Awery 35 y 3 Q 4366 Q 3
Awery 35 y 3 Q 4366 Q 3
A nd
Recommendations
City of Hercules
Intermodal Transit Center
March 30 – April 2, 2010
DRAFT
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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
VE Savings
# Project Component*
($ Millions)
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.
The Design Project Manager for this project is David McCrossan, HDR.
Resources:
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.
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.
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
VE Process and Analysis
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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 Requires UPRR to agree to build Railroad Bridge
Eliminates shifting of 1st shoofly 5-ft to final with own forces
alignment by constructing MT-03 track through Potential schedule constraint
station in final alignment. Limits work area and clearances while
Allows construction of retaining walls through station constructing Station Building #3
Extends future main track through the station limits 2nd Station Bridge would have to be set over MT-
at little or no extra cost 01 & MT-02 tracks
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
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
5 Construct cross-over for all tracks UPRR Station Building #3 (foundation only)
and new siding switch at north end
of project, shift MT-02 to final
alignment.
VIP Cost Table- additional costs incurred by the VIP Railroad Realignment
1 Track $ 734,000.00
4 RR Signals $ 1,822,000.00
Total $ 5,788,250.00
VIP Savings Table- additional savings rendered from the VIP Railroad Realignment
1 RR Bridge $ 200,000.00
Total $ 6,284,200.00
Savings Table
Railroad Bridge
# Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions
Cost taken from VE cost table,
Remove percentage of bridge total to eliminate
Extension for material costs for bridge box to
1 Shoofly 1 LS 188,000.00 188,000.00 accommodate shoofly
Man-
2 Labor Savings 80 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
No Culvert
Strengthening at $
3 Refugio 1 LS 129,200.00 129,200.00 Includes material and labor costs
$10 per linear foot of shoofly includes
No Temporary cost of designing and installing
Drainage for $ temporary grading and drainage
4 Shoofly 3000 LF 10.00 30,000.00 conduit
$
Subtotal 159,200.00
Retaining Walls
# Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions
Half of retaining wall would
not be able to utilize soil
mixing, making the use of
MSE wall impractical,
Construction of therefore savings are half of
5 half of Fill Walls 1 LS 4,145,000.00 4,145,000.00 value identified in VE report
Reduced Labor Man- $
6 Hours 480 hours 100.00 48,000.00
Partial Basement
Construction of $
Station Building 2000 SF 25.00 50,000.00
Reduced Flagger $
7 Hours 125 Days 800.00 100,000.00
$
Subtotal 4,343,000.00
Includes cost of
materials for
Eliminate temporary ramp
temporary access and
construction grading/
access at west temporary
end of station $ shoring to avoid
8 platform 1 LS 20,000.00 20,000.00 utility relocation
Added
contractor
safety and
conflicts to
cross live Taken from Soft
tracks (MT3 vs. $ Cost Table
9 MT1 & 2) 1 LS 50,000.00 50,000.00 Estimate
Reduced
Mobilization $
10 (10%) 10% 1,300,000.00 130,000.00
Eliminates
need to do
bridge work in
'dry season' $
11 only 1 LS $10,000 10,000
$
Subtotal 210,000.00
Construction Duration
# Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions
Includes cost of
materials for
temporary ramp
access and
Reduction in grading/
overall project temporary
duration (3 Man- $ shoring to avoid
12 months) 13200 hours $ 100.00 1,320,000.00 utility relocation
Reduction
Flgger for Taken from Soft
project duration $ Cost Table
13 (3 months) 65 Days $ 800.00 52,000.00 Estimate
$
Subtotal 1,372,000
Original Concept:
Recommendation Concept:
Advantages: Disadvantages
Reduced cost Potential interference/conflict with pipeline
Reduced construction time relocation
Ease of construction Requires increased coordination with utilities
Eliminates piles
May be better able to match other aesthetic elements
(texture & color) of other features in the project
31
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 2
Fill Walls
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
Current Plan
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)
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 RECOMMENDATION No. 2
Fill Walls
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 2
Fill Walls
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
34
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 2
Fill Walls
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 2
Fill Walls
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
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
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
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Provide Connectivity 64, 65
Original Concept:
Wide Promenade between Transit Loop Drive to accommodate loading/unloading, Bay Trail traffic,
and meandering pedestrians
Recommendation Concept:
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)
Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Reduced cost ♦ Reduces width of promenade
♦ Simplifies wall ♦ Makes gathering space loose
♦ Adds opportunities for more vegetation ♦ Drainage challenges
♦ Separates trail from promenade ♦ Possible issues with grade separation
♦ Expands view while seated ♦ May require additional ADA ramp
♦ May have grade conflicts with Transit Loop &
bridge
37
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 3
Shorter Walls along the Promenade
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
El 18 feet
Retaining Wall
Rails
El 6
Fence
Existing Planned X-Section
El 15 feet
2:1 slope
Retaining Wall
Rails
El 6 feet
38
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 3
Shorter Walls along the Promenade
Proposed X-Section
Fence
Retaining Wall
Rails
El 6 feet
39
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 3
Shorter Walls along the Promenade
Assumptions/Calculations:
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.
Total $ 80,743
Total $ 33,943
40
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 4
Center Platform
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Access Train 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.
Recommendation Concept:
Use 10” post-tensioned cast-in-place concrete or precast concrete with topping, on two grade
beams to control differential settlement and cracking.
Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Faster construction ♦ Possible settlement over time
♦ 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
41
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 4
Center Platform
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
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 No. 4
Center Platform
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
43
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 4
Center Platform
44
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 5
Revise Pedestrian Guardrail
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Access Platform 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
Recommendation Concept:
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 ♦ May have aesthetic implications if architect was
♦ Eliminate need for guardrail in some areas, looking for a “floating” ramp structure or a look
simplifying installation 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
45
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 5
Revise Pedestrian Guardrail
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
Option A
Option B
46
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 5
Revise Pedestrian Guardrail
Assumptions/Calculations:
Original Concept
12,800 + 550,400 + 326,400 = 889,600 (32 LF + 1,376 LF + 816 LF = 2,224 LF Total x $400/LF = 889,600)
Option A:
2,224 LF x $400/LF = $889,600
Option B:
Guardrail reduced LF: 1,002 LF (2,224 LF – 1,222 LF) x $400/LF = $400,800 (approximate – need to verify
LF)
Guardrail eliminated, handrail only: 1,222 x $80/LF = $97,760 (approximate – need to verify LF)
Total = $498,560
47
This page is left intentionally blank
48
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 6
Reduce # of Wind Turbines
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Mitigate Impacts 31
Original Concept:
Recommendation Concept:
Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Reduced cost ♦ Lowers total alternative energy generation, but
not significantly (wind is 2-3% of total alternative
energy generation)
49
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 6
Reduce # of Wind Turbines
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 6
Reduce # of Wind Turbines
Assumptions/Calculations:
Original Concept:
Wind Turbine and Foundation
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
51
This page is left intentionally blank
52
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Access Trains 22
Original Concept:
Recommendation Concept:
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 ♦ Additional connections required to allow modules
♦ Less impact to railroad to be assembled rapidly
♦ Cheaper welding costs ♦ Potential blockage to access paths
♦ Changes to Architectural feel of the building
53
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing
55
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing
56
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing
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
57
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing
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
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Realign Railroad N/A
Original Concept:
None provided
Recommendation Concept:
Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Reduces potential for a train derailing at station and ♦ Increases project costs
intruding into the station platform
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
A restraining rail mounting assembly which The restraining rail mounting bracket has an
supports a rail adjacent to a track for maintaining abutment or foot for bracing the base flange on
the wheels of railroad cars on the track while the restraining rail and a tongue extending
traversing dangerous curves or any area where outward from an angled slot having a mounting
derailing is a potential hazard. The mounting hole through which a bolt can pass to secure the
system is comprised of a support having a web of the rail to the rail support bracket. Angled
tongue and oblique slot for mounting a railroad slots in the support plate compensate for
track on its side and permitting adjustment on the longitudinal forces such as expansion and
space between the track and the restraining rail. contraction of the rails due to temperature
changes to maintain the spacing and alignment
The mounting assembly is comprised of a plate
of the restraining rail and the track.
embedded in a cement pedestal with a second
support plate for locking the rail support bracket Running Rail
also secured in the cement pedestal. The base
of the rail support bracket has diagonally Restraining Rail
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.
Restraining Rail
Running Rail
59
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 8
Restraining Guardrail
Assumptions/Calculations:
60
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 9
Promenade/Park Amenities
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Mitigate Impacts 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.
Recommendation Concept:
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.
Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Respect the design intent
♦ Provide safe and comfortable surface for promenade
users, including bicyclists
♦ Reduce the cost
♦ Reduce maintenance
61
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 9
Promenade/Park Amenities
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 9
Promenade/Park Amenities
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 9
Promenade/Park Amenities
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 9
Promenade/Park Amenities
Assumptions/Calculations:
65
This page is left intentionally blank
66
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 10
Eliminate Basement
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Maintain Building 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.
Recommendation Concept:
Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Reduced building cost ♦ Loss of square footage
♦ Faster, more conventional construction ♦ Loss of building functionality/flexibility
♦ Wall more easily matches other retaining walls
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
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
Hercules ITC - Plaza Station Building
Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Cost Comparison of Basement versus No Basement Option
Basement Area (approx. 120' L x 40' W x 10' H) Revised April 1, 2010
Assumptions/Calculations:
3 Slab on Grade for Bay Trail SF $10 2,400 $24,000 0 $0 2,400 $24,000
3
4 Station Floor (over basement) SF $25 0 $0 3,270 $81,750 0 $0
4
5 Basement Floor SF $10 0 $0 5,670 $56,700 0 $0
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 10
5
6 Basement Walls (4 sides) SF $40 0 $0 4,085 $163,400 0 $0
7 Mid-Basement Supports (20-ft o.c.) EA $1,000 0 $0 6 $6,000 0 $0
8 Temporary (ph. 2) support wall (B) SF $5 0 $0 1,200 $6,000 0 $0
9 Cantilever Ret. Wall (A) (120 x 14) SF $55 1,680 $92,400 0 $0 0 $0
6
10 Temporary (ph. 1) shoring SF $100 2,240 $224,000 560 $56,000 0 $0
11 Ground Improvement at wall CF $1 0 $0 0 $0 123,750 $142,313
12 Segmental Retaining Wall SF $35 0 $0 0 $0 2,000 $70,000
7
13 Waterprooging SF $4 240 $960 1,794 $7,176 0 $0
8
EARTHWORK
14 Excavation for basement floor9 CY $5 0 $0 420 $2,100 420 $2,100
10
15 Light-weight import fill CY $15 1,900 $28,500 0 $0 1,900 $28,500
16 Conventional Fill CY $7 0 $0 0 $0 1040 $7,582
MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL
17 Fire Protection (below grade) SF $7 0 $0 5,670 $39,690 0 $0
18 Lighting & Electrical (below grade) SF $4 0 $0 5,670 $22,680 0 $0
11
19 Elevator - 1 floor Additional Cost LS $50,000 0 $0 1 $50,000 0 $0
20 Stairs/Ramps to Basement SF $30 0 $0 400 $12,000 0 $0
12
21 Secondary Stairs/Ramps Egress SF $30 0 $0 400 $12,000 0 $0
Total 819,860 800,496 454,494
68
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 11
Miscellaneous Landscape Items
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Mitigate Impacts N/A
Original Concept:
Recommendation Concept:
Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Price adjustment
♦ Use native plants
Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:
Recommended:
Shrubs/groundcovers 35,710 SF @ $3.00/SF = $107,130
Organic Mulch 197 CY @ $45.00/CY = $8,865
Total: $115,995
69
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 11
Miscellaneous Landscape Items
70
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 11
Miscellaneous Landscape Items
Downtown Hercules
71
This page is left intentionally blank
72