Value Engineering Report And Recommendations

VVaalluuee EEnnggiinneeeerriinngg RReeppoorrtt AAnndd

RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss

City of Hercules Intermodal Transit Center

March 30 – April 2, 2010

DRAFT

HDR Engineering, Inc. 626 Columbia Street NW

Suite 2A Olympia, WA 98501

(360) 570-4415

Disclaimer The information contained in this report is the professional opinions of the team members during the VE Study. These opinions were based on the information provided to the team at the time of the study. As the project continues to develop, new information will become available, and this information will need to be evaluated on how it may affect the recommendations and findings in this report. All costs displayed in the report are based on best available information at the time of the study and unless otherwise noted are in current year dollars.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Table of Contents Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Project Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1

VE Study Overview .................................................................................................................................... 2

Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 5

VE Team Members .................................................................................................................................. 12

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 13

Project Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................... 13

Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 16

Process and Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 18

Scope of Value Engineering Study .......................................................................................................... 18

Constraints and Controlling Decisions .................................................................................................... 18

Project Issues/Site Visit Observations ..................................................................................................... 19

Information Provided to the VE Team .................................................................................................... 20

Value Engineering – Project Analysis ...................................................................................................... 21

Cost Model .............................................................................................................................................. 21

Functional Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 21

FAST Diagram Approach ......................................................................................................................... 21

Idea Generation and Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 22

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

VE Recommendation No. 1 ..................................................................................................................... 23







Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Table of Contents Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010



VE Recommendation No. 10 ................................................................................................................... 67

VE Recommendation No. 11 ................................................................................................................... 69

Table of Illustrations 5‐ Phasing Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Table ES‐1 .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Table ES‐2 .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Table ES‐3 .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Table ES‐4 ................................................................................................................................................ 11

2‐ Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................................ 13

5‐ Phasing Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Hercules Powder Company, 1900’s ........................................................................................................ 16

Hercules Point ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Table of Information Provided: Report/Drawings/Maps ........................................................................ 20

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.1 Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010

EExxeeccuuttiivvee SSuummmmaarryy

Introduction

This Value Engineering (VE) Study Executive Summary provides an overview of the project, key findings, and the recommendations developed by the VE Team. Detailed documentation and exhibits of the study’s analysis are provided in the VE Study Report.

A VE Study, sponsored by the City of Hercules and facilitated by HDR Engineering, Inc., was conducted for the improvements to the Hercules Intermodal Transit Center (ITC) project. The study was conducted with most project packages near 60% design. The design effort is expected to be completed in the fall of 2010. This VE Study was conducted from March 30 – April 2, 2010.

Project Overview

The City of Hercules, California (City) proposes to construct an Intermodal Transit Center, associated rail and roadway improvements, and ancillary facilities at a site adjacent to San Pablo Bay in Contra Costa County. The City is the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act. The City intends, in part, to construct this facility with federal funding; therefore, the Federal Transit Administration is acting as the federal lead agency for the project. The City is also coordinating with the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) to provide intercity passenger rail service to the site and the West Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) to provide bus service connections.

1


The area surrounding the proposed Hercules ITC site is being redeveloped with transit oriented housing and business developments, and the proposed project would improve access to public transit (commuter rail and local buses) for local residents and the greater region. Providing access to public transit is also expected to reduce congestion on the nearby freeways, as well as local arterials.

The Hercules ITC includes grade-separated pedestrian access over the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line to a new center island passenger platform. Although train service would be available throughout the day, the facility is expected to be used mainly by commuters traveling throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Train passengers would be able to either walk from nearby residential units, bike along the bicycle path connection that is part of the proposed project, or park their motor vehicles in the park-and-ride lot that is part of the proposed project. Transit center patrons would also be able to access the site via public bus service that will be extended to the proposed Hercules Intermodal Transit Center as part of this project.

VE Study Overview

A comprehensive Value Engineering (VE) team was assembled to carefully review the Hercules ITC project (baseline design) in a focused work session developing cost-saving recommendations consistent with the project goals and objectives. The VE Team, led by Ken Smith, PE, Certified Value Specialists and made-up of highly qualified professional engineers and architects, independent from the ITC design team (with the exception of the Project Architect), evaluated project components integral and related to the station construction. The evaluation process generated (73) cost saving ideas for consideration. The VE team followed a structured process (FAST Diagram Method), which evaluated component function and ranked cost saving ideas and ultimately developing a priority final list of (11) recommendations projected to benefit the project and yield significant savings with additional technical analysis. Each recommendation was assigned to the professional with expertise in the subject area to more fully develop the technical basis for the recommendation.

The VE Team Leader prepared a cost model from the baseline cost estimate that was provided by the project team. The models are organized to identify major construction elements or trade categories, the designer's estimated costs, and the percent of total project cost for the significant cost items.

The cost models clearly showed the cost drivers for the project and were used to guide the VE Team during the VE Study. The following conclusions were noted by the VE Team regarding the project costs:

The train station accounts for 32.3% of the project total The retaining walls are 26.6% of the project total Realigning the railroad is over 8% of the project Relocating the gas line and fiber optic utilities account for almost 8% of the project total.

2


Table ES-1 Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Cost Model

$0.00 M $5.00 M $10.00 M $15.00 M $20.00 M $25.00 M

Lighting

Promenade

Fencing

Transit Loop Bridge

Transit Loop

Railroad Platform Support

Creekside Park

Railroad Bridge

Soil Nail Wall

Bay Trail

Relocate Utilities

Realign Railroad

Cantilever Retaining Wall

Train Station

Hercules Intermodal Transit CenterCost Model - Total Cost $63.26 M

3


Table ES-2 Cost Model- Baseline Concept

Cost Model – Baseline Concept

Items $$$ % of Total Cumulative %

Train Station $20.45 M 32.3% 32.3%

Cantilever Retaining Wall $13.31 M 21.0% 53.4%

Realign Railroad $5.40 M 8.5% 61.9%

Relocate Utilities $5.01 M 7.9% 69.8%

Bay Trail $4.00 M 6.3% 76.1%

Soil Nail Wall $3.50 M 5.5% 81.7%

Railroad Bridge $2.79 M 4.4% 86.1%

Creekside Park $1.79 M 2.8% 88.9%

Railroad Platform Support $1.57 M 2.5% 91.4%

Transit Loop $1.42 M 2.2% 93.6%

Transit Loop Bridge $1.31 M 2.1% 95.7%

Fencing $1.04 M 1.6% 97.4%

Promenade $0.85 M 1.3% 98.7%

Lighting $0.82 M 1.3% 100.0%

TOTAL* $63.26 M 100%

*The VE process focused on the key project components where cost savings could be achieved within the Project Goals and Objectives, therefore only a portion of the overall ITC project total construction cost was subject to VE analysis.

The final recommendations selected to be advanced as viable approaches are summarized below. For additional detail see the Recommendations Section (page 4.3).

4


Summary of Recommendations

Railroad Realignment RECOMMENDATION – VE No.1 Many key ITC project components are integral to and dependent upon the railroad realignment. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the VE team to evaluate the baseline railroad design considering the operational performance requirements of freight and passenger railroads coupled with the related impacts on ITC project components and construction staging. The VE recommended Railroad Realignment meets recent operational concerns voiced by Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), while eliminating impacts related to the temporary shoofly tracks and dramatically simplifying the overall construction staging. The Railroad Realignment design is consistent with the Hercules ITC project goals to realign the existing two mainline tracks accommodating the station and center island platform, but necessarily includes a third main track to offset and mitigate the operational impacts related to the station stop and the exclusion of temporary shoofly tracks.

The VE team evaluated the baseline railroad design, which included the construction of a temporary double-track shoofly consistent with the initial requirements of the UPRR, attached to and outlined in the preliminary design agreement (UPRR-City). The shoofly tracks allowed train operations to continue bypassing the project on the landside creating sufficient clearance to construct the train station and platform, but also adding significant complexity to the construction staging due to conflicts with the retaining walls, utilities and bridges. In the baseline railroad design one temporary shoofly track would be removed, and the other would be shifted over into the final mainline station track alignment. The other mainline station track would be partially replaced tied into the existing storage track and realigned to accommodate the center island platform being constructed for the station. Additionally, the baseline design provided the necessary right of way to extend a third main track through the project area.

The VE team developed a new Railroad Realignment option that eliminated the temporary double-track shooflies, instead including a passing track (third mainline track) to meet both freight and passenger operational requirements while simplifying the Hercules ITC construction staging. By constructing a third mainline track the project realizes the benefit of several other significant cost savings that would not be feasible otherwise. The advantages of this recommendation include:

Elimination of a double-track shoofly by instead constructing a single third track in the final alignment,

More cost effective retaining wall design through the station area (VE No.2), More cost effective center platform design (VE No.4), Basement reduction (VE No.10), Reduction of a temporary construction at-grade crossing, Elimination of culvert strengthening and temporary railroad bridge extension, Simplification of the construction staging which shortens the overall construction

duration.

Additionally, the railroad realignment provides added benefit to UPRR and CCJPA effectively mitigating freight-passenger train conflicts and the added impact of an added station stop to the Capital Corridor schedule.

5


A comparative summary of the costs and savings related to VIP Railroad Realignment option is included below.

Table ES-3 VIP Cost and Savings Table

VIP Cost Table- additional costs incurred by the VIP Railroad Realignment

# Item Description Cost

1 Track $ 734,000.00

2 Utility Relocation $ 2,238,500.00

3 Grading and Drainage $ 933,000.00

4 RR Signals $ 1,822,000.00

5 Right of Way $ 60,750.00

6 Design/Environmental (12%) $ 695,000.00

Total $ 5,788,250.00

VIP Savings Table- additional savings rendered from the VIP Railroad Realignment

# Item Description Savings

1 RR Bridge $ 200,000.00

2 Temporary Grading and Drainage $ 159,200.00

3 Retaining Wall $ 4,343,000.00

4 Construction Phasing $ 210,000.00

5 Construction Duration $ 1,372,000.00

Total $ 6,284,200.00

Net VIP Savings $ 495,950.00

Notes:

1: VIP Cost Table consists of additional costs incurred by the revised track alignment to create a passing track

2: VIP Savings Table consists of savings that directly result from construction phasing and scheduling improvements made possible by VIP design

3: Net VIP Savings = VIP Savings ‐ VIP Cost

6


The Railroad Realignment option yields direct and indirect benefits to the Hercules ITC project that will help the City deliver the project with the backing of key stakeholders. Additional ancillary benefits include: the potential removal of an existing storage track on which UPRR regularly stores train cars, better on-time train service along the corridor for long term operations, and the active assistance and support from key stakeholders including the host railroad (UPRR), managing authority (CCJPA) and operating agency (AMTRAK) to obtain timely design review and project approval.

7


Fill Retaining Walls RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 2 Significant cost savings are realized from the fill retaining wall design type and simplified construction staging if the VE recommended railroad realignment is implemented due to the elimination of the shoofly tracks.

The baseline design with a double-track shoofly required the construction of fill retaining walls in multiple project phases. While the shoofly tracks provided necessary clearance for the Contractor to construct the platform, station, and Railroad Bridge within the railroad right-of-way, the shoofly tracks also precluded the initial construction of the retaining wall through most of the project area adjacent to the Bayfront development. The inclusion of a third main track in place of shoofly tracks, allows train operations to be maintained on the main tracks without the construction of costly temporary tracks and provides sufficient clearance to construct the fill retaining walls in the initial project phase. Completing the fill retaining walls in the initial ITC project phase triggers the added benefit of de-coupling other land side improvements including the construction of Transit Loop drive and bridge, Civic Plaza and the Bay Trail. The retaining wall type, considered by the baseline design, was limited due to the constraints related to the complex construction staging. The baseline design considered a cast-in-place concrete, cantilever retaining wall supported on steel H-piles.

The VE Fill Retaining Wall design recommendation includes Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) or segmental block (i.e. Keystone block) wall on ground improvement in areas of compressible soils and deep bay mud. This remmendation when combined with VE No.1 (VIP Railroad Realignment) could reduce the overall construction duration by several months.

If the Rail Realignment VE Recommendation is not implemented, the shoofly tracks would need to be constructed meaning that a significant portion of the fill retaining wall adjacent to the Bayfront development could not be constructed during the initial phase. The full cost savings could not be realized and there would be additional costs associated with mobilization, railroad flagger, earthwork and construction phasing. Additionally, there is an interdependence between the retaining wall construction and the station building foundation/basement for approximately 200-ft. Additional cost savings would not be realized without the railroad realignment.

Center Platform Alternative Structure RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 4 The Center Platform can be constructed with a lighter and simpler mat foundation system and pre-cast, segmented deck slab based on minimized track clearances afforded by the VE Railroad Realignment and the reduction of poured-in-place construction operations. The VE Center Platform Alternative Structure offers significant cost savings. Additionally, with UPRR construction of the Railroad Bridge and realignment of the Refugio Creek during the initial project phase simplifies the platform design and construction at the existing dog-leg section of Refugio Creek.

The baseline design involved a composite cast-in-place 10-inch thick concrete slab supported on concrete grade beams with driven piles with a portion of the platform necessarily bridging the existing dog-leg section of Refugio Creek. The VE recommendation provides a post-tension

8


cast-in-place deck slab with two grad beams and no piles. The recommended option could reduce construction by approximately two weeks.

If the VE Railroad Realignment recommendation is not implemented the additional minimized clearances would not possible during all stages of the project and would limit the revised center platform design from being fully implemented. Lacking the additional clearances, the cost savings would be minimal due to the necessity to construct the platform in stages.

Reduced Basement RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 10 Because the ITC station basement is adjacent to the retaining wall constructing the VE recommended Fill Retaining Walls initially also result in a significant reduction to the Station Basement. The reduced basement footprint would result in cost savings in the event the rail realignment is implemented. By allowing for the construction of the fill retaining wall and ground improvement during the initial construction phase, fill can be placed adjacent to the station building along the bay trail. The ability to implement these improvements means that the station building basement could either be eliminated or reduced while also realizing many of the cost savings that the basement offers.

The baseline design, proposed a 4,800 square foot station basement that would be built on existing ground with minimal structural enhancements. The basement provides usable square footage below the building (and Civic Plaza), while also reducing the number of driven piles and length of cantilever retaining wall that would be needed if no basement were constructed.

When combined with VE Recommended Railroad Realignment and Fill Retaining Walls, the foundation for the station building can be simplified through wall and backfill construction. The recommended approach reduces the basement footprint by approximately half that included in the baseline concept while maximizing cost savings.

If the VE Railroad Realignment is not implemented, the basement savings could not be realized due to the restrictions associated with constructing the fill retaining wall during the initial phase adjacent to the station building. Furthermore, the basement would necessitate additional structural costs to stabilize the area for the Bay Trail (between the retaining wall and station building).

Shorter Walls along the Promenade RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 3 Shorter Walls along the Promenade can be implemented by additional grading, steps and slopes between Transit Loop drive/Promenade and the Bay Trail. The recommendation results in a lower Bay Trail alignment and shorter retaining walls while maintaining the Promenade at the same elevation as Transit Loop drive will be lower than the Promenade for a portion of the area adjacent to Transit Loop. The recommendation affords a height reduction in the adjacent retaining wall by approximately three feet along the Promenade.

The material savings are modest compared with other VE Recommendations, but the design improves drainage along the Bay Trail by directing surface run-off toward Refugio creek and functionally improves circulation by separating passing bicyclists from pedestrians using the Promenade.

9


Revised Station Pedestrian Guardrail RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 5 The Revised Pedestrian Guardrail with the Station Building consists of replacing the baseline glass guardrail with steel cable guardrail. The resulting material savings are minimal, but the recommendation yields greater long-term savings in maintenance cost and is consistent with the Project design objective the maintain transparency with the structural design.

Reduce Quantity of Wind Turbines RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 6 Reducing the quantity of wind turbines on the platform from the baseline design, which proposed twelve (12) to a recommendation of eight (8) total wind turbines, yields the direct material and installation saving associated with (4) wind turbines. The recommendation remains consistent with the project goal of LEED certification as a program requirement and maintains a quantity of wind turbines to both produce energy and provide a visual commitment the sustainable design approach.

Station Brace Frame Construction RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 7 Using brace frame systems for the Station Building structure allows for more off-site fabrication resulting in fewer field welds, smaller structural members, faster construction and decreased overall cost. The brace frame design can be incorporated where the bracing is not as visually intrusive and provides added resistance to lateral loads, while maintaining the transparency that is consistent with the project design objectives.

Restraining Track Guardrail RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 8 A Restraining Track Guardrail is a an additional set of rails mounted on the track ties adjacent to the station platform area that reduces the risk for a train derailing near the station causing injury to passengers or damage to the structure. The recommendation would be an added safety enhancement for the station and requires coordination with the operating authority and host railroad.

Promenade/Park Amenities RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 9 Using stamped or scored concrete at the Promenade in place of unit pavers effectively reduces material and labor cost while also reducing maintenance costs in the future. The color and pattern used for the concrete surface can be designed so that it remains consistent with the quality and aesthetic of the existing local community and proposed ITC project improvements. Poured-in-place concrete provides the added benefit of a more uniform finish to meet ADA requirements and a better surface for bicyclists.

10


Miscellaneous Landscape Items RECOMMENDATION – VE No. 11 Planting materials through the ITC project can be selected that are more cost effective and include a mix of native plants and materials maintain the desired aesthetic and meet the project LEED water conservation goals.

Table ES-4, VE Recommendation Summary

# Project Component* VE Savings

($ Millions)

1 Railroad Realignment - $0.496 M

2 Fill Retaining Walls - $10.03 M

3 Shorter Walls along Promenade - $0.04 M

4 Center Platform Alternative Structure - $0.60 M

5 Revise Station Pedestrian Guardrail - $0.48 M

6 Reduce Quantity of Wind Turbines - $0.16 M

7 Station Brace Frame Construction - $0.36 M

8 Restraining Track Guardrail + $0.11 M

9 Promenade/Park Amenities - $0.46 M

10 Partial Basement Reduction - $0.41 M

11 Miscellaneous Landscape Items - $0.13 M

Total VE Savings - $13.06 M

Baseline Project Cost(see table ES-1) $63.26 M

Final Project Cost $50.21 M

Footnotes: *The VE process focused on the key project components where cost savings could be achieved within the Project Goals and Objectives, therefore only a portion of the overall ITC project total construction cost was subject to VE analysis.

11


VE Team Members Ken Smith Team Leader/Facilitation Blane Long Co-Facilitator/Report Writer Don Owings Design/Contracts Jeff Fippin Geotechnical Vincent Lau Electrical Engineer John Maniscalco Bridge Section Manager Orion Morrissey Senior Mechanical Engineer Bruce Powers Landscape Architect Principal Wayne Short Rail Section Manager Jasmine Salmeron Project Coordinator Lily Livingston Sustainable Designer Jesse Harder Project Manager – City

The Design Project Manager for this project is David McCrossan, HDR.

Resources:

Pat Casey Rail/Structures Linda Rimbach Deputy Project Manager Richard Thompson Architect Peter DeStefano Project Engineer

The VE Recommendations provided are intended to assist in the management decisions necessary to move the project forward through the project delivery process.

12

PPrroojjeecctt DDeessccrriippttiioonn This Value Engineering (VE) Report summarizes the events of the VE Study conducted by City of Hercules and facilitated by HDR Engineering, Inc. The subject of the study was the Hercules Intermodal Transit Center – Phase 1 project. The VE Study was conducted March 30 – April 2, 2010.

Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed project is to increase local and regional mobility and transportation options by providing new and expanded transit services with intermodal connections that will encourage use of public transit.

The need for the project is driven by the residents of the San Francisco Bay Area who depend heavily on region-wide and trans-bay commuting options. Despite the use of existing public transit services (particularly rail and buses), traffic congestion continues to increase, affecting hundreds of thousands of Bay Area residents and creating both economic and environmental costs. The severity of congestion will increase in the future as population and employment in the San Francisco Bay Area increases.

13

Proposed Project

The City of Hercules, California proposes to construct an intermodal transit center (ITC), associated roadway improvements, and ancillary facilities. The Hercules ITC would be located on the southeastern shoreline of San Pablo Bay (a part of San Francisco Bay), approximately 1 mile northwest of Interstate 80 (I-80) in Contra Costa County. Hercules intends, in part, to construct this facility with federal funding; therefore, the Federal Transit Administration is acting as the federal lead agency for the project.

The ITC includes pedestrian access to the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line and a newly constructed passenger platform. Although train service would be available throughout most of the day, the facility is expected to be used mainly by commuters traveling throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Train passengers would be able to either walk from nearby residential units, bike along the bicycle path connection that is part of the proposed project, or park their motor vehicles in the park-and-ride lot that is part of the proposed project. Transit center patrons would also be able to access the site via public bus service that will be extended to the proposed Hercules ITC as part of this project. Additionally, the facility would be designed to accommodate potential future ferry service.

Because the site is currently undeveloped, nearby roadways would need to be extended to access the site. The John Muir Parkway would be extended as part of the project, and two new bridges would be built over Refugio Creek to provide access to and circulation through the site. A surface park-and-ride lot would be constructed immediately as part of the project and a three-

14

story park-and-ride structure is included in the project as a future proposed action. The project would also include relocation of existing utilities, including a natural gas line.

In order to improve operation of the rail line, the UPRR track would be realigned to the east (away from San Pablo Bay) and a new railroad bridge would be constructed over Refugio Creek. Refugio Creek would also be realigned and the creek channel into San Pablo Bay would be dredged to improve flow during heavy rain events and high tides.

Phase 1 is broken into 6 different contracts:

1) Transit Loop – This includes a new Transit Loop Drive, bridge over Refugio Creek and Creekside Park.

2) Railroad - Grade separation and realignment of a portion of the existing UPRR tracks. This includes construction of rail platform, retaining walls, and a bridge crossing Refugio Creek and utility relocations.

3) Station Buildings 1, 2, and 3.

4) Bay Trail – This includes the East Bay Park Regional District’s trail along the shoreline from Pinole trail to Victoria by the Bay.

5) John Muir Parkway, Bayfront Boulevard over Refugio Creek, and surface parking.

6) Refugio Creek Restoration - From San Pablo Bay to the existing restored segment.

15

Existing Conditions

The proposed project site is part of the Hercules Waterfront District, and is located within the former Hercules Powder Company property in the City of Hercules. The manufacture of explosives initiated the creation of the town of Hercules in 1881. The company provided homes and dormitories for its workers and was incorporated in 1900. The facility was used for the manufacture of black powder, dynamite, and TNT and provided these products during both World Wars. During World War II it was the largest such plant in the country, but after the war, the demand for munitions plummeted and new products needed to be developed.

Hercules Powder Company original dynamite plant, early 1900s

By 1964, a large facility had been constructed for the production of fertilizer and other chemicals. The company name was changed to Hercules, Incorporated and it stopped producing explosives. Excess safety buffer zone lands were sold off since they were no longer needed. The fertilizer operation was closed in 1977 and many of the factory facilities were demolished. The land was purchased in 1979 by Hercules Properties, Ltd. and underwent site remediation procedures during the 1980s. Since then, residential and neighborhood commercial mixed-use development has been taking place in what is currently the Historic Town Center District, south and east of the proposed Hercules ITC site.

16

This page is left intentionally blank

17

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Process and Analysis – 2. Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010

VVEE PPrroocceessss aanndd AAnnaallyyssiiss Scope of the Value Engineering Study

The mission of the VE Team was to verify or improve upon various concepts for the Hercules ITC – Phase 1 project. The VE Team applied the principles and practices of the VE Job Plan.

The primary objectives for this study included:

Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the key project issues and conceptual design using a multidiscipline, cross-functional team

The focus areas for the Value Engineering Study were: o Transit Loop Drive, including Creekside Park. o Railroad - Grade separation and realignment of a portion of the existing UPRR

tracks, including construction of rail platform, retaining walls, and a bridge crossing Refugio Creek and utility relocations.

o Station Buildings 1, 2, and 3. o Bay Trail – This includes the East Bay Park Regional District’s trail along the

shoreline from Pinole trail to Victoria by the Bay.

Constraints and Controlling Decisions The VE Team identified the following constraints and controlling decisions during the Investigation Phase of the study.

Stay within the foot print of the Draft Hercules ITC Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Design for the train/ferry center platform station area, pedestrian overcrossing, and

connection to the ferry is at 60% design. The design was recently modified to reflect the Waterfront Initiative’s Waterfront Warehouse criteria. Public workshops have taken place to receive feedback on the station and tower design.

60% design drawings for the track, signal, retaining walls, and center platform are nearing completion.

Consultants are simultaneously working on the following – Refugio Creek straightening and restoration plans; John Muir Parkway Phase 2, and Bayfront Bridge designs; and bus facilities and access via Transit Loop Drive/Bridge.

Bicycle and pedestrian access to the ITC via the Bay Trail and connections via John Muir Parkway/San Pablo Avenue/Sycamore to the Ridge Trail will be a key component of the project.

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards are being incorporated throughout the ITC and the surrounding development, including the possibility of small wind turbines on the center platform and solar panels on the center platform roof structure.

Construction will start on the retaining walls and utility relocations in the second quarter of 2010, barring any unanticipated delays.

18


Project Issues/Site Visit Observations

The first day of the study included meetings with the project stakeholders and a site visit. The following summarizes key project issues, and project drivers identified during these sessions.

Plans for a “plaza/café building” on Block I – the location of the access to the station – are under discussion (Phase 2)

A community facility will be located across the street from Block I (at Block J), adjacent to the ITC facility

A lot of earth to move (surcharge) Railroad signals could conflict with shoo-fly No drainage issues seen because of surcharge over-burden More curvature of tracks than observed on maps - could be an issue for railroad flagging

Importance of connecting the Bay Trail for all the residents living in the area The need to construct John Muir Parkway to use a haul route The relocation of the gas lines appears to be a big road block The sewage lift station needs to be moved early on too Do we need to use soil nail walls? Access across railroad tracks to construct soil nails.

19


Information Provided to the VE Team

The following project documents were provided to the VE Team for their use during the study:

Reports/Drawings/Maps Date

60% Submittal UPRR Plans November 2009

60% Submittal Plans February 2010

95% Submittal Bayfront Blvd Bridge Plans March 2010

Hercules 30% Architectural Plans March 2010

Hercules 30% Electrical Plans March 2010

Hercules 30% Mechanical Plans March 2010

Hercules 30% Structural Plans March 2010

Geotechnical – HITC Bay Trail Criteria Draft Report January 2010

Geotechnical – HITC Cantilever Wall Design Criteria Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical – HITC Fuel Oil Line Relocation Design Criteria Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical - HITC Criteria Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical – HITC Railroad Bridge Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical – HITC Railroad Track Realignment Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical – HITC Creek Regrade Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical – HITC Soil Nail Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical – HITC Phase 3 Transit Loop Design Criteria Draft Report December 2009

Geotechnical – HITC Station Building & Plaza Design Criteria Draft Report December 2009

60% Cost Estimate – HITC March 2010

30% Cost Estimate – Station Buildings March 2010

30% Cost Estimate – Station Building Foundations March 2010

60% Cost Estimate – Transit Loop March 2010

Hercules ITC Administrative Draft EIR/EIS March 2010

Various Photos and presentations

20


Value Engineering – Project Analysis

After the site visit, the VE Team reviewed the various resources and gathered to identify the key project elements and functions of the project. Three analyses tools were used to analyze these elements and functions:

Cost Model Functional Analysis FAST Diagram.

Cost Model

The VE Team Leader prepared a cost model from the baseline cost estimate that was provided by the project team. The models are organized to identify major construction elements or trade categories, the designer's estimated costs, and the percent of total project cost for the significant cost items. The cost models clearly showed the cost drivers for the project and were used to guide the VE Team during the VE Study. The following conclusions were noted by the VE Team regarding the project costs:

The train station accounts for 32.3% The retaining walls are 26.6% of the project total Realigning the railroad is over 8% of the project Relocating the gas line and fiber optic utilities account for almost 8% of the project total.

Functional Analysis

Function analysis results in a unique view of the study project. It transforms project elements into functions, which moves the VE Team mentally away from the original design and takes it toward a functional concept of the project. Functions are defined in verb-noun statements to reduce the needs of the project to their most elemental level. Identifying the functions of the major design elements of the project allows a broader consideration of alternative ways to accomplish the functions.

FAST Diagram Approach

The FAST diagram arranges the functions in logical order so that when read from left to right; the functions answer the question “How?” If the diagram is read from right to left, the functions answer the question “Why?” Functions connected with a vertical line are those that happen at the same time as, or are caused by, the function at the top of the column.

The FAST diagram for this project shows Move People as the basic function of this project. Key secondary functions include Access Trains, Access Transit, Provide Connectivity, Guide People and Give Shelter. This provided the VE Team with an understanding of the project design rationale and which functions offer the best opportunity for Cost or Performance improvement.

21


Idea Generation and Evaluation Over 75 Value Engineering ideas were generated by the VE Team and carefully evaluated based on their project-specific attributes and the supporting functions. The idea list was grouped by function or major project element. The team compared each of the ideas with the baseline concept for each performance attribute to determine whether it was better than, equal to, or worse than the original concept. The team reached a consensus on the ranking of these ideas. High-ranked ideas were developed further; low-ranked ones were dropped from further consideration. Of these ideas, 11 were found to be most significant both in cost saving measures as well as operational impacts. The VE recommendations cover these ideas in detail

22

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.3 Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1 Railroad Realignment

Function: Realign Railroad, RemoveShoo-Flys IDEA NO(s).

55, 57

Original Concept:

As shown in 60% plan set, original concept constructed double track shoofly, shifted trains traffic to the shoofly and then constructed new railroad bridges under existing MT1 and MT2 main tracks.

Recommendation Concept:

Recommend that Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) construct the new bridges under traffic using own forces. Once the new bridges are in place the new MT-03 track is constructed in its final alignment.

Advantages: Disadvantages

Eliminates Shoo-fly tracks Eliminates shifting of 1st shoofly 5-ft to final

alignment by constructing MT-03 track through station in final alignment.

Allows construction of retaining walls through station Extends future main track through the station limits

at little or no extra cost Reduces contractors crossing live main tracks Simplifies construction staging Allows for other cost saving alternative Reduces bridge phasing from 3 phases to 1 phase Eliminates temporary bridge supports Contractor can build new MT3 bridge independent of

UPRR bridge work Platform structure can be redesigned for lighter

structure (not estimated) Provides an added benefit to UPRR and CCJPA and

mitigate station stop impact to Capital Corridor schedule

Requires UPRR to agree to build Railroad Bridge with own forces

Potential schedule constraint Limits work area and clearances while

constructing Station Building #3 2nd Station Bridge would have to be set over MT-

01 & MT-02 tracks

COST SUMMARY COST

Recommendation Concept $5.78 M

Net Savings $0.5 M (see table ES-3)

23



Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:

Staging of Track Who Concurrent/Following Work

1 Construct RR Bridge in-place

This could be let as soon as an agreement is in place with the UPRR. This would allow the work to be completed by the end of 2010.

UPRR Retaining walls

Utility relocations (fiber optics)

Station Building #1

Bay Trail

2 Shift existing MT-02 1.5’ to final MT-02 (includes shift to existing siding)

UPRR Station Platform

Utility relocations (pipelines)

Station Building #2

Transit Loop and Bridges

3 Construct new MT-03 Contractor

4 Construct ties to MT-03, place track into service

(includes signal work)

UPRR

5 Construct cross-over for all tracks and new siding switch at north end of project, shift MT-02 to final alignment.

UPRR Station Building #3 (foundation only)

6 Shift MT-01 to tie in with existing siding to south.

UPRR

24



25



26



VIP Cost Table- additional costs incurred by the VIP Railroad Realignment

# Item Description Cost

1 Track $ 734,000.00

2 Utility Relocation $ 2,238,500.00

3 Grading and Drainage $ 933,000.00

4 RR Signals $ 1,822,000.00

5 Right of Way $ 60,750.00

6 Design/Environmental (12%) $ 695,000.00

Total $ 5,788,250.00

VIP Savings Table- additional savings rendered from the VIP Railroad Realignment

# Item Description Savings

1 RR Bridge $ 200,000.00

2 Temporary Grading and Drainage $ 159,200.00

3 Retaining Wall $ 4,343,000.00

4 Construction Phasing $ 210,000.00

5 Construction Duration $ 1,372,000.00

Total $ 6,284,200.00

Net VIP Savings $ 495,950.00

27



Cost Table Track

# Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Construction

Cost Assumptions

1 Resurface Track 8590 LF $ 10.00 $ 85,900.00 Entire length of VIP MT-01 considered resurfaced

2 Shift Track 4660 LF $ 35.00 $ 163,100.00 Entire length of VIP MT-02 considered shifted

3 New Track -390 LF $ 295.00 $ (115,050.00)

Entire Length of VIP MT-03 considered new construction, value is negative due to eliminating shoofly construction

4 #20 Turnout 2 EA $ 300,000.00 $ 600,000.00 Subtotal $ 734,000.00

Utility Relocation

# Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Construction

Cost Assumptions

5 Fiber Optic Line Extension (2 lines) 3700 LF $ 150.00 $ 555,000.00

extension of current design 1000' to the west, and 850' to the east, unit cost taken from 60% estimate

6 Fuel Oil Line Extension (2 lines) 3700 LF $ 400.00 $1,480,000.00

extension of current design 1000' to the west, and 850' to the east to Victoria by the Bay and tie-in to existing lines, unit cost created by taking estimate for installing KM pipe and assumes 20% increase for installing Shell pipe at the same time

7 Utility Relocation Contingency (10%) 10% $ 203,500.00

Used to account for unsurveyed areas impacted by extension and conceptual level of design for utility extensions

Subtotal $2,238,500.00

Grading and Drainage # Item Quantity Unit Original Cost Added Cost Assumptions

8

Percent Increase in Affected Drainage/Grading Area 92.5% LS $ 1,008,500.00 $ 932,591.40

Totalled drainage and grading line items from 60% submittal estimate, then mulitplied by percent increase in track area from VIP extension design

Subtotal $ 933,000.00

Railroad Signals # Item Quantity Unit Original Cost Added Cost Assumptions

9 VIP Total Cost Estimate 1 LS $ 2,453,000.00 $2,453,000.00 Value for 60% Submittal needs

verification; subtotal cost represents VIP Cost - 60%

Submittal Cost 10

60% Submittal Cost Estimate 1 LS $ 631,000.00 $631,000.00

11 $ - Subtotal $1,822,000.00

28


Retaining Walls # Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions

5 Construction of half of Fill Walls 1 LS

4,145,000.00

4,145,000.00

Half of retaining wall would not be able to utilize soil mixing, making the use of MSE wall impractical, therefore savings are half of value identified in VE report

6 Reduced Labor Hours 480

Man-hours

100.00

$ 48,000.00

Partial Basement Construction of Station Building 2000 SF

25.00

$ 50,000.00

7 Reduced Flagger Hours 125 Days

800.00

$ 100,000.00

Subtotal $ 4,343,000.00


Right of Way Take

12

Additional Right of Way Take from Anderson Pacific 2025 SF $ 30.00 $ 60,750.00

Did not include possible RW needs at west end of the Bowl for utility extension easement. Unit price was assumed, and should be checked.

Subtotal $60,750.00

Savings Table Railroad Bridge

# Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions

1

Remove Extension for Shoofly 1 LS

188,000.00

188,000.00

Cost taken from VE cost table, percentage of bridge total to eliminate material costs for bridge box to accommodate shoofly

2 Labor Savings 80 Man-hours

150.00

12,000.00 man hours estimated by Norm Wagner

Subtotal 200,000.00

Grading and Drainage # Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions

3

No Culvert Strengthening at Refugio 1 LS

129,200.00

$ 129,200.00 Includes material and labor costs

4

No Temporary Drainage for Shoofly 3000 LF

10.00

$ 30,000.00

$10 per linear foot of shoofly includes cost of designing and installing temporary grading and drainage conduit

Subtotal $ 159,200.00

29



Construction Phasing # Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions

8

Eliminate temporary construction access at west end of station platform 1 LS 20,000.00

$ 20,000.00

Includes cost of materials for temporary ramp access and grading/ temporary shoring to avoid utility relocation

9

Added contractor safety and conflicts to cross live tracks (MT3 vs. MT1 & 2) 1 LS 50,000.00

$ 50,000.00

Taken from Soft Cost Table Estimate

10

Reduced Mobilization (10%) 10% 1,300,000.00

$ 130,000.00

11

Eliminates need to do bridge work in 'dry season' only 1 LS $10,000

$ 10,000

Subtotal $ 210,000.00

Construction Duration # Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions

12

Reduction in overall project duration (3 months) 13200

Man-hours $ 100.00

$ 1,320,000.00

Includes cost of materials for temporary ramp access and grading/ temporary shoring to avoid utility relocation

13

Reduction Flgger for project duration (3 months) 65 Days $ 800.00

$ 52,000.00

Taken from Soft Cost Table Estimate

Subtotal $ 1,372,000

30

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 2 Fill Walls

Function: Retain Earth IDEA NO(s).

38

Original Concept:

Pile supported cantilever retaining wall along Bayfront project area


Ground improvement with MSE or segmental block wall


Reduced cost Reduced construction time Ease of construction Eliminates piles May be better able to match other aesthetic elements

(texture & color) of other features in the project

Potential interference/conflict with pipeline relocation Requires increased coordination with utilities

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $11.57 M


Savings $8.29 M x 1.21 markup = $10.03 M

31



According to 60% design drawings the currently planned wall is a pile supported cantilever retaining wall. Sheet S601 shows about 2,900 lineal feet of cantilever retaining wall (Retaining Wall Station 10+00 to 40+23, excluding from ~30+75 to 31+80 and from 19+19 to 18+99) Wall ranges from 6 feet to 20 feet high with an average wall height of approximately 14 feet with a bottom slab width of approximately 18 feet wide. (see Fig. 1)

Current Plan

The wall is a cast-in-place concrete cantilever structure founded on steel H-piles (HP14x117). According to Sheet S615, average pile length is about 60 feet. Piles are shown in plan view on Sheets S602 to S614 and consist of rows of either 3 or 4 spaced at 7’-6” centers longitudinally along the wall. The Pile foundations are necessitated by the soft and compressible ground conditions along the alignment in order to achieve bearing and limit settlement of backfill.

Fig. 1

32


VE Concept Address settlement and bearing capacity issues with ground improvement combined with conventional wall type without deep foundation. Ground improvement will consist of soil-cement mixing (with area replacement ratio of 10 to 15%) extending to bottom of Young Bay Mud layer. Wall will consist of reinforced soil, segmental retaining wall such as MSE or segmental blocks (i.e. Keystone blocks). Areas of wall not over compressible soil will not require ground improvement and wall can be constructed over existing grade (these areas represent maybe 200 to 300 lineal feet of wall).

Fig. 2 (DRAFT from ENGEO Geotechnical Characterization Report, Dec. 2009 Fig. 7) shows areas with compressible soil (bay mud) and estimated elevation of bottom of compressible soil.

Fig. 2

Once soil improvements have been completed a typical MSE or block wall will be constructed. In place of the pile supported cantilever wall - Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show a typical block wall and a typical section.

33


Fig. 3

Fig. 4

34


Construction Considerations: Located behind portions of the wall Kinder Morgan and Shell will be placing their relocated fuel lines, as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

As shown in Fig 4 the geo-grid or reinforcing straps of an MSE or Block Wall are typically 0.75 x wall height in depth. With this in mind there appears to be approximately 1000 feet of pipeline that may interfere with the geo-grid or reinforcing straps (depending on wall height and grid/strap design). For the purposes of this recommendation the VE Team assumed this area would require a specialized wall type – the upper 4 feet of wall would be cast in place thus reducing the grid/strap length and any potential interference.

35


Assumptions/Calculations:

Assume average width of mixed zone is 22 feet (to accommodate reinforcing grid and some over build). Assume 800 feet of soil mixing averages 45 feet deep and remainder averages 30 feet deep. Based on recent soil mixing project in Oakland with mixing approximately 35 feet deep, mobilization cost was about $100,000 and mixing unit cost was about $1.15 per cubic foot of treatment area.

Cost estimate for ground improvement

Item Unit Cost Units Sub Total ($)

Ground Improvement $1.15/CF 22’ x [(800’ x 45’)+(1,700’ x 30’)] = 1,914,000 CF

$2,200,000

Total Ground Improvement Estimate - $2,200,000

Reinforced segmental block retaining walls typically cost $20 to $25 per square foot of wall face for wall, grid and compaction. Where cast-in-pace wall is used, assume $40 per square foot. Assuming average wall height ~14 feet and 2,900 lineal feet of wall, but composite wall in upper 4 feet of 1,100 lineal feet of wall.

Cost estimate for Walls

Item Unit Cost Units Sub Total ($)

Segmental block $25/SF of wall face

(14’ x 2,900’) - (4’ x 1,100’) = 36,200 SF $905,000

Upper portion of wall in vicinity of pipelines

$40/SF of wall face

4’ x 1,100’ = 4,400 SF $176,000

Total Wall Estimate - $1,081,000

Total System Estimate - $3,281,000 (note does not include cost of import fill which would be the same cost with either wall.)

36

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 3 Shorter Walls along the Promenade

Function: Provide Connectivity IDEA NO(s).

64, 65

Original Concept:

Wide Promenade between Transit Loop Drive to accommodate loading/unloading, Bay Trail traffic, and meandering pedestrians


Decrease width by having upper portion of grade change to be a slope or by having a grade difference between promenade and EBRP Trail with slope or steps between (see figures on following pages)


♦ Reduced cost ♦ Simplifies wall ♦ Adds opportunities for more vegetation ♦ Separates trail from promenade ♦ Expands view while seated

♦ Reduces width of promenade ♦ Makes gathering space loose ♦ Drainage challenges ♦ Possible issues with grade separation ♦ May require additional ADA ramp ♦ May have grade conflicts with Transit Loop &

bridge

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept See 60% Cost Estimate

Recommendation Concept See Assumptions/Calculations


37



The following is a x-section of the current plan:

Following is Idea 64 at the same Station

El 6

Rails

El 18 feet

Fence

Promenade: 30 feet wide at Transit Loop Sta 15+00

Retaining Wall

Existing Planned X-Section

El 6 feet

Rails

El 15 feet

Fence


Retaining Wall

Existing Planned X-Section

2:1 slope

38


Following is Idea 65 at the same Station

El 6 feet

Rails

El 15.5 feet

Fence


Retaining Wall

Proposed X-Section

EBRP Trail, Typical Section, 14 feet wide (10 foot paved trail with 2 foot shoulders each side

Five Steps: 12 inches wide, 6 inches high

39



Promenade is about 300 to 400 feet long. There are fixed grades at the Bridge and adjacent development property at either end of the Promenade and at the Transit Loop.

Slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 (V:H) and no more than 3 feet high to avoid reinforcing. Idea 64 has a reduction in paved surface at the Promenade.

Where steps are used (idea 65) we have assumed 6 foot rise with 12 inch run, cast in place, no more than 5 steps. Idea 65 has no real reduction in paved surface.

Idea 64 Cost Reduction: Length (ft) 450 Height of Wall Eliminated (ft) 3 Approx Wall Reduction (sq ft) 1350 Approx vol of Backfill Eliminated (yd) 150 Approximate Area of Pavement Reduction (sq ft) 2700 Unit Price of Wall $ 35 Unit Price of Backfill $ 7.29 Unit Price of Promenade Pavement $ 12 Reduction in Wall $ 47,250 Reduction in Backfill $ 1,093 Reduction in Pavements $ 32,400 Total $ 80,743 Idea 65 Cost Reduction: Length (ft) 350 Height of Wall Eliminated (ft) 2.5 Approx Wall Reduction (sq ft) 875 Approx vol of Backfill Eliminated (yd) 455 Approximate Area of Pavement Reduction (sq ft) 0 Unit Price of Wall $ 35 Unit Price of Backfill $ 7.29 Unit Price of Promenade Pavement $ 12 Reduction in Wall $ 30,625 Reduction in Backfill $ 3,318 Reduction in Pavements $ - Total $ 33,943

40

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 4 Center Platform

Function: Access Train IDEA NO(s). 1, 2, 6, 10

Original Concept:

The platform is composed of a 35’ wide cast-in-place 10” thick concrete slab supported on concrete 2’ – 6” wide by 1’ – 8” deep grade beams spaced at 20’ and varies depending on building framing foundations. Each grade beam is supported by two HP14x117 piles.


Use 10” post-tensioned cast-in-place concrete or precast concrete with topping, on two grade beams to control differential settlement and cracking.


♦ Faster construction ♦ Lessens exposure of work crew to live train traffic ♦ Improve quality control of concrete surface ♦ Flexibility of casting units on site or off ♦ Aesthetic concepts are unlimited ♦ Omits piles

♦ Possible settlement over time

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $1.37 M ($48.79/SF)

Recommendation Concept $0.87 M ($31.18/SF)


41



The original concept of a CIP concrete platform supported by driven steel piles cost is broken down at follows:

Concrete (1200 cy) at $430,000

Rebar (324,000 lbs) at $389,000

Piles (86 piles totaling 5590 LF) at $547,000

In comparing costs, the original platform cost per square foot = $430,000 + $389,000 +547,000 = $1,366,000 divided by (35’x 800’) = $48.79/SF

To help speed up construction of the platform and reduce cost the following 4 ideas were evaluated by the VE Team.

Ideas:

1) Use precast panels for platform slab 2) Use partial precast platform with cast-in-place topping. 6) 10” slab on a mat foundation with stem walls – eliminate piles and use heavily reinforced, post

tensioned slab. 10) Use soil mixing under slab

There are two key differences between the four alternatives shown above. One is using precast units to speed up construction and quality and the second is removing driven pile costs.

To compare the precast option verses the CIP option working days need to be compared: Following is estimated working days needed for each alternative.

Baseline - Working days for cast-in-place option: Mobilization: 10 days Shop drawings, fabricated piles, fabricate reinforcement and deliver: 60 days Grade site: 1 day Install piles: 14 piles per day = 6 days Excavate and form grade beams: 5 days Install grade beam reinforcement: 5 days Pour grade beams: 2 days Install slab base rock: 2 days Install slab reinforcement: 5 days Pour slab: 2 days Estimated total days to construct CIP concrete platform = 98 days

42


VE Recommendation - Working days for precast option: Mobilization: 10 days Shop drawings, fabricated piles, fabricate precast slab and deliver: 60 days Grade site: 1 day Install piles: 14 piles per day = 6 days Install slab base rock: 2 days Deliver and install precast slabs: 5 days Estimated total days to construct precast concrete platform = 84 days

Comparing working days it can be seen that CIP platform verses precast platform will only save about 2 weeks of time.

Precast Panels on piles

For a precast slab the cost for an 12” thick precast slab plank = $11.55/SF (2008 cost)

Ship and erect 100 precast slab planks (8’x35’) = $1000 per plank = $3.57/SF

Grade and prepare site for precast plank = $10/SF

Piles / SF = $547,000/28,000 SF = $19.54/SF

Estimated total cost for precast = $11.55 + $3.57 + $10.00 = $25.12/SF without piles Total cost with piles = $25.12 + $19.54 = $44.66/SF

The mixing soil cost will be $1.15/cf of improvement. The total improvement area would be approximately 45’ x 810’ x 40’ deep = 1,458,000 cubic feet to give a sub total cost of $1,676,700. Based on this the soil mix option is being omitted.

Mixing Soil instead of Piles

When looking at the four alternatives it can be seen that using precast or cast-in-place post-tensioned mat foundation verses the original concept using a cast-in-place concrete slab on driven piles will save the project approximately $1,570,900 - $1,120,000 = $370,900.

43


The 10” mat option will involve either a precast blank post tensioned together with a 2 or 3 inch topping or a cast-in-place option on grade with thickened perimeter grade beam and longitudinal post tensioning.

10” post-tensioned Mat slab

The design live loads of 100 psf plus dead load of 200 psf will give an added load of 300 psf to the existing soil which is very light compared to the history of having 5 tracks running through the site over the last century. Based on the light loading it is recommended that piles be omitted from the original concept.

Using the sq ft costs above and adding the post tensioning cost of 1 lb per sq. ft. will add up to 28,000 lbs of prestressing steel at $2/lb = $56,000 or $2/SF.

$430,000 + $387,000 + $56,000 = $873,000/28,000 SF = $31.18/SF

44

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 5 Revise Pedestrian Guardrail

Function: Access Platform IDEA NO(s).

28

Original Concept:

Guardrail (42” high): ½” tempered glass panels within 1 ½ x ½” galv. steel bar post/frame – tnemic paint with stainless steel tube handrail


Option A: Replace glass guardrail with steel cable guardrail (42” high): Steel cable run horizontally at 3” O.C. within 1 ½ x ½” Galv. Steel Bar Post/Frame – Tnemic Paint with Stainless Steel Tube Handrail.

Option B: At ramp outside edge, widen ramp to eliminate gap between ramp edge and structure. Eliminate glass / stainless steel guardrail 42” high. Keep Stainless Steel Tube 1 ½” diameter handrail. Ramp width does not change, ramp gap widens at interior edge of ramp (coordination with Idea No. 22 for structural). Guardrail to remain at ramp/bridge level interface and at interior edge of ramp.

Advantages: Disadvantages ♦ Reduced cost ♦ Eliminate need for guardrail in some areas,

simplifying installation

♦ May have aesthetic implications if architect was looking for a “floating” ramp structure or a look that was part of design approval history

♦ Has complex detailing implications where sloped ramp structure interfaces with brick

♦ Will increase complexity with cleaning and re-glazing of windows

COST SUMMARY COST


Recommendation Concept $0.50 M (Option B)


45



Option A

Option B

46



12,800 + 550,400 + 326,400 = 889,600 (32 LF + 1,376 LF + 816 LF = 2,224 LF Total x $400/LF = 889,600)

Original Concept

Option A:

2,224 LF x $400/LF = $889,600

Guardrail reduced LF: 1,002 LF (2,224 LF – 1,222 LF) x $400/LF = $400,800 (approximate – need to verify LF)

Option B:

Guardrail eliminated, handrail only: 1,222 x $80/LF = $97,760 (approximate – need to verify LF)

Total = $498,560

47


48

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 6 Reduce # of Wind Turbines

Function: Mitigate Impacts IDEA NO(s).

31

Original Concept:

12 wind turbines on platform


Option A: 10 wind turbines on platform

Option B: 8 wind turbines on platform


♦ Reduced cost

♦ Lowers total alternative energy generation, but not significantly (wind is 2-3% of total alternative energy generation)

COST SUMMARY COST


Recommendation Concept $0.26 M (option B)


49



This reduction should be easy to accomplish with minor impact to design.

Constraints to consider if team wants to pursue further Wind Turbine quantity reduction:

• If reducing the Wind Turbine count further below 10 for further cost savings, wind Turbine quantity is linked to aesthetic architectural coordination issues – may look awkward or asymmetrical. Quantity should be a minimum of 8-10 turbines.

• Currently Wind Turbine integrates with light fixture (currently combined with them as wind turbine/light poles). Light pole spacing needs to be a certain distance (no more than 50’ o.c. apart for correct light levels).

• Doubles as pedestrian bench at wind turbine base • Interfaces with location of platform structures

50



Wind Turbine and Foundation

Original Concept:

Foundation 12 EA @ $1.5K = $18K

Concrete Bench 12 EA @ $1K = $12K

Windspire Wind Turbine (1.2 kW, 35’ high) 12 EA @ $15K = $180K

Associated Equipment & Feeders 12 EA @ $8.5K = $102K

Markups 26.07% of $312K = $81,334

Total = $393,334

Foundation 10 EA @ $1.5K = 15K

Recommended Concept (Option A):




Markups 26.07% of $260K = $67,782

Total = 327,782

Foundation 8 EA @ $1.5K = 12K

Recommended Concept (Option B):




Markups 26.07% of $208K = $54,226

Total = 262,226

51


52

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7 Modular Construction & Framing

Function: Access Trains IDEA NO(s).

22

Original Concept:

Use Moment Resisting Frame System to resist lateral loading


Use braced frame in place of moment resisting frames to resist lateral loads where possible. Using braced frames will allow the framing to be assembled into modules that can be craned into place in one piece speeding up construction.

Advantages: Disadvantages ♦ Faster construction ♦ Less impact to railroad ♦ Cheaper welding costs

♦ Additional connections required to allow modules to be assembled rapidly

♦ Potential blockage to access paths ♦ Changes to Architectural feel of the building

COST SUMMARY COST




53



Currently the structure lateral loading is being resisted by moment resisting frames. The columns and beams are connected together with complete joint penetration welds. This type of faming requires the members to be fairly large to control deflection. The cost of complete joint penetration welds are expensive compared to using fillet welded connection with bolted connection.

Typical fillet weld require 1 to 3 passes for the welder to complete compared to a complete joint penetration weld that could be 7 passes and up depending on the weld size.

To minimize welding costs and speed up construction a braced frame with bolted connection could be used at the following locations and minimize impacts to architectural plans.

Platform Level Building #1 North South direction Grid 8, 11, 13 and 22

East West direction Grid K, J, I and H

Building #2 North South direction Grid 13 and 22

East West direction Grid D, E and F

Building #3 North South direction Grid 8 and 22

East West direction Grid A and C

Bridge Level Building #1 North South direction Grid 10, 11, 12 and 13 at top of stairs, and Grid 22

East West direction Grid K, J, I and H at landing

Building #2 North South direction Grid 13 at elevator and 22

East West direction D, E at elevation and F

Building #3 North South direction Grid 11 at top of stair and 13 at future elevator cut-out and Grid 22

East West direction Grid A and C

See following elevations for possible bracing locations

54


55


56


The cost of the structural steel buildings minus the cost of the bridges is: Building #1 & #2 Vertical structures columns = $573,300

Elevated ramps/floor structure = $622,748

Wall framing = $145,768

Total estimated structural steel cost = $1,341,786

Building 3 Vertical structure columns = $114,000

Horizontal structure = $281,720

Wall framing = $86,296

Total estimated structural steel cost = $482,016

Original Estimated Total Station Building structural steel cost = $1,823,800

Following is breakdown of typical moment resisting frames members. The moment resisting frames for Building #1 is made up of approximately 16 - 14x132 columns and 6 - W18x97 and 12 – W18x97 beams.

The moment resisting frames for Building #2 are made up of approximately 10 - 14x132 columns and 6 - W18x97 beams east west and 10 – W18x97 beams north south.

The moment resisting frames for Building #3 are made up of approximately 12 - 14x132 columns and 6 - W18x97 beams east west and 13 – W18x97 beams north south.

Based on this there are approximately 150 complete joint penetration welds on this project not including column splice complete joint penetration welds.

Estimated material cost per 1” complete joint penetration weld based on 2.4 lbs/ft x $2/lb = $4.8/ft

Estimated total material cost for CJP welds = 150 ft x 4.8 = $720

Total weld weight = 2.4 lbs x 150 ft = 360 lbs

Labor for welding is 360 lbs/ 2 lbs per hour = 180 hours of welding x 1.25 for failed welds = 225 hrs

Estimated welder cost at $100/hour is $22,500

Inspection costs estimated to be $10,000

57


Estimated savings using braced frames to resist lateral loads

The estimated steel quantity for the moment resisting frames columns is equal to 132 lbs/ft x 1200 ft = 158,400 lbs.

The estimated steel quantity for the moment resisting frames beams is approximately 97 lbs/ft x 964 ft = 93,508 lbs

Total moment resisting frames steel is approximately 252,000 lbs

Using a braced frame could reduce the column and beam weight by 50% for a saving of approximately 126,000 lbs and reduce welding and inspection effort by 50% giving a savings of $16,000.

Based on reduced steel and welding, the savings is approximately $2 x 126,000 lbs = $252,000 + $16,000 = $268,000

58

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 8 Restraining Guardrail

Function: Realign Railroad IDEA NO(s).

N/A

Original Concept:

None provided


Install a restraining guardrail through the platform area of the station

Advantages: Disadvantages ♦ Reduces potential for a train derailing at station and

intruding into the station platform ♦ Increases project costs

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept None


Added Cost $0.09 x 1.21 Markup = ($0.11 M)


A restraining rail mounting assembly which supports a rail adjacent to a track for maintaining the wheels of railroad cars on the track while traversing dangerous curves or any area where derailing is a potential hazard. The mounting system is comprised of a support having a tongue and oblique slot for mounting a railroad track on its side and permitting adjustment on the space between the track and the restraining rail.

The mounting assembly is comprised of a plate embedded in a cement pedestal with a second support plate for locking the rail support bracket also secured in the cement pedestal. The base of the rail support bracket has diagonally opposite extensions with the extension furthest from the rail having a serrated surface and matching lock washer to securely hold the restraining rail mounting bracket.

The restraining rail mounting bracket has an abutment or foot for bracing the base flange on the restraining rail and a tongue extending outward from an angled slot having a mounting hole through which a bolt can pass to secure the web of the rail to the rail support bracket. Angled slots in the support plate compensate for longitudinal forces such as expansion and contraction of the rails due to temperature changes to maintain the spacing and alignment of the restraining rail and the track.

Running Rail

Restraining Rail

Restraining Rail

Running Rail

59

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 8 Restraining Guardrail


TF No. Rails yards wt lbs/ton SH rail cost850 4 3 136 2000 900.00$

1133.333 77.066666769,360.00$ Cost of rail

TF Spacing No ties increase/tie total1700 2 850 20.00$ 17,000.00$ Increamental cost of concrete ties

86,360.00$ Total cost of Guard Rail

60

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 9 Promenade/Park Amenities


70,71

Original Concept:

Promenade paving consists of unit pavers and/or enhanced concrete. Promenade seat-walls, and planter walls can be redesigned to reduce cost.

Creekside Park furnishings are to provide seating, trash receptacles, bike racks, picnic tables, and tree grates.


Use stamped or scored colored concrete to delineate promenade that will maintain the aesthetic, respect the design intent, and enhance the use. Use reinforced concrete seat-walls and planter walls with cap and/or split face.

Provide alternative site furnishings that respect the design intent, aesthetic, and performance while reducing the unit cost.


♦ Respect the design intent ♦ Provide safe and comfortable surface for promenade

users, including bicyclists ♦ Reduce the cost ♦ Reduce maintenance

COST SUMMARY COST




61



Eliminate Unit Pavers on Sand and Enhanced Concrete Paving on all hardscape areas of the promenade and park. Replace with reinforced concrete, colored and decorative scoring pattern. Allows for a better surface for pedestrians and bikes and reduces maintenance and life cycle cost.

62


Provide reinforced concrete seating walls and planter walls with split-face facing and/or cap or colored concrete. This maintains the design intent and aesthetic and reduces cost. The historic/interpretive/artistic designs could still be incorporated.

63


Proposed site furnishings can be replaced with alternative units that provide the same performance, design intent, and aesthetic while reducing the cost per unit.

64



Enhanced Concrete at Promenade - 20,000 SF @ $25.00/SF = $500,000

Original Concept - Promenade:

Promenade Paving Unit Pavers or Enhanced Concrete – 4,500SF @ $18.00/SF = $81,000

Paving at Park Path – 2,550SF @ $14.00/SF = $35,700

Special Paving at Stage – 465SF @ $18.00/SF = $8,370

Special Paving at Picnic Tables – 150SF @ $18.00/SF = $2,700

Concrete Seat-Wall at Overlooks – 80LF @ $275.00/LF = $22,000

Concrete Seat-Wall at Stage – 30LF @ $275.00 = $8,250

Planter Custom Walls & Caps – 150LF @ $250.00 = $37,500

Total:$695,520

Bench - 23 @ $3,500.00/Unit = $80,500

Original Concept – Creekside Park:

Trash Receptacle – 9 @ $2,500.00/Unit = $22,500

Picnic Table – 2 @ $4,500.00/Unit = $9,000

Tree Grate – 39 @ $3,500.00/Unit = $136,500

Total: $248,500

Scored/Colored Concrete at Promenade – 27,665 SF @ $12.00 = $331,980

Recommended Concept - Promenade

Concrete Seat-Walls – 110LF @ $100.00/LF = $11,000

Planter Custom Walls & Caps – 150LF @ $100.00/LF = $15,000

Total:$357,980

Bench - 23 @ $2,000.00/Unit = $46,000

Recommended Concept – Creekside Park

Trash Receptacle – 9 @ 1,600.00/Unit = $14,400

Picnic Table – 2 @ $1,500.00/Unit = $3,000

Tree Grate – 39 @ $1,500.00/Unit = $58,500

Total: $121,900 ($0.70 M + $0.25 M) – ($0.36 M + $0.12 M) = $0.46 M savings before markups

65


66

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 10 Eliminate Basement

Function: Maintain Building IDEA NO(s).

N/A

Original Concept:

In order to accommodate baseline design, the retaining wall at Station Building 1 can not be constructed prior to Station Building construction. The cost associated with complicated construction sequencing of constructing a building over fill prior to placement of the fill allows for addition of a basement and obtaining additional flexibility of the space.


Combining with VE Recommendations #1 (Realign Railroad), and #2 (Modify Cantilever Retaining Wall), allows for simplification of the building construction through wall construction and backfill for the wall prior to Building construction.


♦ Reduced building cost ♦ Faster, more conventional construction ♦ Wall more easily matches other retaining walls

♦ Loss of square footage ♦ Loss of building functionality/flexibility

COST SUMMARY COST



Savings $0.34 M 1.24 markup = $0.41 M


As discussed in VE Recommendation No.1, the retaining wall can be constructed and backfilled very early in the project due to elimination of rail conflicts. Since the first step of VE Recommendation No. 1 allows for the realignment of the creek prior to building construction, no shoring is required at the creek or rail ROW either.

Six piles will be eliminated and all basement ancillary costs for access and structural support. Between Station and wall at rail line, a conventional wall will be constructed over improved ground. Can use conventional fill for wall backfill, use lightweight fill under the building to reduce down drag on the piles.

67

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 10 Eliminate Basement


Her

cule

s IT

C - P

laza

Sta

tion

Bui

ldin

g O

rder

of M

agni

tude

Cos

t Es

tim

ate

Cost

Com

paris

on o

f Bas

emen

t ver

sus

No

Base

men

t Opt

ion

Base

men

t Are

a (a

ppro

x. 1

20' L

x 4

0' W

x 1

0' H

)Re

vise

d Ap

ril 1

, 201

0

with

are

a un

der t

ower

and

sta

irs (a

ppro

x. 2

9.5'

sq)

#

Item

Uni

tsU

nit P

rice

Qua

ntity

Pric

eQ

uant

ityPr

ice

Qua

ntity

Pric

e

STRU

CTU

RAL/

ARCH

ITEC

TURA

L1

Driv

e Pi

les

(90-

ft lo

ng)1

EA$7

,500

60$4

50,0

0030

$225

,000

24$1

80,0

002

Stru

ctur

al S

lab

for B

ay T

rail2

SF$2

50

$02,

400

$60,

000

0$0

3Sl

ab o

n G

rade

for B

ay T

rail

SF$1

02,

400

$24,

000

0$0

2,40

0$2

4,00

04

Stat

ion

Floo

r (ov

er b

asem

ent)

3SF

$25

0$0

3,27

0$8

1,75

00

$05

Base

men

t Flo

or 4

SF$1

00

$05,

670

$56,

700

0$0

6Ba

sem

ent W

alls

(4 s

ides

)5SF

$40

0$0

4,08

5$1

63,4

000

$07

Mid

-Bas

emen

t Sup

port

s (2

0-ft

o.c

.)EA

$1,0

000

$06

$6,0

000

$08

Tem

pora

ry (p

h. 2

) sup

port

wal

l (B)

SF$5

0$0

1,20

0$6

,000

0$0

9Ca

ntile

ver R

et. W

all (

A) (1

20 x

14)

SF$5

51,

680

$92,

400

0$0

0$0

10Te

mpo

rary

(ph.

1) s

horin

g6SF

$100

2,24

0$2

24,0

0056

0$5

6,00

00

$011

Gro

und

Impr

ovem

ent a

t wal

lCF

$10

$00

$012

3,75

0$1

42,3

1312

Segm

enta

l Ret

aini

ng W

all

SF$3

50

$00

$02,

000

$70,

000

13W

ater

proo

ging

7SF

$424

0$9

601,

794

$7,1

760

$0

EART

HW

ORK

8

14Ex

cava

tion

for b

asem

ent f

loor

9CY

$50

$042

0$2

,100

420

$2,1

0015

Ligh

t-w

eigh

t im

port

fill10

CY$1

51,

900

$28,

500

0$0

1,90

0$2

8,50

016

Conv

entio

nal F

illCY

$70

$00

$010

40$7

,582

MEC

HAN

ICAL

/ELE

CTRI

CAL

17Fi

re P

rote

ctio

n (b

elow

gra

de)

SF$7

0$0

5,67

0$3

9,69

00

$018

Ligh

ting

& E

lect

rical

(bel

ow g

rade

)SF

$40

$05,

670

$22,

680

0$0

19El

evat

or -

1 flo

or A

dditi

onal

Cos

t11LS

$50,

000

0$0

1$5

0,00

00

$020

Stai

rs/R

amps

to B

asem

ent

SF$3

00

$040

0$1

2,00

00

$021

Seco

ndar

y St

airs

/Ram

ps E

gres

s12SF

$30

0$0

400

$12,

000

0$0

Tota

l81

9,86

0

80

0,49

6

454,

494

No

Base

men

t with

Tra

ck S

tagi

ng

Chan

ges

and

Gro

und

Impr

ovem

ent

No

Base

men

tBa

sem

ent

68

VE RECOMMENDATION No. 11 Miscellaneous Landscape Items


N/A

Original Concept:

Shrubs/Groundcovers 35,710 SF @$6.00/SF

Organic Mulch 197 CY @ $100.00/CY


Shrubs/Groundcovers 35,710 SF @ $3.00 SF

Organic Mulch 197 CY @ $45.00/CY

Advantages: Disadvantages ♦ Price adjustment ♦ Use native plants

COST SUMMARY COST



Savings $0.11 M x 1.21 M = $0.13 M


Cost listed in Engineers Estimate too high: Shrubs/groundcovers 35,710 SF @ $6.00/SF = $214,260

Organic Mulch 197 CY @ $100.00/CY = $19,700

Total: $233,960

Recommended:

Shrubs/groundcovers 35,710 SF @ $3.00/SF = $107,130

Organic Mulch 197 CY @ $45.00/CY = $8,865

Total: $115,995

69


70


Downtown Hercules

71


72

Documents

Value Engineering Report And Recommendations