervious to diesel fuel, was installed under the fueling tracks, sloped to route any spills to an under-drain system. Any spillage would route through the under-drains to a secure piping system with emergency containment gates at the discharge points to the stormwater detention basins.

© AREMA 2014 11

Figure 11. Mobile fueling west end – spills directed to the red pipes – gated at the basins.

In conjunction with the MDEP, CSX designed two (2) of the four (4) terminal buildings to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification; Silver Status.

The Gate building’s complex power system was designed with 100% solar energy. The system incorporates 33 solar panels mounted on the truck gate canopy. The entire building’s electrical system is solar powered, and often feeds surplus power back to National Grid (local power company) when not being used by the Terminal.

Containment Gates

(photo below)

© AREMA 2014 12

Figure 12. Solar on Gate Inbound Canopy – to power adjacent Admin Building.

STREET CLOSURES

To accommodate the new plan, several streets were closed or re-routed. The most notable of these was Putnam Lane. As shown below, prior to construction, from Franklin Street one would drive down a steep hill, through a one-lane 100 year old underpass (double track main line above), and exit to the northern side of the Terminal – Shrewsbury Street – Worcester’s main business thoroughfare. As part of the Project, the street and underpass were abandoned in place (bridge grouted solid).

© AREMA 2014 13

Figure 13. 100 year old Putnam Lane Bridge and Underpass.

What made this street closure difficult was that all of the City’s main gas, water, sewer, power and communication utilities used Putnam Lane as a natural north/south crossing path. With the street closure and associated mass fill for heavy RTG Crane loading, every utility had to not only be “re-routed” but also “re-designed” to connect to the much higher Franklin Street elevation (i.e. on top of the retaining wall), not following the old street contour. Standard details were impossible – each utility was engineered individually, each condition case-by-case. To complicate matters, every utility had to remain in service. For example; until the new sewer was installed and once the street was removed, the existing sewer had to be pumped 24/7 x 10 months to the higher elevation. As winter approached, in order to prevent a gas shortage to the City’s thriving Shrewsbury Street businesses, the 24” forced gas main had to be re-routed 1,500 feet along the Franklin Wall, out of the way of the Terminal operations.

© AREMA 2014 14

Figure 14. Re-routed Water main reaching up to Franklin Street connection.

FRANKLIN STREET OVERPASS

In order to expand the Terminal to the planned operational size, property south of “at-grade” Franklin Street would be needed. The most significant land purchase was a large parcel owned by a local supermarket. This tract became the hub of the Terminal, its new main entrance, gate operation, administration building, and majority of the wheeled parking. As the City would not allow closure of Franklin Street, the only alternative was to go under – so a new overpass was engineered and constructed. This one activity presented several hurdles. Franklin Street is the only connection to the residences to the east (including emergency vehicles) – and had to remain open (including to pedestrians) during the entire construction process. In addition, the subsurface geologic strata under the existing street was poor, but too deep to be removed. A foundation was engineered consisting of geo piers combined with driven steel piles to support the structure. To further complicate matters, Franklin Street was a second major crossing point for all of the City’s utilities (similar to Putnam Lane) – as well as Verizon’s main fiber duct. The Verizon line relocation proved to be so monumentally difficult, that the only solution was to carefully uncover it, move it by hand, and re-design the bridge foundations around it.

© AREMA 2014 15

Figure 15. BEFORE – Entrance, Gate and Wheeled Parking Property.

Figure 16. AFTER - Entrance, Gate and Wheeled Parking Property.

New Overpass

Gate Building

Wheeled Parking

Main Entrance

Future Overpass Location

Supermarket

© AREMA 2014 16

GRAFTON MAIN ENTRANCE

On a project of this complexity, CSX’s contractors were not the only forces involved. As part of the Massachusetts Agreement and City permitting, the new Terminal ingress and egress was created from Grafton Street. This new Terminal access required re-design of the off ramp for I-290 north. The new design routed vehicles into a new four-way intersection directly across from the Terminal entrance.

Figure 17. New entrance in operation – looking into the Terminal from I-290 ramp.

ACTIVE UPS TERMINAL

The previous pages illustrate some of the challenges CSX had to overcome in order to expand the Worcester Terminal and increase intermodal container processing. Not to be understated, the biggest challenge of all is the fact that everything described in this submission was done in an active terminal environment. There was not a single instance over the 20 month duration, when the UPS trains could not be serviced or had to be rerouted away from the Terminal. Early on, CSX reached a decision to maintain service to UPS. All other domestic and international customers, with the exception of UPS, would be relocated and handled at the West Springfield and Boston Beacon Park terminals during construction. This would leave over half of the previous volume in Worcester - for the duration of the construction. Loading and unloading of trains side by side with the contractors, service and reliability was maintained – with a perfect service record during UPS’ busiest peak season – the Christmas Holiday season, Thanksgiving to Christmas Eve. This success was possible because of the Project teamwork and commitment to the customer. Plans were made, frequently reviewed and adjusted (often daily), with understanding and flexibility by everyone involved.

© AREMA 2014 17

The overall concept called for closing half of the Terminal at a time, and processing the UPS trains on the other half.

During Phase II (for most of 2012), the UPS trains were processed on the east end. Due to the steep terrain, this meant that all of UPS’ trucks had to access from the far west end, driving over a mile through the construction site, often on temporary roads, to get to the east. CSX management kept in close communication with UPS so they could inform their drivers of the frequent adjustments.

With today’s technology, CAD and the Internet have changed how drawings are created and viewed. Gone are the days of stacks of paper plans. To keep UPS going, the team would frequently think “outside of the box,” and use old-fashioned hand sketches – such as the example below. Collaboration involved every last worker – right down to the truck drivers.

Figure 18. Working through the days challenges.

From pre-planning, through design and construction; every day brought on new challenges and obstacles to overcome, including one of the 10 costliest hurricanes on record (Irene 2011) and worst single event New England snowfalls (24” late October, 2011). Worcester will certainly be one to remember.

© AREMA 2014 18

OC

SO

WO

RC

ES

TE

R IN

TE

RM

OD

AL

TE

RM

INA

LE

XP

AN

SIO

NT

ER

MIN

AL

EX

PA

NS

ION

Cha

lleng

es o

f Ter

min

al E

xpan

sion

in

an U

rban

Set

ting

© AREMA 2014 19

Project Background

Setting the Stage – Urban Setting

Public Concerns and Demands Complex Property Acquisition – More landowners / smaller

properties / above & below ground easements Urban Traffic Congestion Noise / Vibration & Site Concerns magnified Perceived Dangers and Health concerns Working in people’s backyards Best use of Property – City Planning Concerns Becoming a Trusted Neighbor

Early ChallengesHow do you expand a terminal 50% while . . . Keeping the Terminal in Operation

Keeping Main Line in Operation

Keeping City Streets in Operation

Limiting Impacts to Main Customers

Limiting Impacts to Neighbors (including Fire Dept)

Early Planning

Upgrade nearby (Springfield) terminal capacity Limit Worcester service to our key customer during

Construction, shift traffic to other terminals where possible

Multiple meetings with Community Groups and keyMultiple meetings with Community Groups and key neighbors

Close coordination with local authorities Local presence to work through permit issues Recognize costs will be higher

Design / Construction Challenges Urban Setting / keeping city streets open Franklin Street Retaining Wall Putnam Lane Closure Putnam Lane Utilities Franklin Street BridgeMaintenance Area Access East End Rock Cut – proximity to neighbors & active

main line CP 45 Main Line Track Shift

© AREMA 2014 20

Greenfield Site – Rural Setting Dense Urban Setting

Population Density Worcester Terminal Prior to Construction

Worcester Terminal Post Construction

34,000 TF New Track and 23 Turnouts Purchase 16 parcels totaling 24 acres 3 Acres of Retaining Walls 37,000 TN of ballast

© AREMA 2014 21

csx worcester intermodal terminal … worcester intermodal terminal expansion challenges of terminal...

Documents