0% found this document useful (0 votes)
99 views76 pages

Awery 35 y 3 Q 4366 Q 3

The Value Engineering report provides recommendations to improve the design of the proposed Hercules Intermodal Transit Center project in Hercules, California. The report summarizes the project which involves constructing a transit center, rail and road improvements, and ancillary facilities. It then describes the Value Engineering study process and analysis conducted from March 30th to April 2nd, 2010. The study team identified 11 recommendations to reduce project costs or improve functionality, such as modifying the site layout, simplifying construction phasing, and using alternative materials. Implementing the recommendations could save over $4.5 million and reduce construction impacts.

Uploaded by

effendi najib
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
99 views76 pages

Awery 35 y 3 Q 4366 Q 3

The Value Engineering report provides recommendations to improve the design of the proposed Hercules Intermodal Transit Center project in Hercules, California. The report summarizes the project which involves constructing a transit center, rail and road improvements, and ancillary facilities. It then describes the Value Engineering study process and analysis conducted from March 30th to April 2nd, 2010. The study team identified 11 recommendations to reduce project costs or improve functionality, such as modifying the site layout, simplifying construction phasing, and using alternative materials. Implementing the recommendations could save over $4.5 million and reduce construction impacts.

Uploaded by

effendi najib
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 76

Value Engineering Report

A nd
Recommendations

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.
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 
VE Recommendation No. 2 ..................................................................................................................... 31 
VE Recommendation No. 3 ..................................................................................................................... 37 
VE Recommendation No. 4 ..................................................................................................................... 41 
VE Recommendation No. 5 ..................................................................................................................... 45 
VE Recommendation No. 6 ..................................................................................................................... 49 
VE Recommendation No. 7 ..................................................................................................................... 53 

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Table of Contents


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
VE Recommendation No. 8 ..................................................................................................................... 59 
VE Recommendation No. 9 ..................................................................................................................... 61 
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 Table of Contents


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
Executive Summary
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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.1


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.2


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
2
Table ES-1 Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Cost Model

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center


Cost Model - Total Cost $63.26 M
Train Station
Cantilever Retaining Wall
Realign Railroad
Relocate Utilities
Bay Trail
Soil Nail Wall
Railroad Bridge
Creekside Park
Railroad Platform Support
Transit Loop
Transit Loop Bridge
Fencing
Promenade
Lighting

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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.3


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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).

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.4


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.5


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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 

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.6


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

VE No. 1 Savings $0.496 Million

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.7


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

VE No. 2 Savings $ 10.03 Million

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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.8


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

VE No. 4 Savings $0.60 Million

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).

VE No. 10 Savings $0.41 Million

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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.9


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
9
VE No. 3 Savings $0.04 Million

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.

VE No. 5 Savings $0.48 Million

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.

VE No. 6 Savings $0.16 Million

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.

VE No. 7 Savings $0.36 Million


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.
VE No. 8 Additional Costs + $0.11 Million
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.

VE No. 9 Savings $0.46 Million

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.10


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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

VE Savings
# Project Component*
($ 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


$63.26 M
(see table ES-1)

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.

VE No. 11 Savings $0.13 Million


Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.11
Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Executive Summary – ES.12


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
12
Project Description
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
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.

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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Process and Analysis – 2.


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Process and Analysis – 2.


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Process and Analysis – 2.


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Process and Analysis – 2.


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Process and Analysis – 2.


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 – April 2, 2010
22
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Realign Railroad, RemoveShoo-Flys 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  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

COST SUMMARY COST

Recommendation Concept $5.78 M

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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.3


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
23
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment

Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:

Staging of Track Who Concurrent/Following Work

1 Construct RR Bridge in-place UPRR Retaining walls


This could be let as soon as an Utility relocations (fiber optics)
agreement is in place with the
Station Building #1
UPRR. This would allow the work
to be completed by the end of Bay Trail
2010.

2 Shift existing MT-02 1.5’ to final UPRR Station Platform


MT-02 (includes shift to existing
Utility relocations (pipelines)
siding)
Station Building #2
Transit Loop and Bridges

3 Construct new MT-03 Contractor

4 Construct ties to MT-03, place UPRR


track into service
(includes signal work)

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.

6 Shift MT-01 to tie in with existing UPRR


siding to south.

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.4


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
24
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.5


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
25
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.6


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
26
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment

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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.7


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
27
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment
Cost Table
Track
Construction
# Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions
Entire length of VIP MT-01
1 Resurface Track 8590 LF $ 10.00 $ 85,900.00 considered resurfaced
Entire length of VIP MT-02
2 Shift Track 4660 LF $ 35.00 $ 163,100.00 considered shifted
Entire Length of VIP MT-03
considered new construction,
value is negative due to
3 New Track -390 LF $ 295.00 $ (115,050.00) eliminating shoofly construction
4 #20 Turnout 2 EA $ 300,000.00 $ 600,000.00
Subtotal $ 734,000.00
Utility Relocation
Construction
# Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions
extension of current design
1000' to the west, and 850' to
Fiber Optic Line the east, unit cost taken from
5 Extension (2 lines) 3700 LF $ 150.00 $ 555,000.00 60% estimate
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
Fuel Oil Line installing Shell pipe at the same
6 Extension (2 lines) 3700 LF $ 400.00 $1,480,000.00 time
Used to account for unsurveyed
areas impacted by extension
Utility Relocation and conceptual level of design
7 Contingency (10%) 10% $ 203,500.00 for utility extensions
Subtotal $2,238,500.00
Grading and Drainage
# Item Quantity Unit Original Cost Added Cost Assumptions
Totalled drainage and grading
Percent Increase in line items from 60% submittal
Affected estimate, then mulitplied by
Drainage/Grading percent increase in track area
8 Area 92.5% LS $ 1,008,500.00 $ 932,591.40 from VIP extension design
Subtotal $ 933,000.00
Railroad Signals
# Item Quantity Unit Original Cost Added Cost Assumptions

VIP Total Cost


9 Estimate 1 LS $ 2,453,000.00 $2,453,000.00 Value for 60% Submittal needs
60% Submittal Cost verification; subtotal cost
10 Estimate 1 LS $ 631,000.00 $631,000.00 represents VIP Cost - 60%
11 $ - Submittal Cost
Subtotal $1,822,000.00

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.8


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
28
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment
Right of Way Take
Did not include possible RW
needs at west end of the Bowl for
Additional Right of utility extension easement. Unit
Way Take from price was assumed, and should
12 Anderson Pacific 2025 SF $ 30.00 $ 60,750.00 be checked.
Subtotal $60,750.00

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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.9


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
29
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 1
Railroad Realignment
Construction Phasing
# Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Cost Assumptions

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

Hercules Intermodal Transit Center Recommendations – 4.10


Value Engineering Study Report Date: March 30 - April 2, 2010
30
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 2
Fill Walls
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Retain Earth 38

Original Concept:

Pile supported cantilever retaining wall along Bayfront project area

Recommendation Concept:

Ground improvement with MSE or segmental block wall

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

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $11.57 M

Recommendation Concept $3.28 M

Savings $8.29 M x 1.21 markup = $10.03 M

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

Item Unit Cost Units Sub Total ($)

Ground Improvement $1.15/CF 22’ x [(800’ x 45’)+(1,700’ x 30’)] = $2,200,000


1,914,000 CF

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


wall face

Upper portion of wall $40/SF of 4’ x 1,100’ = 4,400 SF $176,000


in vicinity of pipelines wall face

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
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

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept See 60% Cost Estimate

Recommendation Concept See Assumptions/Calculations

Savings $0.03 M x 1.21 markup = $0.04 M

37
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 3
Shorter Walls along the Promenade

Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:

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


Fence Existing Planned X-Section

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

El 18 feet

Retaining Wall

Rails

El 6

Following is Idea 64 at the same Station

Fence
Existing Planned X-Section

Promenade: 24 feet wide at Transit Loop Sta 15+00

El 15 feet

2:1 slope
Retaining Wall

Rails

El 6 feet

38
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 3
Shorter Walls along the Promenade

Following is Idea 65 at the same Station

Proposed X-Section

Fence

Promenade: 12 feet wide at Transit Loop Sta 15+00

EBRP Trail, Typical Section, 14 feet wide (10 foot


El 15.5 feet paved trail with 2 foot shoulders each side
Five Steps: 12 inches wide, 6 inches high

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.

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
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

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $1.37 M ($48.79/SF)

Recommendation Concept $0.87 M ($31.18/SF)

Savings $0.50 M x 1.21 markup = $0.60 M

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

Precast Panels on piles


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

Mixing Soil instead of Piles


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.
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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 4
Center Platform

10” post-tensioned Mat slab


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.
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
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

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $0.89 M

Recommendation Concept $0.50 M (Option B)

Savings $0.39 M x 1.24 markup = $0.48 M

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:

12 wind turbines on platform

Recommendation Concept:

Option A: 10 wind turbines on platform


Option B: 8 wind turbines on platform

Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Reduced cost ♦ Lowers total alternative energy generation, but
not significantly (wind is 2-3% of total alternative
energy generation)

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $0.39 M

Recommendation Concept $0.26 M (option B)

Savings $0.13 M x 1.21 markup = $0.16 M

49
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 6
Reduce # of Wind Turbines

Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:

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
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

Recommended Concept (Option A):


Foundation 10 EA @ $1.5K = 15K
Concrete Bench 10 EA @ $1K = $10K
Windspire Wind Turbine (1.2 kW, 35’ high) 10 EA @ $15K = $150K
Associated Equipment & Feeders 10 EA @ $8.5K = $85K
Markups 26.07% of $260K = $67,782
Total = 327,782

Recommended Concept (Option B):


Foundation 8 EA @ $1.5K = 12K
Concrete Bench 8 EA @ $1K = $8K
Windspire Wind Turbine (1.2 kW, 35’ high) 8 EA @ $15K = $120K
Associated Equipment & Feeders 8 EA @ $8.5K = $68K
Markups 26.07% of $208K = $54,226
Total = 262,226

51
This page is left intentionally blank

52
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Access Trains 22

Original Concept:

Use Moment Resisting Frame System to resist lateral loading

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

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $1.84 M

Recommendation Concept $1.55 M

Savings $0.29 M x 1.24 markup = $0.36 M

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

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
VE RECOMMENDATION No. 7
Modular Construction & Framing

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
IDEA NO(s).
Function: Realign Railroad N/A

Original Concept:

None provided

Recommendation Concept:

Install a restraining guardrail through the platform area of the station

Advantages: Disadvantages
♦ Reduces potential for a train derailing at station and ♦ Increases project costs
intruding into the station platform

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept None

Recommendation Concept $0.09 M

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

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:

TF No. Rails yards wt lbs/ton SH rail cost


850 4 3 136 2000 $ 900.00
1133.333 77.0666667
$ 69,360.00 Cost of rail
TF Spacing No ties increase/tie total
1700 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
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

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $0.95 M

Recommendation Concept $0.57 M

Savings $0.38 M x 1.21 markup = $0.46 M

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:

Original Concept - Promenade:


Enhanced Concrete at Promenade - 20,000 SF @ $25.00/SF = $500,000
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
Original Concept – Creekside Park:
Bench - 23 @ $3,500.00/Unit = $80,500
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

Recommended Concept - Promenade


Scored/Colored Concrete at Promenade – 27,665 SF @ $12.00 = $331,980
Concrete Seat-Walls – 110LF @ $100.00/LF = $11,000
Planter Custom Walls & Caps – 150LF @ $100.00/LF = $15,000
Total:$357,980
Recommended Concept – Creekside Park
Bench - 23 @ $2,000.00/Unit = $46,000
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
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:

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.

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

COST SUMMARY COST

Original Concept $0.80 M

Recommendation Concept $0.46 M

Savings $0.34 M 1.24 markup = $0.41 M

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:

No Basement with Track Staging


with area under tower and stairs (approx. 29.5' sq) No Basement Basement Changes and Ground Improvement
# Item Units Unit Price Quantity Price Quantity Price Quantity Price
STRUCTURAL/ARCHITECTURAL
1 Drive Piles (90-ft long)1 EA $7,500 60 $450,000 30 $225,000 24 $180,000
2
2 Structural Slab for Bay Trail SF $25 0 $0 2,400 $60,000 0 $0
Eliminate Basement

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:

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


Organic Mulch 197 CY @ $100.00/CY

Recommendation Concept:

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

Original Concept $0.23 M

Recommendation Concept $0.12 M

Savings $0.11 M x 1.21 M = $0.13 M

Discussion/Justification/Sketches/Photos:

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
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

You might also like