dallas love field people mover connector feasibility study 2008

in association with:

alb + Blair Architects & Associates, LLCArredondo, Zepeda & Brunz, Inc.

Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc.Corgan Associates, Inc.

Dr. G. Sauer CorporationHuitt-Zollars, Inc.

Kutchins & Groh, LLCLina T. Ramey & Associates, Inc.

Swayzer Engineering, Inc.

S u b m i t t e d b y :July 2008

D a l l a s L o v e F i e l d P e o p l e M o v e r C o n n e c t o r

F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y



Executive Summ

aryExecutive Sum

mary

Executive Summary

DALLAS LOVE FIELD PEOPLE MOVER CONNECTOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

Lea+Elliott, Inc. i July 10, 2008 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied

in whole or in part without written permission from Lea+Elliott, Inc.

REPORT OUTLINE

SECTION CONTENT LEAD FIRM DATE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY L+E 10-JUL-08

1.0 Introduction L+E

2.0 Assemble Project Data L+E

3.0 Environmental Study Issues CPY

4.0 Technology Assessment L+E

5.0 Tunneling Methods Assessment HZ/DSC

6.0 System Performance Requirements L+E

7.0 System Alternatives L+E

8.0 Preliminary Facilities Requirements CAI

9.0 Recommended Alternative ALL

10.0 Investigate Alternative Procurement Methods L+E

11.0 Planning Level Cost Assessment ALL

12.0 Project Schedule ALL

13.0 Funding Sources and Options KG

14.0 Project Feasibility L+E


Lea+Elliott, Inc. ii July 10, 2008 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................1 ES.1 DETERMINATION OF FEASIBILITY ..............................................................1

ES.2 SUMMARY OF REPORT...................................................................................1 ES.2.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................2

ES.2.2 ASSEMBLE PROJECT DATA................................................................3 ES.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ISSUES....................................................3

ES.2.4 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT .............................................................3 ES.2.5 TUNNELING METHODS ASSESSMENT..............................................4

ES.2.6 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS......................................4 ES.2.7 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES....................................................................5

ES.2.8 PRELIMINARY FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS ..................................6 ES.2.9 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................7

ES.2.10 INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT METHODS ......8 ES.2.11 PLANNING LEVEL COST ASSESSMENT .......................................9

ES.2.12 PROJECT SCHEDULE .....................................................................10 ES.2.13 FUNDING SOURCES AND OPTIONS ............................................10

ES.2.14 PROJECT FEASIBILITY..................................................................11


Lea+Elliott, Inc. ES-1 July 10, 2008 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 DETERMINATION OF FEASIBILITY The Feasibility Study for the Dallas Love Field People Mover Connector (PMC) has resulted in a determination that the project is feasible.

The PMC will provide a high level of service to air travelers and employees connecting between Dallas Love Field and the DART Love Field Station. The resulting service will be perceived by users as a seamless connection and will provide access to Dallas and the region via the regional rail network. The PMC will create a new entrance to Love Field that will reflect a high quality of service consistent with the airport image.

The PMC can be constructed for a reasonable cost in comparison to other airport connectors and without significant risk or disruption of ongoing airport operations.

Funding sources are available to cover the cost of the PMC. The revenue stream from the current Passenger Facility Charge is adequate to cover the capital cost based on enplanement projections. Other funding sources including the commitments by DART and the Regional Transportation Commission will further offset the costs.

These findings are documented throughout this report and are summarized briefly in the following sections of the Executive Summary.

ES.2 SUMMARY OF REPORT

The Dallas Love Field Feasibility Study was organized and executed as a series of fourteen tasks. The report and findings were organized in a similar format. The following section includes a brief summary of the tasks and findings.




ES.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has started construction on a new Light Rail Transit (LRT) rail alignment called the Green Line. In the vicinity of Love Field, the alignment will be located along Denton Drive - west of the airport. DART has established a passenger station immediately east of Wyman Street referred to as the Love Field Station (see Exhibit ES.2.1-1).

Exhibit ES.2.1-1 Area Map

The City of Dallas (COD) intends to provide a transportation connection between the Love Field Station and the Love Field Terminal Building that will connect Dallas Love Field to the regional rail network. DART and COD have investigated various alternatives to accomplish this connection. This Dallas Love Field People Mover Connector Feasibility Study is the next step in this investigation. During the course of the feasibility study, coordination meetings with stakeholders including DART, Southwest Airlines and other city departments were held to discuss the progress of the project.




ES.2.2 ASSEMBLE PROJECT DATA

Project data for the Love Field People Mover Connector (PMC) Feasibility Study were compiled from the City of Dallas (COD), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Southwest Airlines (SWA), Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) and from team members that had performed previous work at Love Field. Additional geotechnical borings were also collected during the project.

ES.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ISSUES

After the completion of the environmental review, it was determined that there are no major environmental issues present that would prevent the PMC project from moving forward. Any issues identified were already known by the City of Dallas. Section 3.0 describes the environmental study issues in more detail.

ES.2.4 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

The Technology Assessment was prepared for the purpose of identifying transportation technology categories and assessing their characteristics for applicability to the Dallas Love Field PMC System. The technology assessment was intended to identify and evaluate a range of current technologies that could potentially transport passengers between the DART Love Field Station of the Northwest Corridor (Green Line) LRT project and the Dallas Love Field (DAL) Terminal. The results of this assessment define and recommend a group of representative technologies that meet the System design requirements and performance criteria. This group of representative technologies has been used to establish generic design criteria to be used to advance the PMC facilities design until such time that a System Supplier is under contract and technology specific criteria are available.

Based on the results of the assessment, three classes of driverless, Automated People Movers (APMs) have been retained as potential candidates for the PMC system – Self-Propelled APM, Cable-Propelled APM and Low-speed Maglev. No final recommendation of technology is provided in this report. Rather, technology categories are evaluated as candidates for consideration based on Project conditions or requirements. See Section 4.0 for further information about these technologies.




ES.2.5 TUNNELING METHODS ASSESSMENT A tunnel will provide the most direct access between the DART Love Field LRT Station and the Love Field Terminal Building. An at-grade solution was considered at the onset of the feasibility study. The route that was considered paralleled runway 13R/31L along Denton Drive towards Mockingbird Lane and then proceeded into Love Field on Cedar Springs Road. This alignment was not further developed as it was determined that this alignment would infringe on the airfield clearances. Based on this fact and an initial assessment of the other site conditions (streets, existing buildings, parking facilities, future development and utilities) as well as discussions with the City of Dallas, a tunnel configuration was determined.

Two alignment corridors were initially selected. For each corridor a deep and a shallow tunneling option, as well as a combination with an aerial alignment, were investigated and evaluated. Those alignment corridors are further refined in Sections 7.0 and 9.0. In the recommended alternative, the tunnel will gradually slope to a maximum depth of approximately sixty-five (65) feet under the runway.

Tunnel Construction Methodologies identified include Shielded Pressure-Face Tunnel Boring Machines; The New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) or Sequential Excavation Method (SEM); Cut and Cover Construction; and Doorframe Slab Method. Station Construction Methodologies identified include aerial construction (DART side only), Cut-and-cover construction, NATM tunneling and Doorframe Slab Method.

After the completion of Section 6.0, the finding is that the PMC tunnel can be designed and constructed without impact to airport operations and without unreasonable settlement risk.

ES.2.6 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The primary functional requirement of the proposed PMC is to provide a seamless connection between the DART Love Field LRT station and the main terminal building at Dallas Love Field for airport passengers and employees. This portion of the report defines the system performance requirements for the PMC. These system requirements describe the acceptable passenger service levels. The level of service provided to users of the PMC can be categorized into two primary components: 1) Performance level of service factors and 2) Perception level of service factors. Performance level of service factors for the most part can be quantified. However, perception level of service factors are not as readily quantifiable, but are more qualitative in nature.




Performance level of service factors include:

• Ridership • Trip and travel times

o Maximum trip time o Overall travel time o Maximum wait time o Average wait time o Frequency of Service (Headway)

• Capacity

Perception level of service factors include:

• The degree to which users of the system perceive that the service provided is a “seamless integration” of the DART LRT component of their overall trip and the PMC component of their overall trip.

• The perception that users of the system have as to the PMC being the public entrance to the airport.

• The overall image that the PMC conveys to the general public. The performance level of service factors are used to evaluate the alignment alternatives in Section 9.0.

ES.2.7 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

The connection of Dallas Love Field to the DART Love Field LRT station will offer patrons of the airport an alternative means to access the terminal building and its ancillary facilities. The level of service for this new transportation connection needs to compare favorably to the level of service experienced by the air traveling public at airports throughout the world.

The design of the system must not only take into consideration the means by which to connect these two locations but also must appear seamless to the passenger utilizing the connection. The PMC Station adjacent to the DART Love Field Station is a “new entrance” to Love Field and should therefore provide an experience to the passenger similar to that of entering the main terminal building at Love Field. The patrons of the PMC should not only have a sense of arrival at Love Field but should feel secure in their surroundings in the people mover stations and on the system itself.




From the evaluation performed in Section 7.0, four station location options were carried forward – two options for the DART Love Field PMC Station and two options for the Love Field Terminal Building PMC Station. These four station location options are listed below:

DART Love Field PMC Station location options:

1. Aerial APM Station at DART 2. Underground APM Station at DART

Love Field Terminal Building PMC Station location options:

3. Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal 4. Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage

ES.2.8 PRELIMINARY FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS

Facilities required to support the use and operation of the PMC were identified in Section 8.0. These facilities include:

Stations - The PMC stations accommodate the boarding/deboarding of passengers to and from the vehicles while providing for passenger dwell time. Stations also provide the required space for passengers to circulate between the APM stations at the Love Field Terminal platform or the DART Love Field Station platform. A center platform configuration is recommended for the PMC stations. The center platform is the most efficient use of space for boarding and deboarding all passengers. This configuration allows for passengers to board/deboard on either side of a shared platform. Platform edge walls are required along the full length to separate the passengers on the platform from the guideways. Automatic platform doors are provided for normal circulation between vehicles and the station platforms and must be fully integrated with the platform edge wall system.

Tunnel / guideway – As discussed in Section 5.0, all PMC alignment options consist of a tunnel portion under the airport apron and runway. The method of construction for the PMC tunnel is to be determined in a later phase of this project. The tunnels are anticipated to be circular in cross-section with one bore for each side of the dual-lane guideway. The tunnel will contain the guideway, running surface, signaling cable and emergency walkway for the PMC.




Maintenance Facility - The Maintenance Facility houses service, inspection and repair areas for the PMC vehicles. The Maintenance Facility could be located at either end of the alignment.

Central Control Facility – This is where the PMC is operated and controlled. It is planned to be co-located in the airport security complex with the terminal operations center.

Ancillary spaces – Ancillary spaces include station equipment rooms, Automatic Train Control equipment rooms and the Power Distribution Substations. These spaces are described in further detail in Section 8.0.

ES.2.9 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

From the evaluation exercise performed in Section 7.0, four station location options were carried forward – two options for the DART Love Field PMC Station and two options for the Love Field Terminal Building PMC Station. These four station location options are listed below:




3. Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal

4. Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage Through different station location combinations, four alternatives were derived. These short-listed alternatives were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated to compare their strengths and weaknesses. Each of the short-listed alternatives were analyzed using Lea+Elliott's LEGENDS© family of analytical tools. Computer simulations of the alternatives were performed to precisely describe the performance of each study system. Output of these system analyses provided a complete description of each alternative.




After completion of the Alternative Evaluation, the recommended alternative was the Aerial APM Station at DART to Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal. This alternative is shown in Exhibit ES.2.9-1.

This recommended alternative should be considered a feasibility level concept and not a final design concept. During the next phase of design of the PMC, the concept should be refined to optimize the interface between the PMC and the terminal. Coordination with the terminal designers will be important to create the best possible passenger orientation and experience.

Exhibit ES.2.9-1 Recommended Alternative

ES.2.10 INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT METHODS Unlike conventional rail systems (heavy rail, commuter rail or light rail) where multiple suppliers can provide vehicles and equipment that can coexist within a single system, APM technologies are unique and proprietary and cannot operate with one another. This characteristic requires the procurement process to be different than a conventional approach commonly used for many public works projects. Multiple APM operating system suppliers might be capable of




delivering the specified result in a different way due to the proprietary nature of APM operating systems. A procurement process that permits the APM operating system suppliers capable of meeting the performance-based specifications will result in increased competition. This process has been utilized by the majority of municipalities and airports in the United States that have procured APM operating systems and has evolved into the industry standard.

An additional aspect that is important in the procurement process is simultaneously procuring a separate contract with the supplier for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) responsibility for the APM operating system once it has been constructed. The Owner can simultaneously receive bids for the Design and Construction and the O&M from an APM operating system supplier. This provides the Owner added assurance that portions of the work that should be a part of the Design and Construction phase are not shifted into the O&M phase of the work. Another benefit of including the O&M of the APM operating system into the scope of the APM Supplier is that the quality of the initial work tends to be higher because the responsibility to maintain the System rests with the APM supplier after final acceptance. Finally, awarding both the Design and Construction and the O&M to the supplier allows the Owner to assign a single point of responsibility for both phases of the work.

The procurement processes, division of work and contracting approach alternatives are discussed in Section 10.0.

ES.2.11 PLANNING LEVEL COST ASSESSMENT Following the analysis and evaluation of the shortlisted alternatives in Section 9.0, a rough order of magnitude planning level capital cost assessment for the recommended alternative of the Dallas Love Field People Mover Connector (DAL PMC) was developed utilizing past experience on similar projects and current construction industry cost trends.

This assessment is based on sketches and renderings that have been developed during the feasibility study and are not based on specific design details since they have not yet been developed. The individual elements of the capital cost assessment were prepared by the lead specialty consultants for the feasibility study. These elements were then compiled into a construction cost assessment and presented to the Public Works and Transportation and Aviation departments for review and discussion.

Following this review, the team was requested to add “soft costs” to the construction cost assessment in order to determine the overall program cost. Based on other projects of similar size and scope and guidance from the Public Works and Transportation Department, the team




applied project specific percentages for design, construction administration, construction management, geotechnical testing, LEED specific requirements, a project art program, basic commissioning as well as values for other project costs and contingencies.

The planning level cost assessment for the DAL PMC is $270,000,000 (2008 Dollars) or $330,000,000 (2010 Dollars assuming an annual escalation rate of 8%). Refer to Section 11.0 for a more detailed discussion of the planning level cost assessment.

ES.2.12 PROJECT SCHEDULE

A capital development project such as the Love Field People Mover Connector (DAL PMC) takes place over a number of years and includes design, construction, implementation and commissioning phases. It is estimated that the overall project duration of the DAL PMC is seventy-two (72) months. The phases of the project are listed below.

• Schematic Design • Final Design • APM System Procurement • Facilities Construction Procurement • Civil/Sitework Construction • APM System Manufacturing • Tunnel Construction • Station Construction • APM System Installation • APM System Testing And Demonstration

The project schedule is discussed in more detail in Section 12.0.

ES.2.13 FUNDING SOURCES AND OPTIONS

For a project of this nature, there are several funding alternatives available to airports. Since the primary mission of the project is the safe and efficient handling of passengers into and out of the airport, the project becomes eligible for funding under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program. This eligibility would extend to all elements of the program with the exception of operation and maintenance costs. It is important to note that with the ongoing development initiatives for the Airport, AIP funding resources may be




limited to higher priority projects as identified by the Airport’s Capital Improvement Program and the FAA.

The PFC program provides a valuable revenue stream for capital projects of this nature. These resources are available for both capital and financing costs associated with the program. Based on an anticipated 20-year collection period, the PFC revenue stream appears to be adequate to cover the project cost and related debt service.

Other known sources of funding include the DART $20,000,000 commitment and a portion of the $100,000,000 commitment for rail access into airports in the North Texas Region from the Regional Transportation Commission.

ES.2.14 PROJECT FEASIBILITY

The PMC will provide a high level of service to air travelers and employees connecting between Dallas Love Field and the DART Love Field Station. The resulting service will be perceived by users as a seamless connection and will provide access to Dallas and the region via the regional rail network. The PMC will create a new entrance to Love Field that will reflect a high quality of service consistent with the airport image.

The PMC can be constructed for a reasonable cost in comparison to similar APM systems. The construction of the PMC can be accomplished with minimal impact to the terminal and airfield areas.

In consideration of the information presented above and within this report, the DAL PMC is a feasible project and will provide the benefits desired by the City of Dallas.



1.0 Introduction1.0 Introduction

1.0 Introduction


Lea+Elliott, Inc. i July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


REPORT OUTLINE


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY L+E

1.0 Introduction L+E 10-JUL-08















Lea+Elliott, Inc. ii July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 THE PROJECT................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 PROJECT COORDINATION.......................................................................... 1-1


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 1-1 July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE PROJECT Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has started construction of a new Light Rail Transit (LRT) rail alignment called the Green Line. In the vicinity of Love Field, the alignment will be located along Denton Drive - west of the airport. DART has established a passenger station immediately east of Wyman Street referred to as the Love Field Station (see Exhibit 1.4-1).

The City of Dallas (COD) intends to provide a transportation connection between the Love Field Station and the Love Field Terminal Building that will connect Dallas Love Field to the regional rail network. DART and COD have investigated various alternatives to accomplish this connection. This study will review the project requirements, assess environmental, technology and tunneling issues, develop system and facilities alternatives, evaluate the alternatives, identify a recommended alternative, develop cost, schedule and funding options and determine the feasibility of the project.

1.2 PROJECT COORDINATION Project Coordination for the Love Field People Mover Connector (PMC) Feasibility Study involved a number of departments within the City of Dallas as well as other organizations and governmental entities. Paramount to the success of a project as complex as the PMC was

Exhibit 1.4-1 Area Map




coordination early in the process to gain consensus of concepts that were developed further in the planning and programming and design phases.

Monthly coordination meetings with the City of Dallas’ Public Works and Transportation and Aviation departments were held to update representatives from these organizations on the progress of the feasibility study.

Due to the fact that one of the terminus points of the PMC is on or adjacent to the DART Love Field light rail station, coordination with DART commenced early on in the feasibility study. A coordination meeting was held with DART less than one month after notice to proceed to gather information on the Northwest-2 Line Section, the construction schedule, potential design changes that were anticipated and the planning that had taken place to date to accommodate the PMC.

DART provided electronic files that were compiled with data received from other sources to create a base map for the project. DART also provided background on the schedule for the Green Line LRT system including detail on when and what activities were anticipated at the Love Field LRT station site. Subsequent coordination meetings have taken place to update representatives with DART on the status of the PMC Feasibility Study and the potential go-forward concepts that had been developed to date.

Additional coordination was required with the City of Dallas Transportation Planning department regarding the technology assessment.

In addition, coordination meetings with representatives from Southwest Airlines’ Properties and Facilities department were held to discuss the interface of the PMC with Southwest Airlines Headquarters facilities as well as the interface with the proposed modernization program.



2.0 Assemble Project Data 2.0 Assemble Project D

ata2.0 Assem

ble Project Data




REPORT OUTLINE




2.0 Assemble Project Data L+E 10-JUL-08
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.0 ASSEMBLE PROJECT DATA ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 PROJECT DATA............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.1 City of Dallas ....................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Dallas Area Rapid Transit..................................................................... 2-1 2.2.3 Southwest Airlines ............................................................................... 2-2

2.2.4 Other Sources....................................................................................... 2-2




2.0 ASSEMBLE PROJECT DATA

2.1 INTRODUCTION Project data for the Love Field People Mover Connector (PMC) Feasibility Study were compiled from a number of different sources. The gathering of accurate information is crucial to the development of a base map upon which concepts for the PMC can be developed.

2.2 PROJECT DATA

2.2.1 City of Dallas Terminal as-built information and utility information for the airfield was gathered from the Architect for Dallas Love Field (DAL). This information was assembled and then verified for accuracy with the DAL Architect and Operations Officer. Emphasis was placed on the portions of the airport which would most likely be impacted by the PMC tunnel, stations or support facilities.

Existing geotechnical data for DAL was also gathered from the COD.

2.2.2 Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas Area Rapid Transit provided a copy of its Dallas Love Field Transit Service Options Study, Final Report with Addendum, July 2007. DART also provided its ridership estimates and geotechnical information for the Green Line.

At the opposite end of the proposed alignment of the PMC, the complete set of design drawings of the DART Northwest-2 Line Section of the Green Line expansion were provided by DART. These files were added to the base map files to create a macro view of the entire proposed PMC system. These files also were utilized to identify potential rights-of-way which may need to be acquired or temporarily utilized to construct the PMC.

During the design of the DART Love Field Station, a space of approximately 20’ x 70’ area of land on the station site had been identified as the terminus point for the PMC. Based on past




experience with similar projects, the team suggested an alternative location for the terminus point to representatives of the COD Aviation and COD Public Works and Transportation departments prior to discussing with DART. The alternative location was determined by the team and the City to have merit and further discussions were held with representatives from the DART Planning and Project Management departments regarding this. From these discussions, it was determined that DART was open to options. The use of the DART files assisted the team in identifying a location at the Northwest end of the DART Love Field Station site that could also be utilized for a terminus point of the PMC. These two locations served as a guide for the various alignment routes that were developed as part of Task 7.0 – System Alternatives.

Other data collected from DART included DART ridership projections for the Green Line, geotechnical information for the Northwest-2 Line Section and the DART Love Field Service Options Study.

2.2.3 Southwest Airlines

Southwest Airlines provided their 2015 Master Site Plan. This mounted drawing is titled G.O. V 2015 Master Site Plan, Sheet A-1.0 and is dated August 17, 2001. This exhibit shows the Southwest Airlines campus expansion plan at Love Field in six phases.

2.2.4 Other Sources Other information was gathered from the Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD), City of Dallas, Dallas County and documentation that team members had from performing previous work at Love Field such as the original terminal building, garage B, storm drainage improvement projects and the TARPS program. Additional geotechnical borings were also collected during the project.



3.0 Environmental Study Issues

3.0 Environmental

Study Issues3.0 Environm

entalStudy Issues


Lea+Elliott, Inc. i December 5, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


REPORT OUTLINE





3.0 Environmental Study Issues CPY 05-DEC-07













Lea+Elliott, Inc. ii December 5, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ISSUES.............................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................3-1

3.2 LAND USE ..........................................................................................3-4 3.3 SECTION 4(F) CONSIDERATION .....................................................3-9

3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...............................................................3-9 3.5 UTILITIES ......................................................................................... 3-14

3.6 AIR QUALITY................................................................................... 3-14 3.7 NOISE ................................................................................................ 3-14

3.8 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................... 3-14 3.9 HISTORIC RESOURCES .................................................................. 3-15

3.10 VEGETATION................................................................................... 3-15 3.11 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.............................. 3-15

3.12 WATER RESOURCES....................................................................... 3-15 3.13 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .......................................................... 3-16

3.14 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY................................................ 3-18 3.15 CONCLUSION................................................................................... 3-20

SECTION 3.0 APPENDIX...................................................................................... A3-1


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 3-1 December 5, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ISSUES This portion of the report is intended to supply potential environmental constraints information for the proposed People Mover Connector (PMC) at Dallas Love Field in Dallas County, Texas.

3.1 INTRODUCTION The study area encompasses part of the Dallas Love Field property, the areas adjacent to Denton Drive which runs along the southwest side of Love Field, and the area southeast of Love Field along a short span of Mockingbird Lane from Denton Drive to Cedar Springs Road. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is installing a new rail line that runs along the south side of Denton Drive, with a train station planned for construction northwest of Burbank Street. The PMC would shuttle passengers from the DART station to the Love Field terminal. Exhibits 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 provide the project location on United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2005 topographic and aerial photographic map base.


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 3-2 December 5, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied in whole or in part without written permission from Lea+Elliott, Inc.




3.2 LAND USE The study area is approximately 677 acres and generally consists of suburban residential development, commercial offices and businesses, and airport property. Southwest Airlines’ headquarters are stationed within the study area, as well as two churches and one school. The Land Use Map of the study area is found in Exhibit 3.2-1. The Land Use Index which corresponds to the Land Use Map is below in Exhibit 3.2-2.




Land Use ID Property Description

C01 SWA Headquarters

C02 SWA

C03 Vacant Hangar (Allied Aviation truck)

C04 SWA Warehouse

C05A Sonny Bryan's Smokehouse Catering

C05B Seelcco (vacant)

C06 SWA

C07 SWA

C08 SWA

C09 8650 Denton Dr (Vacant)

C10 SWA

C11 El Gallo Taco

C12 Norwood

C13 Office for lease

C14 AOG, Inc.

C15A S&A Automotive

C15B Lee Roy Jordan Lumber Co.

C16 La Herradura Bar

C17A El Regulton

C17B Barbershop

Exhibit 3.2-2 - Land Use Index




Exhibit 3.2-2 - Land Use Index, continued


C17C Bohemia Night Club

C17D Tortilleria

C17E La Tiendita

C18 Fina Gas Station/Convenience Store

C19 Fina Gas Station/Convenience Store

C20 Underground Construction Co.

(temporary)

C21 Unknown Business



C24 German Classic Auto Sales/Service

C25 Aircraft Carburetor & Injection

C26 Joe's Aircraft Ignition Service

C27 Fuel Farm

C28 Metropolis (night club)

C29 Restaurante Salvadoreno

C30 Vitesse

C31 El Mercado, burned down

C32 Clean Energy – Compressed Natural

Gas Fueling Station

C33 Cloudus Construction

C34 Morrell Plating Co., Inc.

C35 Performance Mechanics Automotive

Shop




Exhibit 3.2-2 - Land Use Index, continued


C36 Jones-Blair Paints

C37 Williamson Printing Corporation

C38 Demolished Building

C39 Mockingbird Depot (strip center)

C40 Unknown Commercial

C41 ACS

C42 Burger King

C43 Abandoned Gas Station

C44 Shell Station

C45 Budget Rent-A-Car

C46 Best Park

C47 Avis

C48 Hertz

C49 Jet Aviation

C50 Gulf Stream

C51 The Parking Spot

C52 Ampco Express Parking

MF01 Threeplex




3.3 SECTION 4(F) CONSIDERATION Under Section 4(F) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 303), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may not approve the use of land from a publicly-owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any registered historic sites unless a determination is made that: 1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative; and 2) action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use. There are no public parks, recreation areas, or refuges within or adjacent to the Love Field study area. Additionally, no National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) designated sites were identified within the study area.

3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A GeoSearch database search was conducted on August 8, 2007. This was supplemented by field investigations of the study area. Approximately 103 potential hazardous material sites were identified within the study area. These sites include gas sites, landfills, and businesses which may be assumed to use potentially hazardous materials. Exhibit 3.4-1 displays the locations of potential hazardous material within the study area on an aerial map. Exhibit 3.4-2 provides further information about this potential hazardous material. Portions of an out-of-use AV gas pipeline still exist on the Love Field property; however, the locations of the remaining portions of the pipeline are not well documented (Peacock, 2007). If sections of the AV gas pipeline are discovered as a result of the proposed PMC project, they would be removed. The entire database search included the Love Field property and a 0.5-mile radius. This GeoSearch report is available upon request. The proposed PMC could impact soil contaminated by Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks (LPST). There are 14 LPSTs within the study area, as seen in Exhibit 3.4-2. Between the DART station and the Love Field Terminal, there are three LPSTs (Map IDs 12, 31, and 38) that are located along Brookfield Avenue, north of Denton Drive. According to the database search, there is also one LPST located at Love Field Gate 41. See Exhibit 3.4-3 for information on all 14 LPSTs within the study area.




Hazardous Material Category Acronym Sites in Study Area

Toxics Release Inventory USTRI 5

Resource Conservation & Recovery Act – Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

USRCRAT 1

Resource Conservation & Recovery Act – Generator USRCRAG 6

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System USNPDES 1

No longer regulated Resource Conservation & Recovery Act – Generator

USNLRRCRAG

9

No further remedial action planned USNFRAP 1

Integrated Compliance Information System (formerly dockets) USICIS 7

Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System USHMIRS 2

Facility Registry System USFRS 7

Exhibit 3.4-2 - Potential Hazardous Materials Sites within Study Area




Exhibit 3.4-2 - Potential Hazardous Materials Sites within Study Area, continued

Hazardous Material Category Acronym Sites in Study Area

Voluntary Cleanup Program TXVCP 4

Spills Listing TXSPILLS 2

Petroleum Storage Tanks TXPST 22

Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks TXLPST 14

Industrial and Hazardous Waste TXIHW 15

Innocent Owner/Operator Program IOP 1

Emergency Response Notification System ERNS 2

EPA Docket Data DOCKETS 3

Biennial Report System BRS 1

TOTAL 103

Map ID* Site Name Site Address Date of

Record Status of Site

8 Love Field Gate 41 Love Field 04-1989 Final concurrence issued, case closed

12 Southwest Airlines Co 2734 Brookfield 02-1996 Monitoring

29 Love Field Jet East 7363 Cedar Springs 07-1989 Final concurrence issued, case

closed

31 7-11 Store 20946 8460 Denton Dr 03-1992 Final concurrence issued, case closed

Exhibit 3.4-3 - Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks within Study Area




Exhibit 3.4-3 - Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks within Study Area, continued Map ID* Site Name Site Address Date of

Record Status of Site

08-1990 Corrective Action Plan 33 Hertz Rent-A-Car 7212 Cedar

Springs 01-1993 Final concurrence issued, case closed

38 Denton Drive 8506 Denton Dr 06-1996 Final concurrence pending documentation of well plugging

04-2006 Pre-assessment/Release Determination 39 Avis Rent-A-Car 7020 Cedar

Springs 04-1998 Final concurrence issued, case closed

55 Exxon Store 64579 3040 W. Mockingbird 02-1988 Final concurrence issued, case

closed

61 Mobil 12FAQ 3100 W. Mockingbird 09-1991

Final concurrence pending documentation of well plugging

62 Warehouse 6621 Denton Dr 10-1991 Final concurrence issued, case closed

67 Williamson Painting Corporation

6700 Denton Dr 05-1992 Final concurrence issued, case closed

75 Jones Blair Co 2728 Empire Central 02-1990 Monitoring

77 R D Keyes Property

2726 W. Mockingbird 09-1992 Final concurrence issued, case

closed

103 Continental Bakery 9000 Denton Dr 12-1991 Final concurrence issued, case closed

* Map ID numbers are labeled on Exhibit 3.4-1.




3.5 UTILITIES Existing utilities are being identified by the project team. A 60-inch stormwater line is known to traverse the study area.

3.6 AIR QUALITY Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, requires that Federal actions conform to the appropriate Federal or State air quality plans in order to attain the CAA’s air quality goals. Section 176(c) states “No department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to an implementation plan.” FAA actions are subject to the General Conformity Rule, which establishes the procedures and criteria for determining whether certain Federal actions conform to State or EPA (Federal) air quality implementation plans. The environmental documentation for this project would include an air quality analysis to ensure the proposed PMC would conform to all applicable rules and regulations.

3.7 NOISE The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model Version 6.0 was used to calculate day-night noise level (DNL) contours for the year 2001. The proposed PMC station connecting to the DART line would be constructed outside of the 65 DNL contour zone, according to the Dallas Love Field Airport Master Plan. The impacts of the PMC to adjacent receivers would depend on the grade of the PMC (elevated, tunnel, at-grade), the route, and the design of the PMC. The environmental documentation for this project would include a noise impact analysis for the proposed PMC.

3.8 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Background investigations were conducted at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) in conjunction with a GeoSearch database search. There are no recorded archeological sites within the study area. The entire study area is located within an urban area that has experienced previous disturbance. However, due to the possible depth of excavation of the PMC project, the project has the potential to encounter undisturbed archeological sites during construction.




3.9 HISTORIC RESOURCES There are three Official State Historical Markers (OSHM) located within the study area shown on Exhibit 3.2-1. All three are located near or within the Love Field terminal and include the Love Field Historical Marker erected in 2003, Texas’ First Airmail and Passenger Service marker erected in 1966, and the Oath of Office of President Johnson marker erected in 1965. More information on these three historical markers is provided in Appendix A3-1. No NRHP listed sites are located within the study area. Nevertheless, the Love Field terminal is over 50 years old. A historic resources survey would be prepared as part of the environmental documentation for the project.

3.10 VEGETATION According to TPWD’s “The Vegetation Types of Texas” (McMahan et al. 1984), the study area is located within one vegetational region: the urban area. The urban area comprises a large portion of the city of Dallas. Typical vegetation within the Dallas urban area include right-of-way grasses and herbaceous species such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), and ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), and landscape species, such as northern catalpa (Catalpa speciosa), oak (Quercus spp.), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), rose of Sharon (Althea Hibiscus syriacus), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). The entire study area is of this vegetation type.

3.11 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) threatened and endangered species list identifies four endangered species with potential to occur in Dallas County. These species include the Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), Least tern (Sterna antillarum), and Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). No evidence of any of these listed species or their suitable habitats were observed within the limits of the study area. No effect to federally-listed species would occur as a result of the proposed project.

3.12 WATER RESOURCES Based on a review of USGS topographic maps, FEMA maps, and field investigations, there are no wetlands, waters of the U.S., or 100-year floodplains located within the study area. No U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting would be required. A narrow drainage ditch lies




south of Denton Drive near the proposed DART station; however, it has recently been disturbed due to DART rail line construction (Photos 29-31 in Appendix A3-2.10 through A3-2.11). Since the proposed PMC would likely be installed north of the proposed station, or east along Denton Drive, the ditch would not be impacted.

3.13 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed in February 1994. It requires federal agencies to ensure that disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of proposed Federal projects on minority and low-income communities are identified and addressed. The general principles required under EO 12898 are as follows: • To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and

environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority and low-income populations.

• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process.

• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by

minority and low-income populations. In addition to complying with the Executive Order, the Department of Transportation is committed to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Within the study area, the block groups which contain residential areas are census tract 4.03, block groups 2, 3, and 5. These three block groups were analyzed to determine if they contained high percentages of minority and/or low income persons. Exhibit 3.13-1 provides results of the data compilation.




Dallas County

Census Tract 4.03, Block

Group 2


Group 3


Group 5

Total Population 2,218,899 2,011 1,161 1,163

White 44.3% 8.4% 4.8% 13.2%

Black or African American 20.0% 0.3%

0.9% 0.0%

American Indian and Alaska Native

0.4% 2.6% 3.3% 0.0%

Asian 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Some other race 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Two or more races 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Percent Hispanic 29.9% 88.7% 91.0% 86.8% Percent Minority 55.7% 91.6% 95.2% 86.8%

Percent Below Poverty in 1999 13.4% 18.8% 8.8% 13.9%

Exhibit 3.13-1 - Environmental Justice Evaluation

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. As seen in Exhibit 3.13-1, there was a large percentage of minorities in the block groups within the project area in the year 2000. The majority of the study area population was Hispanic. Dallas County as a whole had a much smaller minority population of 55.7 percent. Approximately 29.9 percent of Dallas County’s population was Hispanic.




The percentage of the population living in poverty in Dallas County was 13.4 percent in 1999. The percentage of those living in poverty in the block groups in the study area were 18.8 percent, 8.8 percent, and 13.9 percent. Typically, in order to be considered an area of high poverty rates, a block group must have at least twice the poverty rate as the county it is located in. None of these block groups has 26.8 percent or greater below poverty. However, due to the high percentage of Hispanic and minority residents, the neighborhoods southwest of Denton Drive can be considered environmental justice communities.

3.14 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY On August 11, 2000, the President signed Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency." The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. It is expected that agency plans will provide for such meaningful access consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the agency. Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, or understand English are considered to have LEP. The U.S. Census describes LEP individuals as those ages five and older, who speak English “not well” or “not at all”. For Dallas County, approximately 10.2 percent of the population over the age of five consists of Spanish speakers who are considered LEP, 0.2 percent of the population is LEP Indo-European speakers, 0.7 percent is LEP Asian and Pacific Island speakers, and 0.1 percent speak some other language and are considered LEP (Exhibit 3.14-1). Within the block groups analyzed, there are no Indo-European, Asian or Pacific Island, or any other language speakers who are considered to be LEP. However, approximately 25 -30 percent of those five and older in block groups 2, 3, and 5 speak Spanish and are considered to be LEP. Furthermore, many of the businesses in the vicinity of Denton Drive appear to cater to Spanish-speaking clientele. Based on the Census data and field observations, it is recommended that information be provided in Spanish and English as part of the public involvement program for the proposed project.




Dallas County


Group 2


Group 3


Group 5

Total Population (age 5 and over) 2,038,325 1,790 1,025 1,121

Spanish Speaking – Speak English “not well” or “not at all”

10.2% 25.2% 27.2% 28.2%

Indo-European Speaking – Speak English “not well” or “not at all”

0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Asian or Pacific Island Speaking – Speak English “not well” or “not at all”

0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Other Language Speaking – Speak English “not well” or “not at all”

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Exhibit 3.14-1 - Limited English Proficiency for Dallas County and Block Groups within Project Area (2000)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.




3.15 CONCLUSION One of the main environmental constraints associated with the proposed PMC project are the potential hazardous material sites in and around the study area. A Phase II Environmental Assessment Report may be necessary to ensure compliance with all rules and regulations pertaining to development in an area with many hazardous material sites. Between the proposed DART station and the Love Field terminal (the two termini for the PMC) there are leaking petroleum storage tanks, sites of industrial and hazardous material waste, and several other potential hazardous material sites. The other primary environmental constraints are the Environmental Justice and Limited English Proficiency issues associated with the block groups partially located within the study area, across Denton Drive from Love Field. Although the PMC is not anticipated to result in any residential relocations or commercial displacements, there is a large percentage of minorities residing in those neighborhoods. Most of these minorities are Hispanic. The percentage of Spanish-speaking LEP individuals in those three block groups (26.6 percent) illustrates the need for providing bilingual staff and materials as part of the project’s public involvement program. Due to the urban setting of the project, the project’s impacts to ecological and water resources would be minimal. There are no public parks in the study area. A historic resources survey would be conducted as part of the environmental documentation required for the project to ensure that no Section 4(f) properties would be affected by the project.


Lea+Elliott, Inc. A3-1 December 5, 2007 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


SECTION 3.0 APPENDIX




LOVE FIELD HISTORICAL MARKERS INFORMATION

Marker Number 6805 Oath of Office of President Johnson

Marker Number 6894

Texas’ First Airmail and Passenger Service

Marker Number 12983 Love Field




SITE PHOTOGRAPHS




Photo 1: Facing north at the Southwestern Airlines concourse

Photo 2: Water storage within Love Field property

Photo 3: Metal shed containing boiler room




Photo 4: Tarmac work at West Concourse looking east

Photo 5: Berm along the southwest side of the access road

Photo 6: Facing northeast at parking garages




Photo 7: Facing northwest towards blast fence

Photo 8: Facing north at natural gas station

Photo 9: Facing northwest towards blast fence




Photo 10: Facing north across Love Field

Photo 11: Facing northeast

Photo 12: Facing east




Photo 13: Facing northeast, looking at terminal

Photo 14: Storm drain near the de-constructed El Mercado Restaurant

Photo 15: Newly built fuel tank farm on west side of the airport




Photo 16: Facing southwest at Southwestern Airlines’ parking lot

Photo 17: Facing southwest from airport property into SW Airlines’ parking lot

Photo 18: Facing southwest at railroad tracks and vacant lot, off of airport property




Photo 19: Facing southeast at railroad tracks

Photo 20: Facing southeast at what appears to be an abandoned hanger

Photo 21: Facing southeast at construction notices and installation of DART rail line




Photo 22: Facing northeast at Southwest Airlines Headquarters

Photo 23: Facing northeast on Seelcco Street

Photo 24: Facing northeast to Love Field




Photo 25: Facing northwest across new DART rail and Denton Road

Photo 26: Facing north adjacent to new DART rail line and Denton Road

Photo 27: Facing southeast at railroad bridge over a swale




Photo 28: Residence across from railroad bridge in Photo 27. Note the absence of a swale.

Photo 29: Disturbed drainage ditch near proposed train station

Photo 30: Facing south at drainage ditch from existing railroad tracks




Photo 31: Black willow and other hydrophilic vegetation in drainage ditch

Photo 32: Spirit of Flight monument at the entrance of Dallas Love Field



4.0 Technology Assessment

4.0 TechnologyAssessm

ent4.0 Technology

Assessment


Lea+Elliott, Inc. i October 30, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


REPORT OUTLINE






4.0 Technology Assessment L+E 30-OCT-07












Lea+Elliott, Inc. ii October 30, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.0 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REQUIREMENTS .................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Previous Studies ................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.2 System Configuration ........................................................................... 4-2 4.2.3 System Ridership Demand.................................................................... 4-2

4.2.4 System Characteristics.......................................................................... 4-3 4.3 TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFICATION .............................................................. 4-4

4.3.1 Moving Walks...................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.1.1 Conventional Moving Walks.................................................. 4-5

4.3.1.2 Accelerating Moving Walks................................................... 4-7 4.3.2 Bus....................................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.2.1 Conventional Bus................................................................... 4-9 4.3.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ..................................................... 4-12

4.3.2.3 Guided Bus (Single- and Bi-articulated)............................... 4-16 4.3.3 Historic and Modern Streetcar ............................................................ 4-20

4.3.4 Light Rail Transit (LRT)..................................................................... 4-23 4.3.5 Automated People Mover (APM) ....................................................... 4-26

4.3.5.1 Self-propelled APM ............................................................. 4-26 4.3.5.2 Cable-propelled APM .......................................................... 4-31

4.3.5.3 Monorail .............................................................................. 4-34

4.3.5.4 Maglev (Low Speed)............................................................ 4-39

4.3.6 Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) ............................................................. 4-41 4.3.7 Other Technologies ............................................................................ 4-43

4.4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS ................................... 4-45 4.4.1 Performance Factors........................................................................... 4-45

4.4.1.1 Capacity............................................................................... 4-45 4.4.1.2 Speed ................................................................................... 4-45

4.4.1.3 Geometry / Configuration .................................................... 4-45


Lea+Elliott, Inc. iii October 30, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


4.4.1.4 Expandability....................................................................... 4-46 4.4.1.5 Automation .......................................................................... 4-46

4.4.1.6 Technological Maturity ........................................................ 4-46 4.4.2 Level of Service Factors ..................................................................... 4-47

4.4.2.1 Trip Times ........................................................................... 4-47 4.4.2.2 Headways ............................................................................ 4-47

4.4.2.3 Safety................................................................................... 4-48 4.4.2.4 Availability / Reliability....................................................... 4-48

4.4.2.5 “Airport Experience” ........................................................... 4-48 4.4.2.6 “Airport Entrance” ............................................................... 4-49

4.4.2.7 “Seamless Connection” ........................................................ 4-49 4.4.2.8 Image................................................................................... 4-50

4.4.2.9 Appropriateness of Technology............................................ 4-50 4.4.3 Environmental Impacts....................................................................... 4-50

4.4.3.1 Acceptable Noise or Vibration Levels .................................. 4-51 4.4.3.2 Visually Acceptable ............................................................. 4-51

4.4.3.3 Avoidance of Other Impacts................................................. 4-51 4.4.4 Cost Effectiveness .............................................................................. 4-52

4.4.4.1 Capital Cost ......................................................................... 4-52 4.4.4.2 Operating & Maintenance (O&M) Cost................................ 4-52

4.4.4.3 Efficiency of System Integration with Airport Facilities ....... 4-53 4.5 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT................................................................... 4-53

4.5.1 Screening Of Technology Categories.................................................. 4-53

4.5.2 Assessment Findings / Conclusions .................................................... 4-58

4.6 REPRESENTATIVE TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS ..................................... 4-59 4.6.1 Self-propelled APM............................................................................ 4-61

4.6.1.1 Bombardier CX-100............................................................. 4-61 4.6.1.2 Bombardier Innovia ............................................................. 4-62

4.6.1.3 IHI Niigata APM ................................................................. 4-63 4.6.1.4 Mitsubishi Crystal Mover..................................................... 4-64

4.6.1.5 Schwager Davis UniTrak ..................................................... 4-65


Lea+Elliott, Inc. iv October 30, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


4.6.1.6 Siemens AirVal.................................................................... 4-66 4.6.2 Cable-propelled APM......................................................................... 4-67

4.6.2.1 DCC Doppelmayr Cable Liner Shuttle ................................. 4-67 4.6.2.2 Leitner-Poma Mini Metro .................................................... 4-68

4.6.3 Maglev (Low speed)........................................................................... 4-69 4.6.3.1 Chubu HSST 100L............................................................... 4-69


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 4-1 October 30, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


4.0 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION This Technology Assessment is prepared for the purpose of identifying technology categories and assessing their characteristics for applicability for the Dallas Love Field People Mover Connector (PMC) System (the "System"). This technology assessment is intended to identify and evaluate a range of current technologies that could potentially transport passengers between the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) - Love Field Station of the Northwest Corridor (Green Line) Light Rail Transit (LRT) project and the Dallas Love Field (DAL) Terminal. The results of this assessment define and recommend a group of representative technologies that meet the System design requirements and performance criteria. This group of representative technologies has been used to establish generic design criteria to be used to advance the PMC facilities design until such time that a System Supplier is under contract and technology specific criteria are available.

Information such as the alignment, ridership forecasts, budget, and integration with existing or planned development and transportation services will assist in choosing the most appropriate technology. It is recommended that the final selection of a technology supplier be achieved through a competitive basis using an approved procurement process.

4.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REQUIREMENTS

4.2.1 Previous Studies In September 2005, DART published a report titled “Dallas Love Field Transit Service Options Study.” This report was amended in July 2007. The purpose of this study was to define and evaluate a range of alternatives to provide service to Dallas Love Field, since a direct tunnel to the airport was not included as part of the Northwest Corridor (Green Line) project. The study recommended a bus shuttle connection from the Brookhollow Station (now referred to as the Love Field Station) with the potential for a higher capacity capital project in the future. To provide a higher Level of Service, the City of Dallas indicated that it will pursue a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to fund an Automated People Mover (APM). Any future implementation of an APM would at that time replace the Bus Shuttle alternative. In early 2007, the City of Dallas issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Love Field APM Connector feasibility study. On June 13, 2007, the Dallas City Council authorized the contract with Lea+Elliott to perform this feasibility study for the Love Field PMC.




4.2.2 System Configuration The PMC will carry passengers between the DART-Love Field LRT Station and the Dallas Love Field Terminal. See Exhibit 4.2.2-1 for an area map showing these two points. Many possible alignments are currently being studied. These alignment options include elevated, at-grade and below-grade sections of guideway. A Tunnel Methods Assessment is currently underway. This study is determining the feasibility of tunneling directly under the runways to connect the two proposed stations. The final alignment will be determined as the project progresses. Therefore, this Technology Assessment will consider a range of alignment options when assessing a technology.

4.2.3 System Ridership Demand Final ridership assumptions and forecasts for the PMC system are currently being refined in coordination with DART and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG).

The System ridership requirements are used to determine the capacity requirements of the APM System. Capacity requirements are also a function of the type of passenger being carried. For example, Landside Systems (pre-security check) require more space (square feet) per passenger than Airside Systems (post-security check) due to the difference in the amount and type of baggage being carried on the vehicles (carry-on and checked baggage vs. carry-on only). In addition, whether or not the use of baggage carts will be allowed on the System will have an impact on System capacity. (Note: Space provisions for baggage check-in will be evaluated during this feasibility study, however, for this technology assessment it will be assumed that passengers will have their baggage on the PMC.)

Exhibit 4.2.2-1 Area Map




For the purpose of this Technology Assessment, Lea+Elliott’s experience at other airports with similar layout and configuration will be used to judge a particular technology’s applicability with regards to its capacity and scale.

4.2.4 System Characteristics The following system characteristics will be used as technology assessment criteria. Each will be discussed further in Section 4.4.

• Performance Factors - Capacity - Speed - Geometry / Configuration - Expandability - Automation - Technological Maturity

• Level of Service Factors - Performance Measures

Trip Times Headways Safety Availability / Reliability

- Perception Measures

“Airport Experience” “Airport Entrance” “Seamless Connection” Image Appropriateness of Technology

• Environmental Impacts - Acceptable Noise or Vibration Levels - Visually Acceptable - Avoidance of Other Impacts

• Cost Effectiveness - Capital Cost - Operating & Maintenance (O&M) Cost - Efficiency of System Integration with Airport Facilities




4.3 TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFICATION This report reviews all transit technologies that are potentially applicable to the Dallas Love Field PMC. This provides an initial screening for the project and information on various modes of transit to assist in evaluation and selection of a technology.

The technology alternatives to be evaluated include:

• Moving Walks including: Conventional and Accelerating

• Buses including: Conventional, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Guided Buses

• Streetcars including: Historic and Modern

• Light Rail Transit (LRT)

• Automated People Movers (APM) including: Self-propelled APMs, Cable-propelled APMs, Monorail, and Low-speed Maglev technologies

• Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)

This report does not investigate several other technologies including: Rapid Rail (comparable to Washington’s Metro and San Francisco’s BART), Commuter Rail (comparable to Dallas/Fort Worth’s Trinity Railway Express), High-Speed Maglev, gondolas, and emerging technologies as they are not applicable to this project. The first three mentioned are suited to much higher capacities and their size and speed are not commensurate with the scale of the PMC system. Gondola emergency evacuation does not meet National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 requirements that apply to all urban transit systems.

4.3.1 Moving Walks Moving walkways, or Travelators, are conveyance systems characterized by a continuous, flat moving surface on which pedestrians may stand and/or walk. Moving walkways are often used to move large numbers of people over relatively short distances within a limited space or location. Though typically installed on level surfaces, moving walkways can be installed on inclines up to 12 degrees. The moving surface typically consists of either pallets or a rubber belt. The pallet type of moving walkway consists of a continuous moving series of flat, grooved treads, generally made of steel, with essentially very similar operational machinery as found in escalators. The belt type moving walkway consists of a continuous moving grooved rubber conveyor belt, supported by rollers. Common applications for moving walkways include facilities as diverse as shopping malls, airports, casinos, grocery stores (either multi-level or connecting to parking), museums, medical centers, and amusement parks.




4.3.1.1 Conventional Moving Walks Although a maximum continuous length by one manufacturer is given as 650 ft. (200 m), most manufacturers indicate maximum continuous lengths of installations in the range of approximately 300–500 ft. (90–150 m). Speeds vary by manufacturer and can range from 90-130 fpm (0.45-0.65 m/s), though most are in the range of 100–120 fpm (0.5–0.6 m/s) or approximately one-half normal walking speed. The maximum permissible speed is 140 fpm (0.7 m/s) for inclined moving walkways, but an exception is made for horizontal moving walkways, where moving walkways with capabilities of speeds up to 180 fpm (0.9 m/s) have been installed. Practical speeds are limited by the user’s ability to step onto and off of the moving walks safely and generally fall into the 100-120 fpm speed mentioned above.

There has been a general trend towards using wider tread (or pallet) widths for moving walkway installations over the last few decades, particularly for airport applications. Note that John J. Fruin, Ph.D., in his landmark Pedestrian Planning and Design (revised edition published by Elevator World, Inc.), includes moving walkway widths of 24 in. (0.6 m) and 36 in. (0.9 m) in his example of one manufacturer’s moving walkway belt widths, whereas, currently, manufacturer’s widths typically vary from approximately 27-63 in. (0.68-1.60 m). Some manufacturers, such as Wesmont Industries, can make custom moving walkways up to 72 in. (1.8 m) in width. It is not uncommon to find 55 in. (1.4 m) and 63 in. (1.6 m) width moving walkways at more recent airport applications. This general trend appears consistent with the increased use of carry-on baggage by airport passengers, particularly the rolling type.

Passenger conveyance capacities are a function of pallet width, passenger density, passengers passing ability, walking/standing ratio and the moving walk’s speed. For a landside airport application with baggage trolleys, moving walk capacities range from 1,500-4,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd).




Element Typical Characteristics

System Dimensions Length: 300 to 500 ft Pallet Width: 24 in. to 72 in.

(90 to 150 m) (0.6 to 1.8 m)

System Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 1,500 to 4,000 pphpd

Cruise Speed: 90 to 120 fpm (27 to 37 meters/minute)

Consist Sizes n/a

Min. Horizontal Turning Radius n/a

Empty Vehicle Weight n/a

Power Source Electric

Suspension n/a

Sample Suppliers/ Applications Kone, Montgomery, Mitsubishi, ThyssenKrupp and others / Many applications at airports and urban centers all over the world

Exhibit 4.3.1.1-1 Conventional Moving Walks




4.3.1.2 Accelerating Moving Walks For over two decades, there have been several efforts aimed at development of a safe, reliable, variable-speed moving walkway which can be boarded on moving surfaces at conventional travel speeds, accelerating in a transition zone to a higher speed middle segment, before transitioning down and decelerating back down to conventional travel speeds to deboard the walkway. These developmental efforts include those by Dunlop Limited (Battelle Research Centre in Geneva, Switzerland), the ABC Company (France), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Japan), NKK (Japan), CNIM (France) and ThyssenKrupp (Germany).

A variable-speed accelerating travelator called the Mitsubishi-Speed Walk (M-SW) has been developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The segments range in length from 500-3,300 ft. (150-1,000 m) and pallet width ranges from 3-5 ft. (1.0-1.5 m). With a maximum speed of 330 fpm (100 m/min), the M-SW has approximately 2.5 times the speed of a conventional, constant-speed moving walk. The M-SW was exhibited and tested at Uminonakamichi Kaihin Park Fukuoka City from July to September 1995. It has not been implemented in regular service at any airport to date. Its capacity would be expected to be similar to that of standard travelator as boarding rates (not speeds) dictate carrying capacity.

CNIM has installed a prototype, the Trottoir Roulant Rapide (TRR, which means “fast rolling pavement”) at the Montparnasse station in Paris, France. The length is approximately 600 ft. (180 m) and has a top speed of 600 fpm (11 km/hr), though it was carrying passengers in 2003 at 500 fpm (9 km/hr). Users are screened prior to being allowed to board these moving walks – pregnant women, people using assisted walking devices, such as walking sticks, and others are discouraged from using them. Announcements are made for users to “keep your feet flat on the ground”, as a small proportion of users have fallen and hurt themselves. The TRR installation in Paris has generated a lot of interest, including airport operators from Hong Kong, Transport for London, as well as organizers of the upcoming Beijing Olympic Games. Site requirements for potential applications of the TRR include a site that is flat and straight.

Another accelerating moving walkway, called TurboTrack, has been developed by ThyssenKrupp (see Exhibit 4.3.1.2-1). It has an entrance and exit speed of 130 fpm (0.65 m/s) and a cruise speed of 400 fpm (2.0 m/s). System length can be from 330-3300 ft. (100-1,000 m). Pallet width is 48 in. (1.2 m). Two TurboTracks have been installed at the Toronto Pearson International Airport. These two walkways are not yet open to the public.

Although there has been some interest generated by these accelerated moving walkway demonstration projects, at this time there does not appear to be a widespread trend towards permanent accelerated moving walkway installations for use by the general public, primarily due to safety concerns for patrons and liability concerns of the building owners. In addition, the




current U.S. standard for elevator and moving walk codes does not allow speeds greater than 180 fpm on moving walkways (ASME A17.1-1993, Section 903).

Element Typical Characteristics

System Dimensions Length: 330 to 3300 ft Pallet Width: 36 in. to 60 in.

(100 to 1000 m) (1.0 to 1.5 m)

System Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: Up to 14,625 pphpd (Manufacturer’s data)

Cruise Speed: 330 to 600 fpm (100 to 183 meters/minute)

Consist Sizes n/a

Min. Horizontal Turning Radius n/a

Empty Vehicle Weight n/a

Power Source Electric

Suspension n/a

Sample Suppliers/ Applications Mitsubishi, CNIM, ThyssenKrupp / No current applications

Exhibit 4.3.1.2-1 ThyssenKrupp Turbo Track




4.3.2 Bus

4.3.2.1 Conventional Bus Conventional buses use rubber-tired vehicles and can be either standard floor height or low floor height and typically only have one or two narrow doors. These buses are all manually-driven and operate in mixed traffic with no dedicated right-of-way. They are available as single units, single-articulated units or bi-articulated units.

4.3.2.1.1 Conventional Bus – Single Unit Conventional buses are the workhorses of the transit industry with many thousands of units deployed worldwide. Single unit buses used for transit service are typically 40 ft. (12 m) in length and have the characteristics shown in the table below. Smaller buses, from 22-36 ft. (6.7-11 m), are also available. They can have either high or low floors. A low floor is typically about 14 in. (0.35 m) above the ground surface. They may be powered with internal combustion engines using diesel or alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG) or hybrid configurations such as diesel-electric engines. Battery-powered electric vehicles are also available. Trolley buses using electric motors are also included here as the only difference is the source of power. The overhead catenary system (OCS) required, however, would limit bus speeds, as noted in the table, and operating/route flexibility. Buses are among the least efficient technologies in terms of passengers carried per foot of length, but are the most flexible since they can travel on roadways in mixed traffic.

Exhibit 4.3.2.1.1-1 Conventional 40 ft (12 m) Single Unit Bus on the Lymmo system in Orlando, Florida, at left, and in Honolulu, at right.




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 40 to 45 ft Width: 8.5 ft Height: 10 to 11 ft

(12.0 to 13.7 m) (2.6 m) (3.0 to 3.4 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 60 passengers Cruise Speed: 55 mph (at 2.7 sq ft (0.25 sq m) per standing pass.) (88 kph)

Consist Sizes Single vehicles only. Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

39 to 44 ft (11.9 to 13.4 m)

Empty vehicle Weight 28,000 to 44,000 lbs (12,500 to 20,000 kg) on two axles. Power Source On-board powerplant; or overhead catenary system (OCS) which limits

cruise speed to 40 to 43 mph (65 to 70 kph). Suspension Rubber tires Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Gillig, Neoplan, New Flyer, NABI, Nova, Orion, Van Hool; numerous applications worldwide.




4.3.2.1.2 Conventional Bus - Articulated (Single- and Bi-articulated) Articulated buses are also deployed in transit applications worldwide, most commonly as 60 ft. (18 m) single-articulated vehicles. This type of bus is a typical choice for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) applications. Bi-articulated buses, 80 ft. (24 m) in length, can be used for special BRT applications, but are in limited use today in the U.S. These vehicles can be fully high floor, fully low floor, or be mostly low floor with some high floor areas. They generally have the same power plant and power source options as conventional single unit buses. While they are similar to 40 ft. (12 m) buses in terms of passengers-per-foot capacity, they are more efficient since a single bus driver can transport more people.


(18 to 24 m) (2.6 m) (3.0 to 3.4 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 90 to 120 passengers Cruise Speed: 55 to 62 mph (at 2.7 sq ft (0.25 sq m) per standing pass.) (88 to 100 kph)


39 to 44 ft (11.9 to 13.4 m)

Empty vehicle Weight 39,000 to 85,000 lbs (17,500 to 38,500 kg) on three axles for single-articulated buses and four axles for bi-articulated buses.

Power Source On-board powerplant; or OCS, which limits cruise speed to 40 to 43 mph (65 to 70 kph).

Suspension Rubber tires. Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Gillig, NABI, Neoplan, New Flyer, Nova, Orion, and Van Hool – numerous applications worldwide

A NABI low floor, single-articulated bus, at left, and an articulated trolley bus in Seattle, Washington, above.




4.3.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT, describes ways of using buses to provide features more often associated with rail transit. These include: speed, reliability, comfort and convenience.

The range of BRT solutions is as varied as the transit challenges they are designed to address. The design of the buses, the power source for the buses, the degree of separation from street traffic, bus guidance, the bus stop design, the operation of the system, and the level of real-time communication are variable elements that define a BRT system.

BRT uses rubber-tired vehicles that typically feature low floors and multiple wide doors and aisles for easy boarding. BRT buses can be of any size and style with a variety of power sources. The length of BRT system buses ranges from minibuses that are 25 to 30 feet long, standard 40 foot bus (Exhibit 4.3.2.2-1), 60-ft single articulated bus (Exhibit 4.3.2.2-2), to double articulated buses that are 80 feet long. BRT buses can use diesel, clean fuels or electricity with the power fed through overhead catenaries, batteries, or through power collection systems embedded in the pavement. In Italy, Ansaldo-Breda is testing an embedded electric power system called STREAM, as shown in Exhibits 4.3.2.2-3 and 4.3.2.2-4. BRT buses can also have a combination of these different power sources, such as diesel/electric, CNG/electric, and hydrogen/electric hybrids. Fuel cell technology is under development and may become available within the next 10 years.

All BRT buses have a driver. They usually operate in exclusive lanes or on separate rights-of-way or busways. Many systems offer dedicated stations with LRT-like amenities. The buses can be guided and have limited-stop and express modes of operation. The speed and reliability of a BRT system are affected by the amount of interference caused by automobile traffic and traffic control devices. The degree of separation from automobile traffic can vary from buses in mixed traffic to buses on an exclusive busway, as shown in Exhibit 4.3.2.2-5. Options include restricting the amount of non-bus traffic in the bus lanes, like High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or prohibiting all non-bus vehicles in the bus lanes either through signs or physical barriers.

Speed and reliability can be improved by controlling traffic to give buses priority at key locations and by limiting the number of bus stops by allowing the stops to be spaced no closer than ½ mile to 1 mile apart. Priority can be obtained for buses through the use of a signal pre-emption device that, upon the approach of a bus outfitted with pre-emption equipment, triggers the traffic signal to extend a traffic light’s green time to allow the bus to pass through the intersection. Traffic lanes can also be configured to help the bus move through traffic more quickly. Turning and parking restrictions and queue-jump lanes are all techniques to give the advantage to the bus over the non-bus vehicle.




The BRT service can offer a level entry onto the bus by upgrading stops to include raised platforms. If the bus is guided, both the steps on/off the bus and the gap between the platform and the vehicle can be minimized. This feature can be important to people with challenged mobility and to those with parcels, luggage, strollers, etc. An upgraded bus stop can also offer passenger amenities such as protection from the weather, seating, good lighting, advanced public information systems with real-time data display and the possibility of multiple-door boarding. Curitiba, Brazil, pioneered this type of BRT with raised stops, separate bus lanes, and in-stop fare collection (Exhibit 4.3.2.2-6).

Capacity of a standard 40-foot bus varies between 35-40 passengers. The capacity of an articulated bus varies between 50-70 passengers. Due to the variation of BRT approaches, the capacity of a BRT system also varies widely. Typical bus operations on streets with simple BRT enhancements could reach 2-minute headways and would have a capacity of 1,350 people per hour per direction (pphpd). An exclusive busway with multiple routes and articulated buses could have a capacity of over 5,000 pphpd.

Exhibit 4.3.2.2-1

Metro Rapid Bus (LACMTA),

Los Angeles, California




Exhibit 4.3.2.2-3

STREAM Bus by Ansaldo

Exhibit 4.3.2.2-4

Embedded track for STREAM

Exhibit 4.3.2.2-5

East-West Corridor BRT Bus Lane

Eugene, Oregon (Simulation)

Exhibit 4.3.2.2-2

Van Hool articulated bus





(8 to 24 m) (2.6 m) (3.0 to 4.3 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed


Consist Sizes Single, single-articulated or bi-articulated vehicles Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

39 to 44 ft (11.9 to 13.4 m)

Empty vehicle Weight 39,000 to 85,000 lbs (17,500 to 38,500 kg) on three axles for single-articulated buses and four axles for bi-articulated buses.

Power Source On-board powerplant; or OCS, which limits cruise speed to 40 to 43 mph (65 to 70 kph).

Suspension Rubber tires Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Ansaldo-Breda STREAM – Trieste, Italy Volvo buses – Curitiba, Brazil Gillig, NABI, Neoplan, New Flyer, Nova, Orion, and Van Hool – numerous applications worldwide

Exhibit 4.3.2.2-6

Volvo bi-articulated bus at BRT bus stop,

Curitiba, Brazil




4.3.2.3 Guided Bus (Single- and Bi-articulated) Guided buses may be specialized applications of conventional single and bi-articulated buses or be a rubber-tired version of a streetcar tram. Typically, modern versions of these vehicles feature low floors and extra-wide doors. Guidance can be provided by mechanical side guidewheels/rails, an embedded rail or slot in the road, optical scanners, or magnetic sensors embedded in the road. Guidance can be used to provide precision docking at stops to permit level vehicle boarding. Guidance can also be used along the route in exclusive right of ways to reduce the space required for a busway, but this will typically restrict bus speeds to below 43 mph (70 kph). Drivers are required for bus operations in exclusive lanes or on separate busways since they control acceleration and speed even if steering is provided by the guidance system. Most buses can be steered normally when they are off guidance, but some have only “shop” steering. For those with normal non-guided steering, normal bus speeds are also possible when the bus is not in the guided mode. Power choices are similar to conventional buses. Safe power collection systems embedded in the pavement are still in the research and development stage. There are multiple suppliers, but each bus design is proprietary due to the guidance mechanism.

Guided buses can use on-board power plants fueled by diesel or clean fuels or use electric motors with the power fed through overhead catenaries. Guided buses utilizing overhead catenaries are sometimes referred to as Trams.

The French CiViS buses have the look of Light Rail vehicles (Exhibit 4.3.2.3-1). The CiViS vehicle is a low-floor design (normal floor height of 13 inches, 10 inches when kneeling) and comes in various lengths. It uses optical guidance by following specially painted lines on the roadway. The Bombardier GLT uses OCS and slot guidance (Exhibit 4.3.2.3-2). The Phileas bus uses embedded magnets for guidance and has all-wheel steering for docking (Exhibit 4.3.2.3-3). Translohr guided buses utilize a central, non-load bearing guidance rail and OCS (Exhibit 4.3.2.3-4). The Mercedes-Benz O-Bahn utilizes mechanical side guidance wheels and rails (Exhibit 4.3.2.3-5).




Exhibit 4.3.2.3-3

Phileas guided bus,

Eindhoven, Netherlands

Exhibit 4.3.2.3-1

CiVis by Irisbus

Exhibit 4.3.2.3-2

Bombardier GLT,

Nancy, France




Exhibit 4.3.2.3-4

Translohr guided bus

Clermont-Ferrand, France

Exhibit 4.3.2.3-5

Mercedes-Benz O-Bahn,

Essen, Germany




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 60 to 80 ft Width: 7.2 to 8.5 ft Height: 10 to 11 ft

(18 to 24.5 m) (2.2 to 2.6 m) (3.0 to 3.4m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 60 to 128 passengers Guided Cruise Speed: 43 mph (at 2.7 sq ft (0.25 sq m) per standing pass.) (70 kph)


39 to 44 ft (11.9 to 13.4 m)

Gross Vehicle Weight 39,000 to 85,000 lbs (17,500 to 38,500 kg) on three axles for single-articulated buses and four axles for bi-articulated buses.

Power Source On-board powerplant or OCS Suspension Rubber tires Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Irisbus CIVIS – Las Vegas, Nevada (MAX) and Roene, France Bombardier GLT – Caen and Nancy, France TransLohr – Clermont-Ferrand, France and Padova, Italy Phileas – Eindhoven, Netherlands Mercedes Benz O-Bahn – Essen, Germany and Adelaide, Australia




4.3.3 Historic and Modern Streetcar Historic and Modern Streetcar vehicles are similar to standard Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) except that they are shorter, narrower, lighter and travel at lower speeds. Their propulsion comes from electric motors and overhead trolley wires.

Historic Streetcars and the nostalgic memories they trigger tend to be popular with tourists in historic areas. Exhibit 4.3.3-1 provides examples of two historic vehicles restored and put into service in San Francisco, California.

Modern Streetcars vehicles typically feature two articulations and usually have mostly low floors. Full low floor vehicles can be more expensive to buy and maintain than partial (70%) low floor vehicles. Streetcars are primarily intended to operate in mixed traffic on streets. They run on steel rails embedded in the street and obtain power from an OCS. For operations in mixed traffic, they require an on-board driver. Since Streetcars are narrower than standard LRVs, they have passenger carrying capacities per foot of length more similar to guided buses. Exhibit 4.3.3-2 provides two examples of modern streetcars.




Exhibit 4.3.3-2 Skoda Astra Streetcar Trams in Portland, Oregon, at left, and in Tacoma, Washington, at right.

Exhibit 4.3.3-1 SF MUNI PCC, at left, and SF MUNI Milano car, at right, both in San Francisco, California.




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 66 to 75 ft Width: 7.5 to 8.0 ft Height: 11.2 to 11.8 ft

(20 to 22.8m) (2.3 to 2.4 m) (3.4 to 3.6 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed


Consist Sizes One to three vehicles per train. Shorter trains may be necessary for mixed traffic applications due to street block lengths.

Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

40 to 50 ft (12 to 15 m)

Empty Vehicle Weight 53,000 to 72,500 lbs (24,000 to 33,000 kg) on two or three trucks (two axles per truck)

Power Source OCS Suspension Steel wheels on steel rails. Sample Suppliers/ Applications

PCC – San Francisco Skoda-Inekon Astra – Portland, Tacoma Bombardier and Alstom – various applications in Europe




4.3.4 Light Rail Transit (LRT) LRT is distinguished from other rail technologies by the weight of the rail that it runs on rather than the weight of the vehicles. While the vehicles are lighter than traditional diesel-powered rail trains, they are heavier than buses or automated people mover vehicles and even some “heavy rail” vehicles. Single LRVs range from 40 to 50 feet long; articulated cars are between 75 and 95 feet long. They operate in one- to five-vehicle trains and have steel wheels running on steel rails.

LRVs operate in a variety of types of applications throughout North America and elsewhere in the world. They have one or two articulations per vehicle and can have high floors or up to about 70 percent low floors. With raised station platforms, level boarding can be provided for high or low level floors. Level boarding with high floors, however, would restrict the number of doors available for low level boarding in a mixed traffic application. LRVs can be controlled automatically in an exclusive right of way (such as the San Francisco Muni in the tunnel), but almost all have a driver operating the vehicles, whether in mixed traffic or exclusive right of way. The typical average speed in mixed traffic is 12 to 15 mph (including stops and traffic interference) and in an exclusive right of way the average speed is 25 mph (including stops, only). These speeds are limited by typical stop spacing and, for shared right of way, traffic and traffic controls. LRVs have cruise speeds of between 50 and 65 mph. Headways can be as low as 1-2 minutes under automatic train control.

The source of power is usually an OCS, but third rail power has been used in exclusive right of ways. Specific vehicle designs can be owned by a transit authority or be proprietary to a supplier, but all LRVs can operate on essentially any light rail system if they have the correct power collection and train control subsystems. Due to its larger size, a standard LRV is moderately efficient in terms of passenger carrying capacity. LRV passenger capacities range between 70 (single car) and 200 (articulated car) riders. The line capacity of the system depends on the degree of exclusivity of the right of way. If the LRT operates in mixed traffic, the capacity can range between 500 and 4,000 pphpd. If it is in an exclusive right of way, then the capacity can reach about 15,000 pphpd with trains comprised of three articulated cars.

Heavier rail, such as Rapid Rail and Commuter Rail, utilizes larger vehicles than LRT. The vehicle size, weight and capacity are beyond the requirements of this project and, therefore, are not covered in this report.




Exhibit 4.3.4-1 Siemens LRVs on the Green Line in Los Angeles, California, at left and on the MAX system in Portland, Oregon.

Exhibit 4.3.4-2 Kinki-Sharyo LRV, DART, Dallas, Texas, at left and Siemens LRV, METRO, Houston, Texas, at right.




Element

Typical Characteristics

Vehicle Dimensions Length: 90 ft Width: 8.8 ft Height: 10.8 to 12.5 ft (28 m) (2.6 m) (3.3 to 3.8 m)

Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 185 passengers Cruise Speed: 55 to 65 mph (at 2.7 sq ft (0.25 sq m) per standing pass.) (88 to 105 kph)

Consist Sizes One to four vehicles per train. Shorter trains may be necessary for mixed traffic applications due to street block lengths.

Min. Turning Radius 85 ft (26 m)

Empty Vehicle Weight 96,000 to 109,000 lbs (44,000 to 50,000 kg) on three trucks (two axles per truck).

Power Source OCS, usually, but third rail is possible. Suspension Steel wheels on steel rails. Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Suppliers: Alstom, Ansaldo-Breda, Bombardier, Kawasaki, Kinki Sharyo, Nippon Sharyo, Siemens. Sample U.S. Applications: Boston, Los Angeles, Dallas, Denver, Pittsburgh, Portland, St Louis, San Francisco and San Diego.




4.3.5 Automated People Mover (APM) Technologies that fall within the APM category can be differentiated by the suspension and propulsion methods used. Most vehicles are supported by the guideway on which they travel. This includes most monorails which straddle the top of the guidebeam and all other guideway-supported vehicles which are supported by rubber tires, steel wheels, pressurized air or magnetic levitation. However, suspended monorail technology hangs under the guideway as the name implies. The means of propulsion can be divided between those that are self-propelled with on-board electric motors, cable-propelled by a continuous cable along the guideway or guideway-propelled using Linear Induction Motors (LIMs). While there can be on-board attendants, APMs are distinguished by their ability to be operated fully automated without drivers. Automatic operation requires an exclusive right of way. Examples of how guidance can be provided are by horizontally-mounted guide wheels which track side-mounted guide rails, guideway-mounted center guidebeam, the guidebeam itself or guideway-mounted center guide rail.

4.3.5.1 Self-propelled APM The people mover vehicle technologies described here are at the upper end of the range, in terms of vehicle size and speed. A primary application has been at major activity centers, such as airports and city centers, but there are also numerous urban transit APM systems. These vehicles are typically supported on rubber tires, but also use steel wheels on steel rails. They operate under automatic, driverless control permitting more cost effective operations on short headways to minimize waiting time for passengers. APMs feature level boarding and operate under strict ride comfort parameters, permitting most passengers to stand thereby increasing passenger carrying efficiency to moderately high levels. The vehicles typically have two wide doorsets per side. The table below describes characteristics for single car vehicles, but many applications use married-pairs. System designs are proprietary, and are not interchangeable with other APM technologies.

Power is supplied via a “third rail” on the guideway at 480 or 600 VAC; or 600, 750, or 1500 VDC. APMs require a separate and exclusive guideway that can be elevated, at-grade (fenced or otherwise protected) or in tunnels. Headways can be as low as 90 seconds, but are typically between two and five minutes. The line capacity can be as high as 18,000 pphpd.




Exhibit 4.3.5.1-1

Bombardier Innovia,

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Texas

Exhibit 4.3.5.1-2

Bombardier CX-100,

San Francisco International Airport, California

Exhibit 4.3.5.1-3

Siemens VAL 256,

Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Illinois




Exhibit 4.3.5.1-4

Mitsubishi Crystal Mover,

Singapore Changi International Airport, Singapore

Exhibit 4.3.5.1-5

Bombardier ART Mk II,

New York JFK International Airport, New York

Exhibit 4.3.5.1-6

Japanese Standard Technology (IHI Niigata),

Osaka Kansai International Airport, Japan




Exhibit 4.3.5.1-7

Schwager Davis UniTrak

Clarian Health Center,

Indianapolis, Indiana




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 28 to 58 ft Width: 6.8 to 10.5 ft Height: 9.5 to 12.9 ft

(8.5 to 17.6 m) (2.1 to 3.2 m) (2.9 to 3.9 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed


Consist Sizes One to four vehicles per train (One to five for the ART Mk II). Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

72 to 230 ft (22 to 70 m)

Empty Vehicle Weight 16,000 to 53,000 lbs (7,300 to 24,000 kg) on two bogies. Power Source Third rail Suspension Rubber tires or steel wheels Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Bombardier CX-100 and Innovia – Madrid, Kuala Lumpur, Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas/Fort Worth, numerous other airports. Future airport systems: London Heathrow. Mitsubishi Crystal Mover - Singapore Changi, Singapore Sengkang/Punggol lines. Future airport systems: Miami, Dulles, Dubai. Siemens VAL 206/208/256/258 - Chicago, Lille (2 lines), Toulouse (2 lines), Rennes, France, Turin, Italy Japanese Standard Technology - Kobe (2 lines), Osaka Kansai, Yokohama, Tokyo, Taipei Bombardier ART Mk II - New York, Vancouver, Kuala Lumpur. Future systems: Yongin, South Korea; Taipei, Taiwan. Ansaldo-Breda Metro – Copenhagen Schwager Davis UniTrak – Indianapolis, Waikoloa, HI, Primm, NV




4.3.5.2 Cable-propelled APM

Cable-propelled APMs are similar to the other APMs except that because of the cable-propulsion system they are usually less than 2.5 miles long. They are fully automated and driverless and operate at 20 to 30 mph. Vehicles are propelled by a cable extending the entire length of the guideway and attached to the vehicle, so it moves only when the vehicle is supposed to move. The cable is propelled by a fixed electric motor in a drive room, typically at one end of the system. A return wheel (and often cable tensioning mechanism) is located at the other end. Most systems have a fixed cable grip; several systems now have a releasable grip that allows switching. Vehicles are bottom-supported by rubber tires, steel wheels or air-levitated suspension. Guidance is typically provided by horizontally-mounted wheels on steel guidebeams. Each design is proprietary, so vehicles are not interchangeable with other APM technologies. Some vehicles allow walk-through design where passengers can move from car to car. The main suppliers of cable systems are DCC Doppelmayr Cable Car and Leitner-Poma. Otis (also recently Poma-Otis) is no longer in the APM business.




Exhibit 4.3.5.2-1

Poma-Otis Skymetro

Zurich International Airport, Switzerland

(now the Leitner-Poma MiniMetro)

Exhibit 4.3.5.2-2

Doppelmayr Cable Liner Shuttle,

Birmingham International Airport, England




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 15 to 45 ft Width: 6.8 to 9.5 ft Height: 11 to 12 ft

(4.5 to 13.7 m) (2.1 to 2.9 m) (3.3 to 3.7 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed


Consist Sizes One to eight vehicles per train Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

100 to 265 ft (30 to 80 m)

Empty Vehicle Weight 27,000 to 53,000 lbs (12,250 to 24,000 kg) on two bogies. Power Source Cable-propelled, LIM Suspension Steel wheels or pressurized air Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Poma-Otis – Minneapolis St. Paul, Cincinnati, Detroit, Tokyo Narita, Zurich, Getty Museum and others DCC Doppelmayr – Las Vegas, Birmingham UK, Toronto, Mexico City. Future systems: Las Vegas, Venice.




4.3.5.3 Monorail This technology is supported on or suspended from a single rail or guidebeam. Monorails operate on an exclusive guideway and can be automated. They can be categorized in size as either small, medium, or large. They run on rubber tires on the monorail beam and are usually quieter than modes with steel wheels on steel rails. Designs of monorails are proprietary, are not interchangeable with other technologies and can be used only on the system they were initially designed for. Power is supplied to monorail trains through the use of a “third rail” on the sides of the guidebeam. Smaller systems use 480 to 600 VAC; larger systems use 750 or 1500 VDC. Because monorails require separate and exclusive guidebeams, they are usually elevated, although there are systems that run at-grade (usually on short columns) or in tunnels. Monorail beams are typically less obtrusive, though about the same space is needed including the vehicle as for other elevated guideways. Monorails can be fully automated or may have a driver. Cruise speeds range between 25 and 55 mph: smaller monorails usually cruise between 25 and 30 mph and larger monorails between 45 and 55 mph. Headways can be as low as two minutes. The capacity of monorail vehicles ranges from 15 passengers in a single small monorail car to 600 passengers in the largest monorail multi-car vehicle. The line capacities of monorail systems range from 1,200 to 20,000 pphpd.

Known active monorail suppliers include Bombardier, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Monorail Malaysia, Intamin, Siemens and Severn-Lamb. Small monorails are generally installed in lower demand activity centers such as hospital complexes, parking garages and amusement parks. Due to the scale and requirements of this project, they are not covered in this report.

4.3.5.3.1 Monorail (Medium-sized) Most operating medium-sized monorails are straddle beam-type vehicles. A vehicle is comprised of multiple cars creating an articulated unit. Straddle beam monorail vehicles are supported and guided by a series of rubber tires. Large load tires that travel on top of the beam carry the train weight. Guide tires grip the sides of the beam to secure the vehicle to the guideway and steer the train. Vehicles that place the load tires beneath the floor, such as the Hitachi and Monorail Malaysia vehicles, are taller but permit passengers to walk between cars. The Bombardier monorail is lower in height but does not have the walkthrough capability. This characteristic does give the Bombardier monorail a relatively low unit weight. Medium-sized monorails are distinguished from large size versions by car sizes. While a variety of car-vehicle combinations are possible, the vehicles represented in the table here have four cars per vehicle. The Bombardier and Hitachi vehicles are similar in width and capacity at the lower end of the range shown. The Monorail Malaysia vehicle, based on the original Seattle Monorail’s Alweg design, is wider and approaches the large monorail’s high passenger capacity per unit of length. The Bombardier and Hitachi vehicles represented here have relatively low passenger efficiencies.




Exhibit 4.3.5.3.1-1 Monorail Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, at left, and Bombardier’s M-VI Monorail in Las Vegas, at right.

Exhibit 4.3.5.3.1-2 Hitachi monorail in Naha, Japan, at left, and Mitsubishi suspended monorail in Chiba, Japan, at right.




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 121 to 138 ft Width: 8.2 to 9.8 ft Height: 11 to 15.3 ft

(37 to 42 m) (2.5 to 3.0 m) (3.4 to 4.7 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 220-300 passengers Cruise Speed: 37 to 50 mph (at 2.7 sq ft (0.25 sq m) per standing pass.) (60 to 80 kph)

Consist Sizes One to two vehicles per train. Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

131 to 230 ft (40 to 53 m)

Empty Vehicle Weight 82,500 to 141,000 lbs (37,500 to 64,000 kg) on eight bogies (Bombardier/Monorail Malaysia) to 132,000 lbs (60,000 kg) on five bogies (Hitachi).

Power Source Third rail Suspension Rubber tires Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Bombardier - Las Vegas Hitachi - Sentosa, Singapore; Naha, Japan Monorail Malaysia - Kuala Lumpur Siemens – Dusseldorf, Germany Mitsubishi – Chiba, Japan




4.3.5.3.2 Monorail (Large-sized) Most operating large-sized monorails are straddle beam-type vehicles. They are similar to the medium-sized monorails except they have larger cars and walk-through capability. While a variety of car-vehicle configurations are possible, the table below represents three cars per vehicle. These systems are typically elevated and have level boarding at stations. System designs are proprietary and are typically not interchangeable with other monorail technologies. Since they operate on an exclusive guideway, they can be automated although most of the applications in Japan feature a driver on board with Automatic Train Protection (ATP) and sometimes Automatic Train Operation (ATO). Large-sized monorails rank relatively high in terms of passenger carrying efficiency.

Exhibit 4.3.5.3.2-1 Hitachi’s Kita-Kyushu Monorail, at left, and the Hitachi Tokyo Monorail, at right.

Exhibit 4.3.5.3.2-2 Hitachi’s Tama Monorail, Japan.




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 140 to 155 ft Width: 9.5 to 9.8 ft Height: 16.7 to 17 ft

(43 to 47 m) (2.9 to 3.0 m) (5.1 to 5.2 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 315 to 345 passengers Cruise Speed: 37 to 50 mph (at 2.7 sq ft (0.25 sq m) per standing pass.) (60 to 80kph)

Consist Sizes One to two vehicles per train. Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

230 ft (70 m)

Empty Vehicle Weight 205,000 to 224,500 lbs (93,000 to 102,000 kg) on six bogies. Power Source Third rail Suspension Rubber tires Sample Suppliers/ Applications

Hitachi – Kita-Kyushu, Osaka, Tama, Tokyo-Haneda




4.3.5.4 Maglev (Low Speed) Maglev, short for Magnetic Levitation, is a developing technology. Currently, there is only one supplier of low-speed maglev systems: the Chubu High Speed Surface Transport Company (CHSST) of Japan. CHSST proved its technology to the Japanese Ministry of Transport on a 1-mile test track in Nagoya. A 5.7-mile, 9-station system called Linimo or Tobu–Kyuryo Line opened in March 2005 in Nagoya, Japan. Recently Itochu, a Japanese trading company, assumed the marketing role for this technology in North America and Mitsubishi Heavy industries (MHI) has taken over the technical and fabrication roles.

The system design is proprietary and is unlikely to be interchangeable with other maglev technologies. These vehicles travel along rails beneath the vehicle and are suspended using attractive magnetic levitation. The electromagnets, which are attached to the vehicle’s body, cause the vehicle to lift and to stay properly aligned through attractive force. By controlling the electromagnets they regulate the space between the track and the vehicle. The HSST system normally floats 8 mm above the track when in motion. A module similar to the railway bogie consists of four electromagnets for levitation and guidance, one linear motor, and a brake system.

Their cruise speed is currently 60 mph, but is expected to go to 100 mph. They are propelled with linear induction motors (LIM) so, while it is moving, the only physical interaction, beyond magnetic forces, between the vehicle and the guideway is the contact with the third rail for power. The system features level boarding at stations and the trains have a “walk through” design. The Linimo has an attendant in the driver’s position, but operates under full ATO. The Linimo vehicle, model 100 L is represented in the table below and is comprised of three cars per vehicle. The supplier, CHSST, also has a shorter vehicle, model 100 S, that operates on a test track. Switching is accomplished similar to a monorail with “beam replacement”. That is, the entire running surface module moves to a new position. These vehicles are moderately efficient in terms of passenger carrying capacity per unit of length.

Typical low-speed maglev vehicles carry up to 60-100 passengers with a line capacity of up to 12,000 pphpd for a four-car train.




Element Typical Characteristics Vehicle Dimensions Length: 141 ft (triplet) Width: 8.5 ft Height: 10.5 ft

(43 m) (2.6 m) (3.2 m) Vehicle Capacity/ Max. Cruise Speed

Capacity: 290 passengers Cruise Speed: 60 mph (at 2.7 sq ft (0.25 sq m) per standing pass.) (96 kph)

Consist Sizes One to three vehicles per train. Min. Horizontal Turning Radius

164 ft (50 m)

Empty Vehicle Weight 117,500 lbs (53,500 kg) on five levitation modules. Power Source Third rail Suspension Magnetic levitation Sample Suppliers/ Applications

CHSST - Nagoya, Japan

Exhibit 4.3.5.4-1 The Linimo 100 L maglev vehicle, at left, and a 100 L vehicle on the test rack, at right.




4.3.6 Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) PRT is a type of automated transportation that uses small vehicles operating at very short headways providing non-stop transportation to a selected destination. The non-stop point-to-point routing is accomplished by using small offline stations, a network of guideway and sophisticated automated vehicle control hard/software. The goal of PRT is to provide an experience equivalent to a private automobile. There is no existing commercial installation of PRT technology, but a PRT system is currently underway at London’s Heathrow Airport and there are test tracks in various states of construction/operation at other locations.

Characteristics of PRT:

• PRTs have small vehicles (two to six passengers) that are designed to operate directly between origin and destination stations in a network configuration.

• Vehicles have limitations: height for entry and exit (riders sit in the vehicles) and capacity for larger groups traveling together, but a wheelchair will fit in most.

• Speeds are limited due to vehicle and guideway size, but are expected to be in the 20 to 30 mph range.

• Some PRT systems are powered by batteries, which are recharged while waiting at the stations, while others have electric power provided by a third rail.

• PRT propulsion rages from conventional Induction Motors to Linear Induction Motors (LIM) for propulsion.

• Since PRTs are automated they require a separate and exclusive guideway that is usually elevated. Like APMs, PRTs can be at-grade, with fencing/barriers protecting their right of way, or be in tunnels.

Passengers choose their desired destination at the vehicle waiting in the stations. This is sent electronically to Central Control, which instructs the vehicle to take the passenger to the desired location via the shortest non-stop route. In addition to providing vehicles with directional instructions, Central Control also controls empty vehicle management and ensures there is no interaction between vehicles.

Some suppliers state system capacities of several thousand passengers per hour per lane based on vehicles operating on very close headways (approximately 2-3 seconds). The capability to operate safely at such headways has yet to be proven outside simulation models.

Several organizations have been developing PRTs for over 40 years. Three have, or have had, test tracks: Raytheon (Massachusetts), ULTra (1 km in Wales), and Austrans (Australia).




Raytheon put considerable effort into developing a product, but they determined that there were no viable projects, they left the business. York now owns the rights to the Raytheon system.

The Ultra pilot program is a 4.2 km dual-lane system with 5-7 stations at Heathrow Airport to connect a parking garage and a terminal through a space constrained tunnel.

There has been some interest in a PRT to replace the tunnel Wedway system (developed by Walter Elias Disney Enterprise) at Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), primarily due to existing infrastructure space constraints, but there is no real project yet.

PRT possesses extremely interesting future potential. Some project-specific functions could prove challenging for PRT at Dallas Love Field Airport. In a non-network application, PRT is not as well-suited to the primary need – moving passengers between two points, the DART-Love Field Station and the Love Field terminal building. Furthermore, unlike in an urban commuter environment where passengers mostly travel alone, airports commonly encounter passengers traveling in groups of five or more. These groups could potentially find PRT confusing and unattractive due to the small vehicle cabs.

Exhibit 4.3.5.2-1

Raytheon PRT Test Track,

(now York)




4.3.7 Other Technologies There are various other technologies that exist which are not appropriate for this project. Most commonly, this is due to features such as vehicle design, capacity and service-proven duration. Some of these technologies are listed below.

The Wedway system has linear induction motors in the guideway and has no power to the vehicle. The car has an open roof so that the heating, cooling and lighting for the vehicle is provided by the building or tunnel systems that houses the system. The Wedway vehicles are very small and operate at slow speeds. There are two Wedway systems operating, one is the Inter-Terminal Train at the Houston Intercontinental Airport and the other is the Senate Subway in Washington D.C.

Exhibit 4.3.5.2-2

Austrans PRT Test Track

Exhibit 4.3.5.2-3

ULTra PRT Test Track,

Cardiff, Wales




The Aeromovel system is air propulsion technology with steel wheels on steel rails that is in operation in Brazil and Indonesia. The vehicles are propelled by air blown through the guideway caught by sails that extend below the vehicles. The plenum that is located below the tracks requires special accommodations, adding to the vertical dimension required in a tunnel.

Other automated technologies include a wide range of systems that are in the conceptual or developmental stage and are therefore not service proven. These technologies vary widely and have a broad range in terms of size, support mechanisms, speed and developmental status. While there are numerous and varied types of concepts under development, these technologies generally are not technically mature enough to be considered viable technology alternatives for the Dallas Love Field PMC. The following is a description of two examples of these types of technologies.

The Monobeam technology concept is an elevated monobeam that supports two-directional travel on a single triangular guideway. Vehicles ride along both sides of the monobeam in opposite directions by means of a cantilevered suspension and “turnback” at the end of an alignment via a loop. Failure management capabilities are very limited compared to other fixed guideway technologies. Examples of this technology category include:

• Futrex (U.S.) System 21. A ¼ scale prototype has been developed in South

Carolina. Full size demonstration development has been delayed.

• Owen Transit Group. Concept stage only.

High-speed magnetically levitated (commonly referred to as “maglev”) technologies are not considered appropriate because they are primarily efficient at high speeds (in excess of 150 mph). These systems are appropriate for line-haul regional transit systems with long distances (miles) between stations. These very high speeds would not be achievable at Dallas Love Field due to the extremely long distance it takes to attain the high speeds. A smaller and slower speed Maglev technology has been considered in the assessment of technologies.




4.4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS This section provides criteria to aid in technology selection. The technologies that appear to be applicable for this project will be evaluated against factors grouped into four categories:

• Performance • Level of Service (LOS) • Environmental Impacts • Cost Effectiveness

4.4.1 Performance Factors Performance factors used in the technology assessment are described in this section.

4.4.1.1 Capacity At a minimum, the technology must be able to provide sufficient capacity to meet the estimated peak hour ridership demand in passengers per hour per direction (pphpd). A technology should have the flexibility to meet a range of capacities over a daily operating schedule and over the life of the system. This includes providing cost-effective service for peak, non-peak, night, and special event rider flows.

4.4.1.2 Speed The technology must be able to operate at a reasonable speed to generate desirable travel times. The technology-related cruise speed, station spacing, and degree of exclusivity of the guideway/track govern actual system speed. For this project, an operating speed in the range of 25-35 miles per hour could be appropriate, but higher speeds could also be possible.

4.4.1.3 Geometry / Configuration Technologies should be able to fit physically and to operate over the alignment envisioned between the DART-Love Field LRT station and the terminal without undue disruption to current and planned development. Alignment requirements are considered to identify technologies that could not physically operate within the people mover connector criteria. These requirements consider a technology’s performance capabilities and constraints with regard to the geometry of the baseline alignment(s). For horizontal alignment, this is measured by the minimum curve radius that a technology can reasonably negotiate and by clearance limits with respect to adjacent facilities. For the vertical alignment, the maximum grade and minimum vertical curve radius constraints of a technology are considered with respect to the proposed vertical alignment(s).




Examples of limitations that a technology can impose include structure height, the space requirements of stations, and the practicality of locating a maintenance facility.

Some technologies, such as maglev and monorail, have minimum curve radius limits that could create geometric constraints in curved sections. These also have relatively large switches that, if needed, would bring limitations. Also, for example, monorails typically carry less people per unit length than typical self-propelled technologies, and thus might require longer station platforms. Again, these are alignment dependent and cannot be judged completely without a finalized alignment.

4.4.1.4 Expandability This includes the ease with which the system can be expanded cost-effectively from the initial operation, if required. Expansion should be possible without significant disruption to the operating system. This also refers to the ability to expand the system by increasing the fleet size.

4.4.1.5 Automation Some technologies considered can operate fully-automated without drivers. Other technologies considered are manually-driven and require drivers. A fully-automated system may reduce Operating & Maintenance (O&M) costs, provide operating flexibility and increase safety. Automated operation can be especially important in systems with long hours of operation such as airports.

The conventional and BRT bus technologies are not automated. Although modern streetcars can be automated, implementing an automated train control system in historic streetcars is not recommended. APM technologies, as the name implies, are automated, as are PRT technologies. Although LRT technologies when operated in at-grade applications are not automated, when operating in a separate, dedicated right-of-way, they can be automated.

4.4.1.6 Technological Maturity The technology must be developed to a state that it can be implemented with minimum technological, budget, and schedule risks. In selecting a technology for a new system, it is important to assess the developmental and implementation risk associated with the technology. Risk can be determined by examining such factors as the years of proven service in similar transit applications, the number of systems currently in operation, the reliability and safety records of the operational systems and the experience of the technology supplier. Two years in operating service is recommended.




All candidate technologies are developed to the point where implementation is at limited risk, with the exception of PRT. There are currently no PRT systems in operational service. The ULTra pilot program at Heathrow is currently in implementation but not yet service proven. There would still be significant risk related to PRT’s technological maturity, as this is but one of many PRT technologies, each of which is proprietary.

4.4.2 Level of Service Factors The Level of Service (LOS) provided by the System depends on planning and design considerations, including but not limited to: ride quality, passenger trip times, walk distances, ease-of-use, frequency of service and passenger wait times. The technology category selection should provide the optimum level of service in terms of minimizing passenger trip times and providing the best ride quality possible.

Level of Service factors are used to measure the passenger’s experience. “Performance” measures, such as trip times and headways, combined with “perception” measures, such as the degree of seamless connection and the perception of where they “enter” the airport, all contribute to the LOS provided to the passenger.

4.4.2.1 Trip Times The system must carry passengers between stations in a reliable, competitive time, including both wait and travel. Wait time is a function of sustainable, reliable headways. Trip times and trip time reliability (the system’s ability to travel between stops in a reliable amount of time, unaffected by outside influences) are both important in attracting and serving riders. Passenger trip times are a function of the wait time in a station (frequency between trains) and the travel time on the System. Travel times are primarily determined by train speeds, station spacing, station dwell requirements and guideway alignment.

4.4.2.2 Headways Airport passengers have come to expect a high frequency of service and low wait time when using airport transit systems. Train headways are less than two minutes in many airport applications. DART LRT headways, on the other hand, will likely be up to twenty minutes. During many hours of the day, the headways will likely be driven by level of service goals rather than capacity requirements. Operating the PMC on two minute headways may be desirable to avoid waiting times at the terminal station, but may provide no real value at the DART-Love Field Station.




The technology should have the ability to operate at short headways (time between trains) to give short wait times and high capacity. The minimum headways depend on the type of operation and the degree of automation. Further analysis is required prior to recommending headways for this project. The ability to have short headways, as low as two to three minutes, are customary in airport systems. The headway is determined by the number of trains operating on the System and the time it takes for a train to complete one circuit around its route (round trip time).

4.4.2.3 Safety The system must meet key US codes and standards (National Fire Protection Association, Americans with Disabilities Act, and others) and all safety and security requirements of the applicable regulating agencies. Further, its operations should inherently be safe or the design of the system should accommodate safety concerns in a cost-effective manner.

With the exception of buses, which for purposes of this evaluation are assumed to operate on existing roadways, all the other candidate technologies are assumed to operate within the confines of separated right of way, which prevent potential interaction with roadway traffic. These technologies generally meet the goals of this key criterion in that the exclusivity of the right of way separates transit riders and transit vehicles from traffic accidents as well as protecting vulnerable pedestrians and vehicles from transit vehicles.

4.4.2.4 Availability / Reliability Any technology must have a very high level of reliability (measured in mean time between failures), and resulting availability (measured in the percentage of time the full system is operating as specified), to provide the service levels required to attract ridership. Availability above 99.5 percent is recommended.

System reliability is well established for all candidate technologies with the exception of PRT. System availability will be low for conventional bus technologies, as they would operate in a non-exclusive right of way (existing roadways). Historic streetcars, given their age and condition, could require extra maintenance efforts to achieve the required reliability.

4.4.2.5 “Airport Experience” A positive “Airport Experience” can increase passenger volumes by retaining current passengers and drawing new passengers by word of mouth. This concept is especially important when multiple airports exist in the same market and passengers have a choice as to which to use. In addition, passengers also have expectations based on their positive (or negative) experiences in using other airports.




4.4.2.6 “Airport Entrance” One unique issue in the planning and design of airport rail connectors is defining the point that a rail system rider becomes an airport passenger. This refers to a passenger’s perception of where they “enter” the airport. We have referred to that point as the “Airport Entrance.” Riders throughout the DART LRT system expect open platforms and a level of service that is consistent throughout the rail network. Users of airport APMs and rail interface stations have come to expect a higher level of service more typical of the airport environment. Examples include conditioned station platforms, higher frequency of service, amenities, more visible security, and other similar considerations. Creating an “airport entrance” provides the perception of entering the airport. The “entrance” to Dallas Love Field could be perceived by the passenger to occur at the DART-Love Field Station by using appropriate spatial design, materials and signage. If successful, the passenger will feel that they “enter” the airport at the DART-Love Field Station. This is the goal of the City of Dallas.

4.4.2.7 “Seamless Connection” The degree of “seamless connection” that passengers feel or perceive is of utmost importance to the project. Numerous considerations can be made to provide this type of seamless connection.

Pedestrian Flow and Vertical Circulation ‑ Pedestrian flow should be easy and direct. Vertical circulation can be used to take passengers directly from the DART LRT platform up to an elevated, conditioned PMC station or down to an underground, conditioned PMC station, rather than walking across the track and roadway. A passenger who steps off of a DART LRV and rides up or down an escalator to board the PMC will perceive a drastically higher seamless connection than the same passenger who deboards a DART LRV and must use the crosswalk to walk across Denton Drive with their luggage to board the PMC.

Level boarding - A characteristic that can greatly contribute to a seamless connection is level boarding. This means that a passenger does not have to ascend or descend steps when boarding or deboarding the System vehicles. This feature is of great significance to an airport passenger traveling with baggage.

Accommodations for Passengers with Baggage - Passengers using the PMC will be carrying baggage prior to baggage check‑in and after baggage claim. Accommodations should be made to make the transfer as easy as possible for those passengers. Corridors, vertical circulation elements, and station platforms should be sized to accommodate passengers with baggage. Baggage check‑in, security and liability issues should also be considered. If passengers carry




their own bags on the PMC, it is important to design the vehicles with wide doors and open floor areas to accommodate the baggage. Consideration should also be given to allow baggage carts on the vehicles and the associated design issues.

A seamless connection between the DART-Love Field Station and the PMC will help to draw riders to the system and the airport.

4.4.2.8 Image The overall image conveyed to users of the technology and service provided should be considered. The System image should be on par with the airport image. The technology selected should have a design that attracts ridership and that appears capable of reliable, safe and efficient service well into the future. This draws passengers and increases ridership. Refer to Section 4.4.3.2 for further discussion.

4.4.2.9 Appropriateness of Technology The technology must be considered appropriate for the application. For example, if the ridership is relatively low, then using a LRT technology would provide far more capacity than required and not an efficient use of the LRT technology. Depending on the alignment selected, the distance could prove to be too far and take too long for moving walks, thus providing an unacceptable level of service.

4.4.3 Environmental Impacts The interaction of the PMC with the surrounding environment was considered to identify technologies that emit unacceptable or undesirable levels of noise or other pollutions into the environment. The PMC should be compatible with the Airport and surrounding area and not induce objectionable noise or other emissions. The technology should not cause any significant impact to environmentally sensitive areas or cause air or water quality issues. Electricity or clean fuels should be used to propel the vehicles.

BRTs, with internal combustion engines, can be expected to produce more air pollution than electrically-powered technologies. Cleaner engines will help with this issue. At-grade systems such as a conventional bus would have higher traffic impacts, thus higher secondary air quality issues. Tunnel ventilation would be a very important issue if a technology using an internal combustion engine were implemented in a tunnel alignment. The system alignments presumably can be designed to minimize impacts on environmentally sensitive areas.




4.4.3.1 Acceptable Noise or Vibration Levels The technology should not create unacceptable noise or vibration levels in the surrounding areas, especially in residential neighborhoods. For an at-grade or elevated system, noise shall not exceed 67-74 dBA for exterior noise and 74-79 dBA for interior noise for various defined conditions (ASCE APM Standards 21-96, 21-98, and 21-00, Part 1 sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, Part 2 sections 7.7.4 and 7.7.5). Limits are similar for an underground system, except that it is allowed to have 85 dBA while entering or leaving a station. Structure-borne noise/vibration shall be imperceptible at or in surrounding buildings as defined by ANSI (American National Standards Institute) S3.29.

Noise/vibration levels are not problematic on many of these technologies, as they routinely interface with airport fixed facilities. However, some of the systems have the potential to create unacceptable levels of noise and/or vibration, particularly steel-wheel technologies. Some of the newer systems can be designed to be relatively quiet. The quietest of these technologies would be the maglev technology that was designed specifically to address these issues.

4.4.3.2 Visually Acceptable The technology should physically fit into the urban/airport fabric, along rights of way, and into/next to specific developments. It should not create unacceptable physical and visual impacts in vehicle design, guideway design, stations, and the maintenance facility. Overhead catenaries in an airport environment are not visually acceptable, although this would be less of an issue if it were entirely underground, including both ends of the alignment.

4.4.3.3 Avoidance of Other Impacts The technology should not create other unacceptable impacts in the areas through which it passes, and instead, should benefit the environment where possible. Such other impacts could potentially include road-based traffic in the vicinity and surface parking.

There is a higher potential for at-grade systems, such as conventional buses, to have significant traffic impacts. Until more is known about the alignment, it is not possible to evaluate these measurements fully.




4.4.4 Cost Effectiveness

4.4.4.1 Capital Cost The capital cost of the initial system must be within the available budget, and any expansion must be at a reasonable cost. The capital cost of the alternative alignments will vary with elevated/at grade guideway, specific site conditions, system length, use of alternative structures, fleet size, and many other variables. In lieu of project-specific capital cost estimates of the final alignment alternative, representative cost ranges for each technology can be used.

Bus technologies, particularly conventional buses operating on existing roadways, would have lower capital costs as compared to Guided Bus, Streetcar, LRT, APM and even PRT.

For technologies that obtain their propulsion power through overhead catenaries, such as Guided Bus, Streetcar and LRT technologies, tunnel dimensions and infrastructure requirements would increase costs and could make APM technologies economically more viable, in comparison. Additionally, the greater vertical dimensions of monorail technology could add significantly to the required tunnel diameter adding significant capital cost.

4.4.4.2 Operating & Maintenance (O&M) Cost The O&M costs must be cost effective. To some degree, the potential exists for recovery of some of the costs through system-generated revenue (naming rights, vehicle wrapping, advertising, etc.). The finance plan will have to determine the funding sources available for the O&M expenses. Because O&M cost varies with so many factors related to specific operating plans for each alternative system plan, only ranges of unit costs can be cited in this evaluation based on experience elsewhere. Such a comparison must be done carefully, considering a reasonably similar application.

The automated systems are able to meet the goals of the criterion due to reduced operator labor costs. Operator costs can be significant when a system is operating seven days per week for three shifts per day. While labor costs are higher for the non-automated systems, such as conventional bus, BRT, Guided Bus, Streetcars, and LRT (although in underground, dedicated right-of-way, LRT could be automated), there is some uncertainty over relative O&M costs this early in the process, as future operating and service level decisions have not yet been made.




4.4.4.3 Efficiency of System Integration with Airport Facilities One of the biggest technical challenges will be integrating the PMC into the operating airport, both during construction and after completion. Some technology categories may have an impact on the design of the PMC facilities and the adjacent airport facilities, both existing and those being planned. This could result in increased cost and increased sizes of facilities such as the stations or tunnel envelopes. Technologies that have requirements significantly different than the other candidate technologies could require special accommodations to allow integration into the airport facilities. This could result in the technology being unsuitable for the project.

4.5 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Exhibit 4.5.1-1 lists each of the evaluation criteria defined in Section 4.4 and presents a preliminary analysis of how well each candidate technology meets the criterion’s goals. In this evaluation, Moving Walks, Conventional Bus, BRT, Guided Bus, Streetcar, LRT, APM and PRT technologies are considered.

4.5.1 Screening Of Technology Categories Given this project’s early stage of determining the feasibility and the determination of the projected system ridership not yet being completed, the analysis is limited to three categories:

● = candidate technology would probably achieve goals/meet constraints for evaluation criterion

▲ = ability of the technology to achieve goals/meet constraints is possible, but uncertain, and/or the specific Love Field application needs more definition to be able to make a better determination at this time.

■ = candidate technology would probably not achieve goals/meet constraints for evaluation criterion


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 4-54 October 30, 2007 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied in whole or in part without written

permission from Lea+Elliott, Inc.

Exhibit 4.5.1-1 Evaluation Matrix

Self-Propelled Cable-Propelled Monorail Maglev

Capacity ● ● ▲ ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲Speed ■ ● ● ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲

Geometry/ Configuration ● ● ■ ▲ ● ● ▲ ● ● ■ ▲ ▲Expandability ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ▲

● – Modern■ - Historic

Technological Maturity ● ■ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ■Trip Times ■ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Headways ● ● ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● – Modern▲ - Historic● – Modern▲ - Historic

Airport Experience ▲ ▲ ■ ■ ■ ▲ ● ● ● ● ● ▲Airport Entrance ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲

Seamless Connection ● ● ■ ■ ■ ▲ ▲ ● ● ● ● ▲Image ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ▲ ● ● ● ● ●

Appropriateness of Technology ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ● ● ■ ▲ ■

● – Modern

▲ - Historic

Visually Acceptable ● ● ■ ■ ■ ■ ▲ ● ● ● ● ●Avoidance of Other Impacts ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

Lower Capital Cost ▲ ▲ ● ● ▲ ■ ■ ▲ ● ▲ ▲ ▲Lower O&M Cost ● ▲ ● ● ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ● ▲ ▲ ▲

System Integration ● ● ● ▲ ▲ ■ ■ ● ● ■ ● ▲Drop Drop Drop Drop Drop Drop Drop Keep Keep Drop Keep Drop

● = candidate technology would probably achieve goals/meet constraints for evaluation criterion.

▲ ■ = candidate technology would probably not achieve goals/meet constraints for evaluation criterion.

Keep or Drop?

Accelerating Moving Walks

■

▲▲

●

Cost Effectiveness

●● ● ●■ ▲ ▲ ●Environmental Impacts

Acceptable Noise or Vibration Levels ● ■

●● ● ▲● ● ● ●●● ● ▲▲ ● ● ●

Level of Service Factors

Safety ● ▲Availability/ Reliability ● ●

●● ● ●

APM

PRT

Performance Factors

Automation ■ ■ ■ ● ● ●

= ability of candidate technology to achieve goals/meet constraints is possible, but uncertain, and/or the specific Love Field application needs more definition to be able to make a better determination at this time.

Preliminary Technology Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Criteria Candidate TechnologiesConventional Moving

Walks Conventional Bus BRT Guided Bus Streetcar LRT




From this evaluation, summarized in Exhibit 4.5.1-1, several technologies should be dropped from further consideration, including:

Conventional Moving Walks - For applications requiring lengthy moving walkways (near the maximum continuous length per unit), a significant disadvantage becomes apparent: component failure anywhere along the continuous moving walkway length results in the shutdown of the entire moving walkway. This differs from conventional transit systems, such as buses or even APM systems, where individual vehicles can be removed from the system for repair and replaced with spares.

In some cases, the cost of a transit system can actually be lower than an enclosed walkway with moving walks. When using a transit system, it is considered acceptable for passengers to travel through unfinished and unconditioned spaces. In an elevated system it is usually an open air guideway and in a tunnel it can be unconditioned space with exposed concrete surfaces. The passengers inside the vehicle are comfortable even if the conditions outside the vehicle are extreme. The equivalent level of service in a corridor with moving walks usually requires that the space be finished out and conditioned. The corridor must be wide enough for egress and at least one lane of moving walks in each direction. In some cases multiple lanes are required to provide the volume and the ability for walking passengers to pass standing passengers. When the cost of floor finishes, ceilings, walls, lighting, HVAC, fire protection, etc. is considered, a transit system can be cheaper.

Another significant limitation is that travel speeds on moving walkways are significantly lower (even considering walking while traveling on the moving walkway, which is not always possible) than travel speeds on other transit forms, such as buses or APMs. The necessity of being able to safely step onto and off of moving walkways has generally kept moving walkway travel speeds to between 100–130 fpm (30–40 m/min.), which is slower than normal walking speeds.

In summary, moving walks have numerous shortcomings, including very slow travel speeds (resulting in very long trip times) as compared to all the other technologies and would be unacceptable as a public entrance to the airport given the relatively long distance.

Accelerating Moving Walks – This technology is not open to the public yet and therefore is not service proven. As discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, this technology is not U.S. code compliant at this time. As with conventional moving walks, it would rank very low as a public entrance to the airport given the relatively long distance. In addition, as mentioned above, moving walks can cost more than some transit systems.




Conventional Bus – Conventional buses have numerous shortcomings, including a relatively long trip time, given that it would mix with roadway traffic on existing roadways or the ventilation requirements if internal combustion engines were used in a tunnel. Conventional buses do not offer level boarding, so passengers would be forced to negotiate steps with baggage. Buses are not able to meet the goals of the criterion due to increased operator labor costs. Operator costs can be significant when a system is operating seven days per week for three shifts per day. In addition, they would convey a relatively poor image as a primary public entrance to the airport.

BRT – Although BRT would be within a separate dedicated right-of-way, BRT operating within a tunnel would be noisy, and unless the technology were guided, would entail a larger tunnel cross-section to accommodate normal driver wandering along the route, and would not entail a positive image as a primary public entrance to the airport. BRT can offer level boarding, but without, passengers could be forced to negotiate steps with baggage. BRT is not able to meet the goals of the criterion due to increased operator labor costs. Operator costs can be significant when a system is operating seven days per week for three shifts per day.

Guided Bus – Guided bus would also not provide a positive image as a primary public entrance to the airport, and would have increased costs due to the greater tunnel infrastructure requirements associated with the overhead catenary system. Guided bus can offer level boarding, but without, passengers could be forced to negotiate steps with baggage. Guided bus is not able to meet the goals of the criterion due to increased operator labor costs. Operator costs can be significant when a system is operating seven days per week for three shifts per day.

Streetcar – Streetcars would have increased costs due to the greater tunnel infrastructure requirements associated with the overhead catenary system, are not consistent with an airport environment and would not provide a positive image as a primary public entrance to the airport. Streetcars can offer level boarding, but without, passengers could be forced to negotiate steps with baggage. In addition, streetcars, if not automated, are not able to meet the goals of the criterion due to increased operator labor costs. Operator costs can be significant when a system is operating seven days per week for three shifts per day.

LRT – LRT would be oversized for anticipated ridership levels, as this technology is suited for much larger ridership numbers and would be a relatively inefficient means to transport passenger between an existing LRT station and the terminal. Also, transferring from an LRT system and boarding another LRT system would be an inefficient and unnecessary transfer within the same technology category. LRT would also have a catenary system which would increase tunnel infrastructure size and costs. LRT can offer level boarding, but without, passengers could be forced to negotiate steps with baggage. LRT can be automated in a separated right of way, but, if not, is not able to meet the goals of the criterion due to increased operator labor costs.




Operator costs can be significant when a system is operating seven days per week for three shifts per day.

APM (Steel-wheeled) – The two steel-wheeled APMs, Bombardier ART Mk II and Ansaldo-Breda Metro, are much larger vehicles in every dimension compared to their rubber-tired counterparts. As a result, they are over-sized for this project. In addition, a steel-wheeled / steel rail technology would prove to be much louder in a tunnel than other technologies described here. Therefore, this technology is not appropriate for this project.

Monorail – In cross section, a monorail guidebeam is vertically tall and horizontally narrow. This is to give it the strength necessary to support the trains. In addition, the straddle-type manner in which the vehicles sit on the guidebeam produces a tall vehicle. These two components combined generate a tunnel diameter greater than other technologies. This would have a very negative impact on tunnel costs. Monorails are better suited for aerial applications where the narrow guidebeams can have both a positive impact on aesthetics and cost.

PRT – PRT is not yet a mature technology and would require the client to assume a significant risk. PRT would be more appropriate for a network as opposed to a two-station back and forth shuttle operation. Capacity could be a problem for these relatively small vehicles.

From this evaluation, summarized in the Preliminary Technology Evaluation Matrix, several APM technologies should be kept for further consideration, including:

Self-propelled APM – would present a very positive public entrance to Love Field that many people can associate with, as self-propelled technologies can be found at many airports throughout the world. This technology is quiet, pollution-free and is considered appropriate. It offers level boarding which contributes to a seamless connection. It is an automated technology requiring no operators, thereby reducing O&M costs. This technology has a smaller required tunnel diameter which will keep capital costs lower.

Cable-propelled APM - would present a very positive public entrance to Love Field that many people can associate with, as cable-propelled technologies can be found at some airports in different parts of the world. This technology is quiet, pollution-free and is considered appropriate. It offers level boarding which contributes to a seamless connection. It is an automated technology requiring no operators, thereby reducing O&M costs. This technology has a smaller required tunnel diameter which will keep capital costs lower.




Maglev - would present a very sleek, futuristic and high-tech image and would be a very positive public entrance to Love Field. This technology is quiet, pollution-free and is considered appropriate. It offers level boarding which contributes to a seamless connection. It is an automated technology requiring no operators, thereby reducing O&M costs. This technology has a smaller required tunnel diameter which will keep capital costs lower.

At this time, it is suggested that these APM technologies be kept for further development and refinement, with the competitive procurement/ bidding process used to increase competition and reduce bid prices.

4.5.2 Assessment Findings / Conclusions

Based on the results of the assessment, three types of APMs have been retained as potential candidates for the APM System. No recommendation of technology is provided in this report. Rather, technology categories are evaluated as candidates for consideration based on Project conditions or requirements.

From the general technology categories considered, the technology assessment has identified the applicable technology category to be APMs. The specific representative technologies recommended for consideration in developing the APM-related facility design requirements are as follows:

Self-propelled APM 1. Bombardier CX-100 2. Bombardier Innovia 3. IHI Niigata APM 4. Mitsubishi Crystal Mover 5. Schwager Davis UniTrak 6. Siemens AirVal

Cable-propelled APM

7. DCC Doppelmayr Cable Liner Shuttle 8. Leitner-Poma MiniMetro

Maglev (Low speed)

9. Chubu HSST 100L




These specific technologies were selected based on their applicability with respect to the Dallas Love Field PMC system requirements and because these suppliers have been responsive to other recent Request for Proposals.

These specific APM technologies and their suppliers are described in more detail in the following section.

4.6 REPRESENTATIVE TECHNOLOGY SUPPLIERS Characteristics of the representative technologies are provided in this section. For each technology, the following information is provided:

• A photograph of the technology

• A dimensioned plan (top) view of a one- to two-vehicle train and a dimensioned elevation (side) view of the same train. The plan view indicates the interior layout, while the elevation view indicates door locations and selected dimensions.

• The vehicle empty weight (AW0), design weight (AW1) and maximum allocated weight (AW2)

For the weight calculations, the areas for standing passengers and seated passengers are assumed based on previous vehicle interior layouts since the number of seats in the vehicles has not yet been specified. These weights may vary slightly when the vehicle interior layout for this project is finalized. The methodology used for the vehicle weight computations is consistent with the Lea+Elliott, Inc. standard specification requirements, and is common throughout the APM industry. All weights have been rounded up to the nearest 1000 lbs.

Each APM System Supplier’s requirements are unique. It should also be recognized that each supplier’s APM system should be tailored for the site-specific application.

APM vehicle weights and dimensional characteristics are dependent on application-specific requirements. The dimensions and weights included in the following sections are consistent with similar vehicles used on existing or proposed APM Systems with similar requirements.




The weights and dimensions reported in the following sections are approximate, and in many cases scaled from or based on data available to the public. In some cases, the data do not agree with proprietary data provided to Lea+Elliott, Inc. by APM system suppliers and this is attributed to site-specific variances discussed previously.




4.6.1 Self-propelled APM

4.6.1.1 Bombardier CX-100

Empty Vehicle Weight (AW0): 33,000 lb. per car

Design Vehicle Weight (AW1): 49,000 lb. per car

Max. Vehicle Weight ("crush load") (AW2): 57,000 lb. per car




4.6.1.2 Bombardier Innovia




11'-1

"78'-6"

39'-3"

9'-4

"

6'-5"

24'-11"14'-4"

14'-11" 12'-2"12'-2"

7'-2"

6'-5" 8'-5"9'-0"

39'-3"

9'-0"




4.6.1.3 IHI Niigata APM







4.6.1.4 Mitsubishi Crystal Mover







4.6.1.5 Schwager Davis UniTrak

Empty Vehicle Weight (AW0): 15,000 lbs. per car

Design Vehicle Weight (AW1): 22,000 lbs. per car

Max. Vehicle Weight ("crush load") (AW2): 25,000 lbs. per car




4.6.1.6 Siemens AirVal




Note: The AirVAL technology is currently being developed; all weights and dimensions shown herein are based on preliminary information provided by STS.




4.6.2 Cable-propelled APM

4.6.2.1 DCC Doppelmayr Cable Liner Shuttle







4.6.2.2 Leitner-Poma Mini Metro







4.6.3 Maglev (Low speed)

4.6.3.1 Chubu HSST 100L


Launch Internet Explorer Browser.lnk Design Vehicle Weight (AW1):

56,000 lb. per car

Max. Vehicle Weight ("crush load") (AW2): 62,000 lb. per car*

* Limited by maximum design lift force of levitating magnets



5.0 Tunneling Methods Assessment

5.0 TunnelingM

ethods Assessment

5.0 TunnelingM

ethods Assessment




REPORT OUTLINE







5.0 Tunneling Methods Assessment HZ/DSC 10-JUL-08













TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.0 TUNNELING METHODS ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 SCOPE AND CONTENT ................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 5-2

5.3.1 Reports................................................................................................. 5-2 5.3.2 Existing Drawings ................................................................................ 5-2

5.3.3 Borings................................................................................................. 5-3 5.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 5-3

5.4.1 Topography .......................................................................................... 5-3 5.4.2 Geology................................................................................................ 5-4

5.4.2.1 Terrace Soils .......................................................................... 5-4 5.4.2.2 Eagle Ford Shale (EFS).......................................................... 5-4

5.4.3 Generalized Geotechnical Conditions ................................................... 5-5 5.4.4 Hydrology ............................................................................................ 5-6

5.5 TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION METHODS....................................................... 5-7 5.5.1 Shielded Pressure-Face Tunnel Boring Machines ................................. 5-7

5.5.2 NATM / SEM Tunneling...................................................................... 5-9 5.5.3 Cut-and-Cover Construction............................................................... 5-12

5.5.4 Doorframe Slab Method ..................................................................... 5-13 5.5.5 Control of Settlements ........................................................................ 5-15

5.5.6 Ground Modification Methods............................................................ 5-16

5.5.6.1 Dewatering .......................................................................... 5-16

5.5.6.2 Grouting .............................................................................. 5-17 5.5.6.3 Ground Freezing .................................................................. 5-18

5.6 PRE-SCREENING OF TUNNEL ALIGNMENT CORRIDORS ................... 5-19 5.6.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 5-19

5.6.2 Tunnel Corridor – “A”........................................................................ 5-20 5.6.2.1 Tunnel Corridor “A” – Shallow Profile Option..................... 5-20

5.6.2.2 Tunnel Corridor “A” – Deep Profile Option ......................... 5-21


Lea+Elliott, Inc. iii July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


5.6.3 Tunnel Corridor “B”........................................................................... 5-22 5.6.3.1 Tunnel Corridor “B” – Shallow Profile Option..................... 5-22

5.6.3.2 Tunnel Corridor “B” – Deep Profile Option ......................... 5-22 5.7 APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION METHODS............................................. 5-23

5.7.1 General............................................................................................... 5-23 5.7.2 Guideway Tunnel ............................................................................... 5-25

5.7.2.1 Construction Method Options .............................................. 5-25 5.7.2.2 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages ........................ 5-28

5.7.2.3 Schedule and Cost Considerations........................................ 5-29 5.7.3 Station Construction Methods............................................................. 5-30

5.7.3.1 Construction Method Options .............................................. 5-30 5.7.3.2 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages ........................ 5-32

5.8 PROCUREMENT.......................................................................................... 5-33 5.8.1 Contracting Strategy – Design ............................................................ 5-33

5.8.2 Contracting Strategy – Contractor Qualifications................................ 5-33




5.0 TUNNELING METHODS ASSESSMENT

5.1 INTRODUCTION Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL) is located in an urbanized area within the Dallas, Texas city limits approximately seven miles north of the city’s central business district (CBD). The airport encompasses 1,300 acres and is owned and operated by the City of Dallas.

The Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Northwest / Southeast Connector, which is currently under construction, bypasses DAL without a direct connection. The City of Dallas is investigating solutions to connect the DART Love Field Station with the airport terminal building by means of a People Mover Connector (PMC).

The tunneling methods assessment was prepared by Dr. G. Sauer Corporation (DSC) under subcontract to Lea+Elliott Inc., prime consultant for the project.

5.2 SCOPE AND CONTENT

This section evaluates the technical feasibility of various tunnel construction methods for the DAL PMC feasibility study.

The overall setting and the geology and hydrology of the study area are described and evaluated based on existing geotechnical studies as well as additional geotechnical investigations performed during the course of this study.

A description of applicable tunneling methods as well as feasible ground improvement measures, pre-support measures and measures to control settlements during tunneling is provided. The various tunneling and ground improvement methods are pre-screened to identify those suitable for the existing conditions at DAL.

Based on an initial assessment of the site conditions (streets, existing buildings, parking facilities, future development and utilities) as well as discussions with the City of Dallas, alignment alternatives were narrowed down to two (2) corridors. For each corridor a deep and a shallow tunneling option, as well as a combination with an aerial alignment, were investigated and evaluated. Those alignment corridors are further refined as part of the development of a Recommended Alternative in Section 9.0 of this report.




Several PMC station configurations at the terminal and at the DART Love Field Station are described and feasible construction methods outlined. The PMC station at the terminal is envisioned to be shallow in order to provide convenient access to the ticketing hall security checkpoint and the baggage claim area while not interfering with airport operations. The PMC station connecting to DART has to be grade-separated due to the crossing of Denton Drive and space constraints, and may be either underground or aerial.

A set of drawings and sketches depicting the site conditions and geology, the tunnel corridors and vertical alignments, and station concepts were developed. Order-of-magnitude cost estimates (see Section 11) and construction schedules (see Section 12) were developed, taking into account mobilization times and production rates of various tunnel construction methods.

5.3 REFERENCES

5.3.1 Reports

• Dallas Area Rapid Transit Love Field Airport Light Rail Access, Design Review of Tunnel Alignment & Underground Structures, 09/14/2001.

• Geotechnical Report DART Northwest Corridor Line Section NW-2, Bomar Avenue to Community Drive Dallas, Texas, TMI Report No. DE05-034, 03/08/2006.

• Geotechnical Investigation, Southwest Airlines Headquarters Expansion, Phase III, Dallas, Texas, 10/2001.

• Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Southwest Airlines Data Center, Denton Drive at Wyman Street, Dallas, Texas, 03/1996.

• Final Geotechnical Data Report, Bureau Veritas, 04/17/2008.

5.3.2 Existing Drawings

• Intertech Engineers, Inc.: Parking Structure at Dallas Love Field, Dallas/TX, Drawings S-100 – S-105, 1984.

• Broad and Nelson and Jack Corgan Associated Architects & Engineers: Terminal Building Love Field Airport for the City of Dallas/TX, Sheets S1-1, S1-7, 1955.

• Gresham Smith and Partners: Dallas Love Field Airport, Facility Drawings, 11/2006.

• Light Rail Transit System Line Section NW-2, Brookhollow Station, 11/2006.

• City of Dallas – Department of Aviation: Dallas Love Field Airport Layout Plan, 2001.




5.3.3 Borings

• Ten borings drilled by Mason-Johnston & Associates (MJA), at the site of existing parking structure during 1962 studies for the City of Dallas Love Field Parking Garage.

• Six borings drilled by Rone Engineers Inc. (REI), along the passenger loading and unloading area during 1983 studies for the City of Dallas Love Field Parking Garage.

• Four borings drilled by MAS-TEK Engineering and Associates, Inc. (MEI) for HNTB at the planned parking structure south of existing facilities, dated Nov. and Dec. 1999.

• Twelve borings drilled by Terra-Mar Inc. (TMI) at the site of planned future parking garage for the City of Dallas, dated Aug. and Sept. 2000.

• One boring drilled by Terra-Mar Inc. (TMI) for the CIH structure during 2005 studies.

• Borings drilled by Terra-Mar Inc. (TMI) along the DART Northwest Corridor, 2001 and 2005.

• Six borings drilled by Fugro South, Inc. in the course of headquarter expansion phase III of Southwest Airlines during 2001 studies.

• Five borings drilled by Fugro South Inc. for the Southwest Airlines data center during 1996, and in the course of headquarter expansion phase IV of Southwest Airlines during 2002.

• Three borings drilled by Bureau Veritas for the DAL PMC Feasibility Study in 2007 and 2008.

5.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

5.4.1 Topography

Dallas County lies in the area of Black Prairie; Grand Prairie, which is in the western portions of the county, forms the edge of the landward margin of Gulf Coastal Plains in Texas. The topography of the county is dominated by the rock formations found in the county. In general the underlying rocks dip at a low angle in southeasterly direction, and the exposed lower resistance rocks found in the western portion of the county have been subjected to erosion. This unsymmetrical erosion has created hills generally referred to as “white rock cuesta.”

Near the center of the county fairly broad valleys of the Trinity River interrupt the topography. Two branches of the river called West Fork which runs east-west and Elm Fork which runs north-south join together just west of the Love Field Area.




The topography of the investigated area between the airport terminal building and the Love Field DART-Love Field Station is virtually flat due to anthrop genetic influences. The ground elevations are ± 476 ft at the terminal and ± 461 ft at the DART-Love Field Station. The area of investigation is topologically constrained by runways 13R-31L and 18-36, which determine the surface between the two future PMC stations.

5.4.2 Geology

5.4.2.1 Terrace Soils

The fluvial terrace deposits have been mapped along the edges of old Trinity River. They occupy approximately 18% of Dallas County. These materials are of Quaternary age and consist of clays, silts, sands and occasionally gravel. They can vary laterally within a short distance, and various depositional processes and wide boring spacing make correlations difficult. The sands are generally water bearing.

In general the upper 15 to 25 feet of terrace soils are cohesive with strength ranging from 0.5 to 3.1 TSF. The lower 5 feet of the cohesive soils are sandy. The liquid limits of the upper clays range from 51% to 65% and their plasticity indices range from 35 to 45. The pre-consolidation ratio ranges from 4 to 6 or higher. These soils can exhibit a fairly good stand-up time, but are greatly affected by the material directly beneath them. Their at-rest lateral pressures are expected to be fairly large.

The coarse soils directly below the upper clays and sandy clays consist of fine sands and clayey sands. Their gradation appears to vary and their relative density is estimated to be medium dense. Several borings showed clayey sand layers on top of sands and several gravel layers at the bottom of this stratum. Occasionally a clay layer is sandwiched within the sand layers. The lateral pressures from these soils are expected to be small, but the effects of groundwater must be considered. Permeability tests from other sources suggest larger horizontal than vertical permeability coefficients.

5.4.2.2 Eagle Ford Shale (EFS)

This formation is a fairly weak (on the rock scale) marine deposit. Locally it has been divided in two separate units: the upper part or Arcadia Park unit, and the lower part or Britton unit. The Arcadia Park unit can range from 100 to 120 feet, and consists of dark laminated shale with calcareous lenses and occasional limestone, argillaceous sandstone and arenaceous shale seams.




Generally a thin concretionary layer occurs approximately 40 to 60 feet below the top of the layer. In addition a thin layer (1 to 3 feet) of detrital limestone has been mapped at the base of Arcadia Park. This material is often referred to as Kamp Ranch limestone. Varied irregular shaped concretions have been found embedded in the shale along some exposures in the county.

The Britton unit of the EFS can be subdivided in two layers. The upper Britton is approximately 125 feet thick and contains thin layers of limestone as well as concretions of claystone. The lower Britton is approximately 85 feet thick, very calcareous, and fairly hard. Twenty-one bentonite seams have been reported in this layer including two fairly thick layers (approximately 6 to 12 inches) at the top of the unit. Above these two-bentonite seams a 15 feet layer of moderately hard marl is present.

The EFS is Montmorillonitic, but contains Kaolinite, Illite, calcite, quartz as well as other minerals. Occasional joints and fractures are expected throughout the units.

The EFS is a low strength material on the rock scale. It is dark gray in color, with thin seams of calcareous shale as well as pyrite nodules and concretions. The top layer is slightly weathered. It is expected that the top portions are slickensided, however, this should reduce substantially with depth. No joints or fractures were noted in any of the borings however, dip angles are expected to be between 30 to 65 degrees. The projected permeability coefficient will be very low. Additional water may be present at joints or bedding planes.

No risk from seismic activity is expected in the DAL area.

5.4.3 Generalized Geotechnical Conditions The subsurface materials along the proposed alignment will consist of terrace soils overlying Eagle Ford Shale. Overall the upper portions of the terrace soils are cohesive clays and sandy clays, while the lower portion mainly consists of sands with occasional cohesive soils interceded within the formation. The lower materials are water bearing and therefore unstable during open excavation. The shale underlying the overburden soils increases in strength as depth increases.

At the Love Field Terminal, a number of borings were drilled at or near the existing parking garage. Shale is found in relative continuous depth while the variation in the alluvial terrace soils is considerable. The closest borings of the future station reveal on average an upper alluvial clay at a thickness of 25 feet (range from 13 to 29 feet), overlying mostly silty sands and sands. The sands are poorly graded and vary in composition from mixture of sand and clay to sand and gravel. Several borings further west showed very loose to loose sands. There is some small to medium gravel in the silty sand and some borings show gravel just above shale. Occasionally




clay bands and seams are found sandwiched between sand layers. The nearby borings indicate a top of shale elevation of 433’ (range from 428’ to 438’).

Near the DART Love Field Station, boring information was derived from investigations prepared for the Southwest Airlines headquarters, its planned expansions and borings along the DART alignment. The interpreted borings reveal that on average the upper alluvial clays are 23 feet thick (range from 14 to 27 feet), overlying mostly sands. The sands vary in composition from mixture to layered sand and clay to sand and gravel. In general differences in materials were found in fairly short distance, which is typical for alluvial terrace deposits in this area. Occasionally clays were encountered directly above shale. The upper clays are stiff to hard, the sands are medium dense to dense. The top of shale is estimated and most likely near elevation 416’.

Three additional borings were drilled along the “A” guideway tunnel corridor in 2007/2008. They indicate that the thickness of the upper clay layers decreases going East, towards the Terminal Station, while in turn the thickness of the cohesionless sand layer increase.

An aerial photograph taken in 1930 before construction of the airport was reviewed and showed the area to be flat with no unusual features other than small ridge and minor erosional features southeast of runway 18-36.

A generalized subsurface profile is provided in Exhibit A5 – 6.

5.4.4 Hydrology Clays and shales are relatively impermeable. Below the clays, percent fines in the sands range from 5 to 30 percent. The permeability of the sandy zones depends on quantity of fines, and increases from clayey sands to silty sands and sands. The highest permeability soils contain gravel, which are encountered just above shale. Some borings indicate thin seams of clays within the sand layers. In these locations, horizontal permeability will be much larger than vertical permeability.

Groundwater is likely to be about 20 feet below ground and subject to fluctuations with the seasons as the Trinity River fluctuates. Shallower groundwater, 11 to 13 feet below ground, was reported in the vicinity of the airport terminal building (MJA/1962).




5.5 TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION METHODS

The PMC tunnels construction will take place in a variety of geologic conditions including clay, sand and shale. The construction will be located adjacent to existing structures and utilities sensitive to ground movements and will pass under airport runways capable of landing Group V aircraft

As a result, a variety of tunnel construction and ground improvement methods have been investigated, including their specific advantages and disadvantages, as well as varying impacts on the surrounding environment. They are briefly described in the following sections.

5.5.1 Shielded Pressure-Face Tunnel Boring Machines

Several types of tunnel boring machines are available on the market. Based on geological and hydrological conditions at DAL, shielded pressure-face TBMs are suitable.

A shielded Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) consists of a cylindrical steel shell pushed forward along the axis of the tunnel, while excavating the ground inside the shield. The shield supports the excavated ground and is propelled using hydraulic jacks thrusting against the tunnel lining, which most commonly consists of pre-cast concrete segments to form a watertight lining.

The excavation is accomplished using a rotating cutterhead equipped with cutting tools to remove the intact ground. A pressure-face TBM is capable of exerting pressure at the cutterhead to control groundwater inflow and maintain stability of the tunnel face.

Therefore, this type of tunneling machine can be used in ground conditions where open faced tunneling would be problematic or require dewatering and ground improvement, such as in water-bearing sands and clays.

Exhibit 5.5.1-1 – Shielded Pressure-Face TBM




The two most common types are:

• Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM)

• Slurry Shield / Mixed Shield EPBMs rely on the excavated material, under pressure in the plenum, to balance earth and hydrostatic pressures. The pressure is maintained by a screw conveyor, in which a soil plug provides the seal.

Slurry Shields, or Mix Shields rely on bentonite slurry to apply a pressure to the tunnel face in the plenum, which counterbalances earth and hydrostatic pressures. This is achieved by a mud cake that forms on the tunnel face as excavation proceeds.

Exhibit 5.5.1-2 shows the range of ground conditions for EPBMs and Slurry Shields. Modern machines can be equipped to operate in both modes, making them suitable for a wider range of ground conditions. EPB methods would most likely be utilized to construct the PMC tunnels base on the grain size of materials identified in this investigation.

Exhibit 5.5.1-2 – Application Ranges for Shielded Pressure-Face TBMs

Shielded TBMs are used in conjunction with pre-fabricated ground support systems, which most commonly consist of gasketed, precast concrete segments to form a watertight tunnel lining (see Exhibit 5.5.1-3). The segments are erected in the tail shield of the TBM concurrently with the TBM drive. EPB methods would most likely be utilized to constrict the PMC tunnels base on the grain size of materials identified in this investigation.




Exhibit 5.5.1-3 –Precast Segmental TBM-linings

[Beacon Hill Station, Seattle, WA, 2007]

5.5.2 NATM / SEM Tunneling The New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) or Sequential Excavation Method (SEM) was developed in the 1950s when shotcrete was used systematically to stabilize squeezing rock conditions. Subsequently, the method was advanced to be suitable for soft ground conditions and numerous NATM/SEM tunnels have been constructed in adverse ground conditions and low overburden.

The basic principle of NATM/SEM tunneling is to develop the maximum self-supporting capacity of the rock or soil by mobilizing the strength of the surrounding ground.

Tunnel excavation is carried out in increments (headings and rounds), which are supported by flashcrete (thin coat of fiber reinforced shotcrete) immediately after exposure, followed by the installation of the initial lining consisting of reinforced shotcrete as shown in Exhibit 5.5.2-1. The lining has a defined stiffness to allow controlled stress relaxation around the opening,

Exhibit 5.5.2-1 – Sequential Excavation with Installed Initial

Shotcrete Lining




which limits the section forces and moments and allows for a cost effective structural design.

In addition, various ground support, face support, pre-support and ground improvement measures are utilized to ensure the stability and safety of the tunneling operation and to minimize settlements at the surface. For extremely unfavorable ground conditions special methods like ground freezing, tunneling under compressed air, etc. have been developed and applied in the past.

During construction, the deformations in and above the tunnel structures are continuously recorded, monitored and interpreted to verify the design assumptions and assess the stability and the appropriateness of the applied excavation sequence and support elements. The interpretation of the monitoring data is fed back to the ongoing construction and adjustments can be made if necessary.

After completion of the excavation and initial support, the waterproofing system is installed (see Exhibit 5.5.2-2 and 5.5.2-3). The waterproofing system is sandwiched between the initial and final lining, consisting of a protective geotextile and a flexible PVC waterproofing membrane. A sectioning system (water barriers) and grout pipes are installed to facilitate remedial works if unexpected leaks occur.

The last step is the installation of the final lining, which is designed to withstand the portion of the ground loads transferred from the initial lining, hydrostatic loads and seismic loads according to the design criteria.




Exhibit 5.5.2-2 – Initial Shotcrete Lining and Poured Invert in a Cross-Passage Tunnel

[Beacon Hill Station, Seattle, WA, 2007]

Exhibit 5.5.2-3 – Installation of Waterproofing Membranes in an Underground

Station [Beacon Hill Station, Seattle, WA, 2007]




5.5.3 Cut-and-Cover Construction

Cut-and-cover construction involves construction of a box frame structure within a sloped or trench excavation that is subsequently backfilled. This method is economical for very shallow tunnels, however it is much more disruptive than tunneling due to the need for utility relocations, traffic routing and construction impacts such as noise, dust and disruption of operations. Temporary Decking can be placed over the cut following the excavation to reduce surface disruption.

Exhibit 5.5.3-1 – Double-box Structure Construction using Slurry Walls for

Support of the Excavation [DART, 1994]

The excavation support walls must be installed before excavation commences and supported as the excavation is deepened to avoid instability or settlement at the sides of the cut. Depending on the type of excavation support, either internal bracing or tiebacks need to be installed.

The following types of support walls are used for deep excavation:

Sheet pile walls can be driven up to approximately 60 ft and are sufficiently impermeable to facilitate excavation. Their installation is relatively straightforward and fast, however they cannot be used where obstructions or hard materials are present in the soil profile.

Soldier pile and lagging are feasible in material with sufficient stand-up time to allow some soil exposure prior to lagging placement. This method can cause difficulties during excavation in loose sands that tend to ravel or soft clays that squeeze. The system is not watertight and requires dewatering below the groundwater table.




Slurry walls are impermeable support systems which can be used in most ground conditions (see Exhibit 5.5.3-1). Construction involves the excavation of a narrow trench excavated to the desired depth, which is supported by means of a thixotropic fluid such as bentonite. Then, reinforcement cages are installed and tremie concrete is placed. Slurry walls provide a high wall stiffness and can be used as final structural support systems.

5.5.4 Doorframe Slab Method The doorframe slab method was developed especially for shallow tunnels, where mined tunnels are not economical but traditional cut-and-cover would be too disruptive.

Exhibit 5.5.4-1 – Cross Section and Excavation Sequence for Doorframe Slab Construction In the first stage, a concrete slab in combination with inclined piles at both sides is poured into an excavated trench, which forms the future tunnel roof. The surface is immediately restored after this construction step is completed. This construction sequence is shown in Exhibit 5.5.4-1 and 5.5.4-2.




Exhibit 5.5.4-2 – Sequential Installation of the Concrete Slab

[Taquatinga Tunnel, Brasilia, Brazil, 2000]

In the second, stage tunneling is carried out beneath the previously installed doorframe slab using sequential excavation methods such as NATM/SEM, with nearly zero surface settlements. The waterproofing and final lining installation is similar to an SEM / NATM tunnel. This construction sequence is shown in Exhibit 5.5.4-3.




Exhibit 5.5.4-3 – Tunnel Excavation Beneath Previously Installed and Backfilled Concrete Slab

5.5.5 Control of Settlements Control of settlements during the excavation and support works is key to avoid adverse impacts of tunneling at the surface. This is especially critical underneath active runways (see Exhibit 5.5.5-1).

Exhibit 5.5.5-1 – Tunnel Excavation Beneath Active Runway at Dulles Airport, Virginia

Depending on the construction method utilized, there are several ways to reduce settlements: For NATM/SEM Tunneling, these include

o Partial drift excavation with short ring closure, o Pre-support and face support, and o Ground modification techniques as described in Section 5.5.6.

For TBM Tunneling, these include

o Adjusting the pressure in the pressure chamber, o Adjusting the pressure of the annular grout, and perform additional

grouting through the segments if necessary, o Ground modification techniques as described in Section 5.5.6.

The magnitude of settlements due to the tunnel excavation for this project is anticipated to be in the order of 0.25-0.5 inches in sensitive areas where settlement reduction measures are taken




while 0.5-1.0 inches is anticipated elsewhere. Exhibit 5.5.5-2 shows the total anticipated settlement trough (blue) when two adjacent tunnels (yellow and orange) are sequentially excavated.

-0.800000

-0.700000

-0.600000

-0.500000

-0.400000

-0.300000

-0.200000

-0.100000

0.000000-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Exhibit 5.5.5-2 – Typical Settlement Trough for Two Tunnels

5.5.6 Ground Modification Methods

As a result of adverse soil and groundwater conditions along the alignment, some tunneling methods may require ground improvement to facilitate construction. Ground Modification is a process where the in-situ characteristics of soil, rock and groundwater are changed to a more favorable condition. Examples of ground modification include dewatering, grouting and ground freezing. Selection of the ground modification method depends on hydro geologic and environmental considerations as well as settlement tolerances and surface access.

5.5.6.1 Dewatering

The presence of groundwater is one of the primary concerns in soft ground tunneling. In addition, the affect of groundwater is a function of the selected excavation method. In an open-face excavation the impact of adverse groundwater conditions is greater since there is no face support.

ft

in




Well dewatering systems can be used to draw down the water table in soils ranging from sandy silts to coarse-grained sands and gravels.

A typical well point system design along a tunnel includes rows of well points, with all points being connected to a common pump at the surface. The well points are typically spaced regularly on the order of 3 to 12 feet apart depending on the grain size of the soil. The effectiveness of well points is limited to shallow tunnels because the suction lift limitation restricts the water drawdown to 12 to 20 feet.

Larger diameter deep wells with submersible pumps can also be used under favorable geologic conditions to generate a deeper and larger drawdown area than possible from a well point system. The installed well depth can be more than 100 feet.

Any dewatering operation needs to be monitored carefully, since the drawdown of the groundwater level results in a significant increase in the effective stress in the soil within the drawdown zone, which may result in consolidation settlement. Another issue to consider is the possibility that the groundwater might be contaminated and could require groundwater treatment.

5.5.6.2 Grouting

Grouting is used to strengthen a soil mass and/or reduce its permeability. Grouting technology can be broken down into four general applications:

• Permeation grouting that fills the voids in the soil with chemical and/or cement binders

• Jet grouting, which uses high-pressure jets to break up the soil and replace it with a mixture of soil and cement

• Compaction grouting, which displaces and densifies the soil by injection of a grout

• Fracture grouting, which involves injection of low-viscosity grout under high pressures to fracture the ground.

The essential parameter in the groutability of soil is the grain size distribution and the existence of voids; two types of grout are used:

• Cement based grouts in gravel and sand conditions, and

• Chemically based grouts in fine sands and silty soils.




5.5.6.3 Ground Freezing

Ground freezing converts the ground moisture into ice by extraction of the latent heat. The ice then binds the soil grains together, thereby raising the strength and lowering the permeability of the soil mass. Exhibit 5.5.6.3-1 shows how a frozen arch above the crown of a tunnel aids initial support during the subsequent tunnel excavation sequence.

Exhibit 5.5.6.3-1 – Schematic of Frozen Ground Arch

above Crown of Tunnel

Ground freezing is an excellent means of supporting water bearing soils and protecting adjacent existing structures. However, it complicates construction staging and scheduling, and the associated costs are substantial. Exhibit 5.5.6.3-2 shows the complex series of ports required to freeze the soil prior to excavation.

Exhibit 5.5.6.3-2 – Freezing of the Tunnel Perimeter prior to Tunnel Excavation

[Subway U2 Extension, Vienna, Austria, 2005]




5.6 PRE-SCREENING OF TUNNEL ALIGNMENT CORRIDORS

5.6.1 Introduction Exhibit 5.6.1-1 shows two (2) main alignment corridors from the planned People Mover Connector (PMC) Station to the future DART Love Field Station are discussed in this study; they are identified as Corridor “A” and Corridor “B’. Both alignments are approximately 4,000 feet long and cross under active runways, a combined sewer and Denton Drive, a four-lane road running parallel to the DART tracks and the future DART Love Field Station.

Between the start and end points, (the airport terminal and the future DART Love Field Station) alignments chosen were determined to be technically feasible while minimizing disruption to airport and DART operations during construction. Initially, at-grade, underground as well as aerial alignments were considered.

The system set-up assumes two terminal stations with a 40 - 45 ft wide center platform and twin directional guideway tunnels to connect the stations. The space requirements for the system described result in single-track tunnels of approximately 19 ft inner diameter, and stations with a clearance envelope of approximately (70 ft width and 22 ft height at 185 ft length).




Exhibit 5.6.1-1 – Tunnel Alignment Corridors

5.6.2 Tunnel Corridor – “A”

The Corridor “A” alignment shown in Exhibit 5.6.1-1, beginning at the airport terminal PMC Station, follows a western direction towards a compound of airport facilities and parking lots which are accessed by Love Field Drive. The alignment continues through the airport facilities parking lot and then follows Love Field Drive in a southwestern direction crossing Denton Drive and ending at the proposed PMC station under Wyman Street, or possibly under an existing parking lot immediately east of Denton Drive and north of the future DART Love Field Station.

This alignment crosses under a combined storm water / sewer line and both runways 18-36 and 13R-31L between the starting terminal PMC Station and the airport facilities compound.

5.6.2.1 Tunnel Corridor “A” – Shallow Profile Option A shallow tunnel alignment shown in Exhibit 5.6.2.2-1, which can be combined with an aerial alignment at the DART side, was investigated. Once the alignment is underground the maximum

DART LRT




overburden (soil cover above tunnel crown) will be approximately 25 ft, sufficient to clear the utility line and existing runways.

5.6.2.2 Tunnel Corridor “A” – Deep Profile Option This Option consists of a deep tunnel alignment shown in Exhibit 5.6.2.2-1, which starts at a cut-and-cover or mined station near the airport terminal, descends at a four percent grade to clear the existing combined sewer, and reaches the shale formation. The maximum overburden above the tunnel crown is approximately 60 ft, and the rock cover is in the range of 10 to 15 ft.

Exhibit 0.2-1 – Tunnel Corridor “A” – Shallow and Deep Profile Options




5.6.3 Tunnel Corridor “B”

The alignment for Corridor “B” shown in Exhibit 5.6.1-1 leaves the PMC Station at the airport terminal in a southwest direction and crosses perpendicular under runway 13R-31L, thereby minimizing the length of tunneling underneath the airfield. Once Denton Drive is reached, the alignment turns northwest and runs parallel with the DART alignment to the future DART Love Field Station. This station would be constructed underground or elevated, since the required space for an at-grade station is not available. The two portions from the terminal to Denton Drive and from there to the future DART Love Field Station are evenly split with each being approximately 2,000 ft long.

5.6.3.1 Tunnel Corridor “B” – Shallow Profile Option

A combined shallow tunnel / aerial alignment shown in Exhibit 5.6.3.2-1 would ascend to the surface as soon as the tunnel clears the airfield and continues to rise onto an aerial structure. The aerial structure crosses Denton Drive and runs between Denton Drive and the DART tracks until it reaches the location of the DART Love Field Station, where an elevated PMC Station is constructed above the future DART Love Field Station.

5.6.3.2 Tunnel Corridor “B” – Deep Profile Option A deep tunnel alignment shown in Exhibit 5.6.3.2-1 starts at a shallow cut-and-cover station near the airport terminal and quickly gains depth to reach the shale formation. The initial maximum descent of the alignment is currently set at a 4 percent grade. The steep descent allows the tunnel to clear the existing combined storm sewer and runway with sufficient depth. The tunnel will reach a maximum overburden of 70 ft and a rock cover of approximately 20 ft.




Exhibit 5.6.3.2-1 – Tunnel Corridor “B” – Shallow and Deep Profile Options

5.7 APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION METHODS

5.7.1 General

This section aims to identify the preferred construction methods for the tunnels and underground stations. The evaluation commences by the definition of three reaches for tunneling, and the two station areas for Corridor “A”.

• LOVE FIELD STATION, which is approximately 300 ft long, can be located either beneath or above parking lots / paved areas at the Southwest Airlines properties, or south-west of Denton Drive in a vacant area owned by Southwest Airlines.

• REACH I is approximately 1,400 ft long and runs from the future DART PMC station to the airfield; it crosses underneath or over several parking lots and passes existing Southwest Airlines buildings.

• REACH II is approximately 1,400 ft long and is located entirely underneath the airfield. The alignment passes under two runways, runway connector and a storm sewer until it reaches the terminal apron paving area.

• REACH III is approximately 600 ft long and runs from the airfield to the Terminal Station; it is located underneath the terminal apron paving area.

• TERMINAL STATION, which is approximately 300 ft long, can be located on either side of the baggage claim, or underneath the terminal building.




Exhibit 5.7.1-1 Definition of the Reaches

DART LRT




A pre-screening of technically feasible construction methods was performed and resulted in a range of options for each reach and station, which are presented in Exhibit 5.7.1-2.

Guideway

Stat

ion

at D

AR

T [3

00ft

]

Rea

ch I

[140

0ft]

Rea

ch II

[1

400f

t]

Rea

ch II

I [6

00ft

]

Stat

ion

at T

erm

inal

[3

00ft

]

Aerial

Cut & Cover

Doorframe Slab

NATM/SEM

TBM

Exhibit 5.7.1-2 – Range of Construction Options

The following Sections provide recommendations on tunnel and station construction methods, which should be considered for further study, and eventually final design. Advantages and disadvantages, as well as cost and schedule considerations, are described in each section.

5.7.2 Guideway Tunnel

5.7.2.1 Construction Method Options Reach I can be constructed using aerial, TBM, NATM/SEM, doorframe slab or cut-and-cover construction. Reach II has to be constructed using TBM or NATM/SEM to avoid impact to airport operations. For Reach III, the same construction methods as for Reach I apply with the exception of an aerial alignment. Schematic cross sections of each tunnel construction method are shown in Exhibit 5.7.2.1-1.




Cut & Cover NATM/SEM TBM

Exhibit 5.7.2.1-1 – Running Tunnel Construction Methods

Based on the geologic and hydrologic conditions, as well as the tunnel alignments described in Section 5.6.2, two (2) profile scenarios were identified. A summary of these options and the applicable construction methods is provided in Exhibit 5.7.2.1-2.

Guideway Tunnel

Rea

ch I

[140

0ft]

Rea

ch II

[1

400f

t]

Rea

ch

III

[600

ft]

Shallow Option

Aerial

Cut & Cover

NATM/SEM

Deep Option

Dual Design: NATM/SEM / TBM

Exhibit 5.7.2.1-2 – Guideway Tunnel Profile Options

The Shallow Option utilizes the alignment described in Section 5.6.2.1, and takes advantage of the fact that surface disruption is anticipated to play a minor role in Reach I, which runs mainly underneath or above parking lots, as well as in Reach III, where construction will occur for the re-configuration of the terminal building. Utilizing cut-and-cover or aerial construction for Reach I, and cut-and-cover construction for Reach III may have positive effects on cost and schedule. Since Reach II is too short to economically utilize a Tunnel Boring Machine, the NATM/SEM construction method is recommended. The most significant consideration for shallow construction is the potential settlement of the runways, as described in Section 5.5.5.




The length of the tunnel under the runways is approximately 500 feet. Within this distance the soil conditions could vary, and dewatering may be difficult in certain areas. Therefore, some in-tunnel dewatering measures could be necessary, which will increase the vertical soil stresses but is unlikely to contribute significantly to the overall settlements. Nevertheless, these conditions could be mitigated using the ground modification methods discussed in Section 5.5.6.

The construction of cut-and-cover beyond the runways may be subject to approvals, and shows more functional and less technical constraints. Disruption may lead to serious impacts in the operations and may need maintenance of traffic and utility relocations.

The Deep Option utilizes the alignment described in Section 5.6.2.2 to eliminate surface disruption and to take advantage of mining through rock once the tunnel reaches the shale at a greater depth. The twin tunnels slope sharply through the alluvial soils with the major portion being in shale and passing under the runways with a fairly thick shale cover. Using this configuration, the settlement of the runways could be minimized or eliminated. The deep alignment reduces the amount of ground improvement required and the risk of ground loss while crossing underneath the runways and the storm sewer.

For the longer mined tunnel in the deep option both NATM/SEM and TBM construction methods can be utilized, however, NATM/SEM is more flexible in terms of schedule and can be readily modified to address the varying ground conditions.

The use of NATM/SEM requires dewatering in the alluvial soils, similarly as described for the Shallow Option. However, the length of dewatering zones is short and water in the shale fractures could be channelized and removed. Water seeping in front of the tunneling equipment can be handled from within the tunnel. The shale shows soft conditions and can easily be excavated using hydraulic excavators. Due to the quick swelling of the Eagle Ford shale, an immediately installed shotcrete lining will be required.

If a TBM is used, it has to be designed to handle alluvial soils, shale and mixed face conditions. Utilizing slurry or earth pressure balancing TBM shields would be necessary to achieve face stability in the alluvial zones. In addition, an appropriate seal has to be designed to prevent water and ground to enter the work area between temporary liner and the tail of the shield. The Eagle Ford shale is expected to swell, therefore, precautions are necessary to prevent squeezing around the shield tail.




5.7.2.2 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages

The following table summarizes the main advantages/disadvantages of the two (2) profile options presented above.

Shallow Option Deep Option

Advantages • Greater schedule flexibility

• Greater availability of equipment and personnel

• Better geological conditions (shale)

• Lower surface settlement susceptibility

• Lower risk of ground loss while crossing runways/storm sewer

• Bid competition using dual design approach

Disadvantages • Less favorable geologic conditions (alluvium)

• Extended surface disruption

• Greater settlement susceptibility

• Requires ground improvement measures

• Enhanced risk of ground loss while crossing runways/storm sewer

• Steeper grades required (4 – 6%) to reach adequate cover

• Higher cost of construction




5.7.2.3 Schedule and Cost Considerations

In order to compare the various construction methods, an outline construction schedule shown in Exhibit 5.7.2.3-1 was developed for excavation, initial support and final lining of the Deep Option. Additional information and schedule information is provided in Section 12.0.

Exhibit 5.7.2.3-1 – Schedule Comparison of TBM and NATM/SEM Construction Methods

The schedule for the TBM driven tunnel is affected by the time required for mobilization and assembly of the machine. A tunneling advance rate of 27 ft/day was assumed, which leads to an approximate duration of four months for one tunnel drive. The machine subsequently needs to be reassembled and launched to drive the second tube, and will be demobilized afterwards. Invert concrete is poured after completion of each tunnel drive. The expected total duration of TBM construction is about 26 months.

NATM/SEM construction is characterized by shorter mobilization times, and an anticipated advance rate of 7 ft/day resulting in a tunneling duration of about 17 months. Two full crews will work 24 hours simultaneously on both tubes. After excavation and installation of the initial lining, a final lining will be installed. The total time required for tunneling including mobilization times and final lining installation is approximately 26 months.




5.7.3 Station Construction Methods

5.7.3.1 Construction Method Options

The stations will have approximately a 185 ft long, 40 - 45 ft wide platform with a height of 22ft. The two PMC Stations, on DART Love Field side as well as at the Love Field Terminal, can be constructed using one of the following methods, or a combination thereof:

• Aerial construction (DART side only)

• Cut-and-cover construction

• NATM/SEM tunneling

• Doorframe Slab Method

The selection of the appropriate construction method depends on the location and configuration of the station, as well as considerations pertaining to geology / hydrology and cost / schedule.

A Cut-and-cover station depicted in Exhibit 5.7.3.1-1 faces less technical but advanced functional constraints. Excavation and support can be performed easily using standard construction equipment, with several methods describe in Section 5.5.3.

Dewatering will be necessary but due to the shallow station location a ground water drawdown in the order of 10-15 ft will be sufficient. Generally advantageous is the higher schedule flexibility. Depending on the final location of the station, surface disruptions may lead to traffic impacts and require an appropriate rerouting design.

Exhibit 5.7.3.1-1 – Cut-and-Cover Station Cross Section




A mined NATM/SEM station is technically more challenging, due to its size, its shallow cover and the geologic conditions. Extensive ground improvement measures and an effective dewatering system will have to be applied. Where operational impacts are significant, or the station is located under existing buildings, the mined station option should be considered.

A sample cross-section of a mined PMC station is provided in Exhibit 5.7.3.1-2. A schematic excavation sequence for constructing the binocular NATM/SEM station is shown in Exhibit 5.7.3.1-3. Due to the geometric constraints, i.e. the width of the platform and the shallow tunnel alignment, a binocular configuration is required.

Exhibit 5.7.3.1-2 – Mined Station Cross Section

Exhibit 5.7.3.1-3 – Excavation Sequence for Constructing a Binocular Mined NATM/SEM

Station




Where cut and cover is generally feasible, but the time of opening the surface needs to be minimized, the Doorframe Slab Method, as described in Section 0 and shown in Exhibit 5.7.3.1-4 is a good option. The station at the Love Field Terminal side would benefit from this option because operational impacts could be mitigated.

Exhibit 5.7.3.1-4 – Doorframe Slab Station Cross Section

5.7.3.2 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages

Cost and schedule effects must be balanced against surface disruption and risk. Advantages and disadvantages of the mined station schemes currently under consideration are summarized below.

Advantages Disadvantages

Cut-and-Cover • Greater schedule flexibility

• Construction easily accessible

• Extended surface disruption

• Potential utility interference and possible relocations

NATM/SEM • Construction underneath existing buildings

• Allows construction under existing DART/Terminal facilities

• Requires ground improvement measures and pre-support

• Greater risk of ground loss

• Greater construction complexity

• Sequential construction, less schedule flexibility

Doorframe Slab Method • Minimal surface disruption • Greater construction complexity

• Utility interference

• Sequential construction, less schedule flexibility




5.8 PROCUREMENT

5.8.1 Contracting Strategy – Design For the Shallow Option, the Dual Design Approach is recommended. This approach is based on the fact that for tunnels shorter than 1-1.5 miles, NATM/SEM tunneling is usually more cost effective and faster. For longer tunnels, TBMs become more favorable. There is a “grey zone” where both NATM/SEM and TBM tunneling are competitive construction methods.

The total length of tunneling for Corridor A is roughly 1.3 miles. This places the construction in the “grey zone” (see exhibit 5.8.1-1) where both NATM/SEM and TBM should be equally cost effective. Therefore, both construction methods should be designed and bid.

Practice has shown that the additional design costs are by far compensated by the increased competition as well as the much stronger identification of the Contractor with his chosen method. Dual Design also provides opportunities for contractors specializing in a specific method of tunneling to present the efficiencies and economics of the technology to this project.

Dual design creates a situation where not only contractors but also different technologies compete to assure the most cost effective solution is utilized. Other factors, such as availability of equipment, manpower and logistics, may also have a positive effect on overall project costs.

5.8.2 Contracting Strategy – Contractor Qualifications

For tunnel construction in challenging geologic conditions, with low overburden and with sensitive areas above the tunnels, it is imperative that the Contractor employ qualified and experienced tunnel engineers, superintendents, shotcrete nozzlemen and operators on site. The Owner has several options of ensuring this, including:

• A two-stage procurement process which includes Contractor prequalification. The Contractor has to demonstrate his experience and show adequate levels of staffing to

Exhibit 5.8.1-1 – Cost Comparison of TBM and NATM/SEM Tunnel Construction




fulfill the requirements of the project. In addition, criteria such as integrity, financial condition and the safety record can be included in the evaluation criteria.

• A one-stage procurement process, where the Contract Specifications stipulate the minimum experience and number of qualified staff on site.

While pre-qualification can be a useful tool to prevent unreliable bidders from being awarded projects that prove to difficult for them to handle, the downside is that it can limit the number of bidders; in today’s market conditions, this could drive up the bid prices. In addition, experience shows that even for pre-qualified Contractors, it is still necessary to include experience provisions in the Contract Specifications to ensure the Contractor delivers the required equipment and personnel to the project site.


Lea+Elliott, Inc. A5-1 July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


SECTION 5.0 APPENDIX DRAWING LIST:

Drawing name Page

Site Plan A5 – 2

Plan Geotechnical Information – Boring Locations A5 – 3

Plan Utility Information A5 – 4

Plan Utility Information – Gas and Fuel A5 – 5

Generalized Geotechnical Profile Corridor “A” A5 – 6

Generalized Geotechnical Profile Corridor “B” A5 – 7

Plan and Longitudinal Section Corridor “A” – Shallow Option A5 – 8

Plan and Longitudinal Section Corridor “A” – Deep Option A5 – 9

Plan and Longitudinal Section Corridor “B” – Shallow Option A5 – 10

Plan and Longitudinal Section Corridor “B” – Deep Option A5 – 11

Plan Cut-and-Cover Station Configuration at DART – Corridor “A” A5 – 12

Plan Cut-and-Cover Station Configuration at Terminal – Corridor “A” A5 – 13

Plan Mined Station Configuration at DART – Corridor “A” A5 – 14

Plan Mined Station Configuration at Terminal – Corridor “A” A5 – 15

July 10, 2008



6.0 System Performance Requirements

6.0 System Perform

anceR

equirements

6.0 System Perform

anceR

equirements




REPORT OUTLINE








6.0 System Performance Requirements L+E 10-JUL-08












TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.0 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ....................................................... 6-1

6.1 FUNCTIONS TO BE SERVED....................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Rail Passengers..................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.2 Other Airport Activity Centers.............................................................. 6-2

6.2 RIDERSHIP REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS......................................... 6-2 6.2.1 Employees Using Rail .......................................................................... 6-2

6.2.2 Air Travelers ........................................................................................ 6-3 6.2.3 Southwest Airlines Employee Shuttle ................................................... 6-3

6.2.4 Other Airport Functions........................................................................ 6-4 6.2.5 Total Ridership Demand....................................................................... 6-4

6.3 TRIP AND TRAVEL TIMES .......................................................................... 6-4 6.3.1 Travel Time.......................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.2 Trip Time ............................................................................................. 6-5 6.3.3 Frequency of Service (Headway) .......................................................... 6-5

6.3.4 Maximum Wait Time ........................................................................... 6-5 6.3.5 Average Wait Time .............................................................................. 6-5

6.4 CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 6-6 6.4.1 Passenger Space Allocation .................................................................. 6-6

6.4.2 Number of Standing vs. Seated Passengers ........................................... 6-7 6.4.3 Baggage Carts ...................................................................................... 6-7

6.4.4 Vehicle/Train Capacity......................................................................... 6-9

6.4.5 Line Capacity ....................................................................................... 6-9

6.5 PROPERTY AVAILABILITY ........................................................................ 6-9 6.6 FUTURE SYSTEM EXPANSION................................................................. 6-10




6.0 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The primary functional requirement of the proposed People Mover Connector (PMC) is to provide a seamless connection between the DART Love Field LRT station and the main terminal building at Dallas Love Field for airport passengers and employees. This portion of the report defines the system performance requirements for the PMC. These system requirements describe the acceptable passenger service levels. The level of service provided to users of the PMC can be categorized into two primary components: 1) Performance level of service factors and 2) Perception level of service factors. Performance level of service factors for the most part can be quantified. However, perception level of service factors are not as readily quantifiable, but are more qualitative in nature.

Performance level of service factors include:

• Ridership • Trip and travel times

o Maximum trip time o Overall travel time o Maximum wait time o Average wait time o Frequency of Service (Headway)

• Capacity Perception level of service factors include:

• The degree to which users of the system perceive that the service provided is a “seamless integration” of the DART LRT component of their overall trip and the PMC component of their overall trip.

• The perception that users of the system have as to the PMC being the public entrance to the airport.

• The overall image that the PMC conveys to the general public.

The primary focus of this section is on the performance level of service factors, as these factors to a great degree shape the perception level of service factors experienced by the users.

6.1 FUNCTIONS TO BE SERVED

As indicated above, the primary functional requirement of the proposed PMC is to provide a seamless connection between the DART Love Field LRT station and the main terminal building




at Dallas Love Field for airport passengers and employees, as well as Southwest Airlines headquarters employees.

6.1.1 Rail Passengers Air travelers and employees coming to/from Love Field can utilize the DART LRT network to arrive by rail at the DART Love Field LRT station. These passengers would then transfer up to and or down (depending on the configuration of the alternative) to the Love Field PMC station at DART to ride the PMC to the Love Field main terminal. This connection would provide airport patrons and employees with a public transportation option in addition to DART buses and an alternate means of transportation to an automobile.

6.1.2 Other Airport Activity Centers The property adjacent to the DART ROW and the PMC station could be utilized for future airport activity centers which could connect to the end of the PMC station.

6.2 RIDERSHIP REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS The total ridership for the PMC is comprised of four groups. These groups include employees utilizing DART as a means to reach their place of employment at Love Field, air passengers, Southwest Airlines employees and other airport functions.

6.2.1 Employees Using Rail

The DART Planning Department assisted the feasibility team with the development of a baseline ridership number for the DAL PMC. Using the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) regional ridership model, DART was able to determine the employment population centers that would best be served by a PMC link between the DART Love Field LRT station and the Love Field terminal building.

Demand: 418 Daily Riders (2030)




6.2.2 Air Travelers

The DART Planning Department did not use the ridership model to generate ridership numbers for special generators such as air travelers. Since this is the case, the potential air travelers who would use the PMC were calculated based on a mode-share of enplaning passengers.

Rail mode share at U.S. Airports ranges from 0.6% to 13.8% based on data from TCRP Report 62. Examples include: Reagan Washington National: 13.8%, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta: 7.9%, Chicago Midway: 7.7%, Chicago O’Hare: 3.9%, Lambert-St. Louis: 3.3%, Cleveland Hopkins: 2.8%, Philadelphia: 2.0%, and Baltimore/Washington: 0.6%. The potential mode share for Dallas Love Field in 2030 will depend on many variables including the maturity of the regional rail system, the level of congestion on areas roadways and resulting driving times, the cost of fuel and other driving costs, and restrictions on private auto use such as air quality. The rail network shown in the NCTCOG Mobility 2030 plan illustrates a mature system by 2030. Based on a review of comparable airports and their corresponding rail networks, it was recommended that a rail mode share of 3.5% be used for planning purposes.

The enplanement data was developed from the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for the next 20 years. A sensitivity analysis was performed to convert the annual enplanement data into a daily enplanement number to calculate potential air traveler ridership.

Demand: 1,230 Daily Riders (2030)

6.2.3 Southwest Airlines Employee Shuttle

Southwest Airlines currently operates a single shuttle bus to carry employees from the Southwest Airlines Campus to the Love Field Terminal Building. The shuttle bus makes two trips an hour between the campus and terminal building and has a capacity of 25 passengers. Based on this capacity and assuming that the shuttle operates an average of 10 hours per day, this equates to a capacity of 500 daily passengers. This information is consistent with the estimate developed by DART in their report entitled: “Dallas Love Field Transit Service Options Study” dated July 2007. This capacity number was used as a potential ridership demand.

Demand: 500 Daily Riders (Current Capacity)




6.2.4 Other Airport Functions

Other airport functions could arise in the future that could potentially increase the PMC ridership. Due to the 30-50 year design life of the PMC, prudent planning must be utilized to ensure that increased PMC ridership from other airport functions can be accommodated. Based on experience with service to similar functions at other airports, a demand of 5,000 riders per day is recommended.

Demand: 5,000 Daily Riders (2030)

6.2.5 Total Ridership Demand The sum of these elements of ridership equates to a total ridership demand potential to be used for planning and comparison of alternatives.

Total Demand Potential: 7,150 Daily Riders (2030)

6.3 TRIP AND TRAVEL TIMES Trip time, travel time and wait time are different measurements of time related to a passenger’s journey. They are used to measure and quantify the level of service provided to the passenger. These terms are described in the subsections below.

6.3.1 Travel Time

The travel time is the actual duration of the trip on the PMC, from the time the automatic vehicle doors close to the time these doors open at the other station platform. For the PMC, it is recommended that a maximum trip time be no greater than 5 minutes during normal service.




6.3.2 Trip Time

A key performance requirement is the overall trip time. The trip time is defined as the total time it takes for a passenger (traveling to the airport) to arrive at the DART PMC station platform, wait for the next PMC train, board and ride to the airport terminal, deboard and walk to either the check-in counters (for passengers needing to purchase tickets, check-in bags and/or print out a boarding pass) or the security queue (for passengers without checked luggage and with a boarding pass).

As noted, trip time includes the travel time component on the PMC. The PMC station at the terminal should have minimal level changes and close proximity to the functions listed above to provide for the shortest trip time.

6.3.3 Frequency of Service (Headway)

The frequency of service, or headway, determines how many trains are available to move passengers over a given period of time. Headway is the time between successive arrivals of trains. For the PMC, it is recommended that the headway be no greater than 5 minutes during normal service. This time represents a high level of service for airport landside transportation.

6.3.4 Maximum Wait Time

The maximum wait time is the maximum time that a passenger would wait on the station platform before the arrival of the next available vehicle and the vehicle and station platform doors begin opening. This maximum wait time occurs when a passenger arrives at the station platform just as the doorways close before he can board a departing train. This passenger will have to wait a full headway of the system until the arrival of the next train at the station platform. For the PMC, it is recommended that the maximum wait time be no greater than 5 minutes during normal service.

6.3.5 Average Wait Time Assuming a uniform arrival distribution of passengers over the course of the headway, the average wait time is one-half of the system headway. An approximately equal number of passengers arrive at the station platform and have a greater than average wait time as the number of passengers arriving at the station platform with a less than average wait time. For the PMC, it




is recommended that the average wait time be no greater than two and a half minutes during normal service.

6.4 CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS The capacity of an APM system is determined by several factors. These factors are described in the following subsections.

6.4.1 Passenger Space Allocation Passenger Space Allocation refers to how much vehicle floor space is allocated for each passenger. Floor space is allocated differently for seated and standing passengers. An airport passenger requires more floor space in the vehicle versus a commuter on an urban transit system due to the fact that they have luggage. Vehicle floor space allocations used elsewhere on other systems is presented below.

A. Average Standee Allocations - 4.0 square feet of vehicle floor area for each standing passenger.

B. Seated Passenger Allocations - 4.5 square feet of vehicle floor area for each seated passenger.

C. Wheelchair Allocations - For a passenger in a wheelchair: 10.0 square feet (30 inches by 48 inches of vehicle floor area).

D. Standee with luggage – 6.7 square feet of vehicle floor area for each passenger with luggage.

E. Baggage Carts – 10.0 square feet of vehicle floor area for each baggage cart (see Section 6.4.3 for further discussion of baggage carts).

For planning purposes an average square footage per passenger of 5.0 square feet was used to determine the operational capacities of the DAL PMC.




6.4.2 Number of Standing vs. Seated Passengers

The current DART LRT vehicles that will bring passengers to and from the future PMC station incorporate seating for a significant portion of its floor area, resulting in a significant percentage of seated passengers within its total capacity. The trip time between the DART Love Field LRT station platform and the Love Field terminal station platform would be relatively short as compared to most of the trip times of those passengers coming to the airport on the DART LRT. Decisions will need to be made regarding the number of seats required on board the PMC vehicles. As seated passengers occupy a larger footprint than standing passengers, increasing the number of seats provided reduces the available capacity of the vehicles.

Whereas DART LRT vehicles typically have both forward-facing and rear-facing seats in their seating configuration, this configuration is uncommon for APM technologies, except at the ends of the vehicles (for some technologies). A more common seating configuration is either perimeter seating or partial perimeter seating (most common). How many seats to provide (if any) and what type of seating configuration to provide must be considered in conjunction with the decision on whether or not to allow baggage carts on-board the vehicles (see Section 6.4.3 for further discussion of baggage carts).

Given the points discussed above, in the context of this report, it is suggested that considerations be limited at this time to options ranging from minimal (partial) perimeter seating to at most, full perimeter seating.

6.4.3 Baggage Carts

The decision will need to be made as to whether or not baggage carts will be permitted on board the vehicles. This decision will impact the perceived comfort/convenience and ease-of-use of the PMC by the users. From a level of service perspective, there are two ways to look at permitting baggage carts on board the vehicles:

1) Pros: Baggage carts can assist people that are carrying checked bags (as opposed to

carry-on baggage only). Baggage carts also alleviate the physical burden of carrying the checked bags as well as allowing passengers to transport and maintain control of a greater number of checked bags than they can without a cart.




2) Cons: a. Baggage carts occupy a relatively large footprint and permitting baggage carts on

board the vehicles would greatly reduce the vehicle’s carrying capacity. Depending upon the relative mix of people with checked baggage vs. carry-on baggage only, permitting baggage carts on board the vehicles might increase the number of cars (and associated longer station platform length) required to transport the required passenger capacity. This could increase both the fixed facility and system capital costs, as well as O&M costs (due to the larger fleet size).

b. Utilization of baggage carts can also increase the required dwell times at stations, as it takes more time to maneuver these carts on and off the vehicles.

c. Baggage carts can present obstacles which prevent easy unobstructed circulation

on board the vehicles as well as during the boarding and deboarding process.

d. Sometimes baggage cart wheels can get caught in the horizontal gap between the vehicles and the station platform edges. This presents a significant obstacle for other boarding or deboarding passengers and can potentially delay the closing of the doors and continuous operation of the system.

e. If baggage carts are not equipped with brakes, they can roll unintentionally within

a vehicle, presenting a potential safety hazard for adjacent passengers. In an “emergency stop” scenario, this could potentially present an even greater danger to passengers on board the vehicles (even with brakes).

f. Since this system travels outside the confines of the airport property, it is likely that baggage carts would end up at the DART LRT platform, the DART tracks, DART trains or even the surrounding neighborhood. This would result in property loss or damage and likely lead to higher costs for the cart utilization.

For the planning purposes, baggage carts are assumed to be allowed on the PMC. The space allocation required for these carts is accounted for in the 5.0 square feet per passenger space allocation.




6.4.4 Vehicle/Train Capacity

Using the 5.0 square feet per passenger space allocation recommended above, the vehicle capacity can be determined. A vehicle’s capacity is the total number of seated passengers plus the total number of standing passengers calculated using the factors determined in the previous sections. If the train consists of more than one vehicle, the train’s total capacity is the capacity of a single vehicle multiplied by the number of vehicles.

6.4.5 Line Capacity Using the headway and the train capacity, the total number of passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) can be determined. Further refinement of the system headway and line capacity is discussed in Section 9.0 of this report.

6.5 PROPERTY AVAILABILITY

The availability of the properties along the Right-of-Way (ROW) of the PMC may influence the decision as to where to locate the stations and the associated guideway alignment, which in turn will be a key determinant in the performance of the system. Property availability encompasses two primary components, the legal aspects and the associated physical issues associated with some of these legal aspects. With regard to the legal aspects, whether or not properties may need to be acquired or whether ROW easements may need to be negotiated and obtained may have significant impacts on cost and schedule. Legal ownership by any of the key stakeholders, i.e., the City of Dallas (Love Field), DART, or Southwest Airlines might facilitate the process and streamline the potential schedule impacts and minimize any associated costs.

Associated physical issues involved in property availability might occur if the PMC station in the DART Love Field station vicinity and associated ROW leading to the airport’s terminal area might require tunneling below existing structures. These issues could include settlement of existing structures or a significantly increased depth of tunnel required under these existing structures so as to minimize the risk of any potential foundation/superstructure settlement of buildings located above the system. Potential litigation associated with any of these types of problems also has the potential to impact project costs and schedule.




6.6 FUTURE SYSTEM EXPANSION

The planned operating mode for the PMC between the DART Love Field LRT station and the DAL main terminal is a dual-lane shuttle. Prudent planning provides the ability to expand the PMC through the addition of vehicles to the trains as an increase in ridership warrants. The total demand potential ridership discussed in Section 6.2.5 provides a planning number to use for the sizing of the ultimate PMC System. This value can be used to calculate the total number of trains that would be required in the ultimate configuration as well as the ultimate length of the station platforms and power consumption for and expanded system. Refer to Section 7.8.1.8 for further discussion on system expandability.



7.0 System Alternatives 7.0 System Alternatives

7.0 System Alternatives




REPORT OUTLINE









7.0 System Alternatives L+E 10-JUL-08











TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.0 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 SITE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 7-1 7.3 POTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS ........................................................... 7-2

7.3.1 DART Love Field PMC Station Location Options ................................ 7-2 7.3.1.1 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2 (DLFSO2) ............. 7-3

7.3.1.2 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2A (DLFSO2A)........ 7-3 7.3.1.3 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2B (DLFSO2B) ........ 7-4

7.3.1.4 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2C (DLFSO2C) ........ 7-4 7.3.1.5 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 5 (DLFSO5) ............. 7-4

7.3.1.6 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 5A (DLFSO5A)........ 7-5 7.3.1.7 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 5B (DLFSO5B) ........ 7-5

7.3.1.8 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 6 (DLFSO6) ............. 7-5 7.3.2 DAL Terminal Building PMC Station Location Options....................... 7-6

7.3.2.1 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1A (TSO1A).................. 7-6 7.3.2.2 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1B (TSO1B) .................. 7-7

7.3.2.3 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1C (TSO1C) .................. 7-7 7.3.2.4 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 2 (TSO2) ....................... 7-7

7.3.2.5 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 2A (TSO2A).................. 7-8 7.3.2.6 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 4 (TSO4) ....................... 7-8

7.3.2.7 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 4A (TSO4A).................. 7-8

7.3.2.8 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 5 (TSO5) ....................... 7-9

7.3.2.9 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 5A (TSO5A).................. 7-9 7.3.2.10 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 5B (TSO5B) .................. 7-9

7.4 POTENTIAL ROUTING ALIGNMENTS..................................................... 7-10 7.5 OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES ................................................................... 7-10

7.6 SUPPORT FACILITY LOCATIONS ............................................................ 7-10 7.6.1 Maintenance and Storage Facility ....................................................... 7-10

7.6.2 Central Control Facility ...................................................................... 7-11


Lea+Elliott, Inc. iii July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


7.6.3 Power Distribution Substations........................................................... 7-11 7.6.4 Equipment Rooms .............................................................................. 7-11

7.7 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND REQUIREMENTS ................................. 7-11 7.8 EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES....................... 7-13

7.8.1 Qualitative Evaluation of APM Station Concepts (Weighted) ............. 7-13 7.8.1.1 Perception Level of Service Factors ..................................... 7-13

7.8.1.2 Performance Level of Service of Factors.............................. 7-13 7.8.1.3 Accommodation of PMC Support Facilities ......................... 7-14

7.8.1.4 Relative Cost........................................................................ 7-15 7.8.1.5 Ease of Construction ............................................................ 7-15

7.8.1.6 Operational Impacts ............................................................. 7-15 7.8.1.7 Phasing and Scheduling ....................................................... 7-15

7.8.1.8 Expandability....................................................................... 7-16 7.8.1.9 Right-of-Way Acquisition.................................................... 7-16

7.8.2 Alternative Evaluation........................................................................ 7-16 7.9 SHORT-LIST OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS............ 7-18




7.0 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

7.1 INTRODUCTION The connection of Dallas Love Field to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Love Field LRT station will offer patrons of the airport an alternative means to access the terminal building and its ancillary facilities. The level of service for this new transportation connection needs to resemble what typically is experienced by the air traveling public at airports throughout the world.

The design of the system must not only take into consideration the means by which to connect these two locations but also must appear seamless to the passenger utilizing it. The DART Love Field people mover connector (PMC) station is a “new entrance” to Love Field and should therefore represent what the traveling passenger would expect when entering the terminal building at Love Field. The patrons of the people mover system should not only have a sense of arrival at Love Field but should feel secure in their surroundings at the people mover stations and on the system itself.

7.2 SITE REVIEW

To provide the highest level of service for the PMC, a direct route between the two sites is suggested. This will require the portion of the system alignment which traverses the airfield to be in an underground configuration. The optimal alignment of the PMC will contain the shortest allowable tunnel section without impacting the daily operation of the airport.

An at-grade solution was considered at the onset of the feasibility study. The route that was considered paralleled runway 13R/31L along Denton Drive towards Mockingbird Lane and then proceeded into Love Field on Cedar Springs Road. This alignment was not further developed as it was determined that this alignment would infringe on the airfield clearances. Further, the route would be significantly longer and have the perception of indirect service to the Love Field Terminal Building. The goal of the study was to provide a seamless, high level of service connection for air passengers and employees between the DART Love Field LRT Station and the Love Field Terminal Building.




7.3 POTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS

As mentioned above, the PMC station locations should provide a seamless connection to the passengers who will use the system. With the construction of the DART Love Field LRT station already underway, the DART PMC station must be planned to minimize disruption to the operation of DART during its construction. In addition, it must provide the airport passenger with a short travel time between the DART and Love Field stations.

A minimal amount of space has been set aside for the future people mover connection on the DART site. Within this area, all of the necessary provisions for access to the PMC must be provided. Conveyance equipment, such as escalators, elevators and stairs, as well as ventilation fans (required for a below-grade station) will be required for passengers to move between the LRT and PMC stations.

The DART Love Field LRT station is bounded by Burbank Street to the east, Wyman Street to the west and Denton Drive to the north. The initial planning by DART set aside a 25’x75’ rectangular area adjacent to Denton Drive for the connection of the PMC. Subsequent meetings with DART have determined that a connection at the west end of the station platform may also be possible.

The terminal concepts developed as part of the Love Field Modernization Program will play a big part in determining the ideal location for the PMC station at the main terminal. The future operation and configuration of the airport facility in whole (roadways, terminal building, parking structures, security, etc) will assist in the programming of the PMC in the next phase. The ideal location for the PMC is where the most seamless connection can exist.

From an image standpoint, the PMC will be a part of the Love Field Brand.

7.3.1 DART Love Field PMC Station Location Options At a design workshop, six potential PMC station concepts at the DART LRT end of the alignment were developed. From these six concepts, three were identified for further study - DART Love Field PMC Station Concepts 2, 5 and 6. From these three station concepts, numerous station options were studied at a more detailed level.

During the October 19, 2007 progress meeting with representatives of the Aviation and Public Works and Transportation departments, seven PMC station options were identified to carry




forward for further development. An additional option (DLFSO2C) was added to this group after the October 19, 2007 progress meeting. These eight station options are described in the following subsections.

7.3.1.1 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2 (DLFSO2)

The first DART PMC station option is located to the northeast of the DART LRT station under the parking lot adjacent to the Southwest Airlines flight simulator building. This station would remain in an underground configuration, parallel to Seelcco Street and Burbank Street with a pedestrian tunnel crossing beneath Denton Drive and turning westerly to a bank of escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the DART station platform above. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.1 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.

7.3.1.2 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2A (DLFSO2A)

The second DART PMC station option is located to the northeast of the DART station partially under Denton Drive and the Southwest Airlines flight simulator building. This station would remain in an underground configuration, turned easterly towards the Love Field Terminal Building to shorten the guideway length and eliminate a guideway curve. It would have a pedestrian tunnel crossing beneath Denton Drive and turning westerly to a bank of escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the DART station platform above. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.2 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.




7.3.1.3 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2B (DLFSO2B)

The third DART PMC station option is located to the north of the DART station underneath Seelcco Street. This station would remain in an underground configuration, parallel to Seelcco Street with a pedestrian tunnel crossing beneath Denton Drive to a bank of escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the DART station platform above. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.3 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.

7.3.1.4 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2C (DLFSO2C)

The fourth DART PMC station option involves the PMC transitioning from a tunnel to at-grade once outside of the airfield area and continuing to an elevated condition above the parking lot adjacent to the Southwest Airlines flight simulator building to provide for an aerial crossing of Denton Drive. The PMC platform would be located over Denton Drive and the station lobby would then continue over the DART tracks to escalators, elevators and stairs connecting to the DART Love Field LRT station below. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.4 for a plan and

profile drawing of this option.


The fifth DART PMC station option involves the PMC transitioning from a tunnel to at-grade once outside of the airfield area and continuing to an elevated condition above the Southwest Airlines parking lot adjacent to Wyman Street. The entire PMC station would be on Southwest Airlines property for this option. Passengers would travel across Denton Drive via a sky bridge to elevators, escalators and stairs at the northwest end of the DART platform to make the level change between the two stations. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.5 for a plan and profile drawing of

this option.




7.3.1.6 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 5A (DLFSO5A)

The sixth DART PMC station option follows the same alignment as DLFSO5 except that it remains entirely in a tunnel terminating beneath the Southwest Airlines parking lot adjacent to Wyman Street. The entire PMC station would be beneath Southwest Airlines property for this option. Passengers would travel under Denton Drive via a pedestrian tunnel to elevators, escalators and stairs at the northwest end of the DART platform to make the level change between the two stations. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.6 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.

7.3.1.7 DART Love Field PMC Station Option 5B (DLFSO5B)

The seventh DART PMC station option is similar to DLFSO5A except that the station is turned easterly towards the Love Field Terminal Building to shorten the guideway length and eliminate a curve. This option remains entirely in a tunnel terminating beneath the Southwest Airlines parking lot adjacent to Wyman Street. The entire PMC station would be beneath Southwest Airlines property for this option. Passengers would travel under Denton Drive via a pedestrian tunnel to elevators, escalators and stairs at the northwest end of the DART platform to make the

level change between the two stations. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.7 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.


The eighth DART PMC station option is located southwest of the DART station. The alignment would travel beneath Seelcco Street crossing underneath Denton Drive, turn westerly and remain in an underground configuration, parallel to and southwest of the DART LRT platform. A pedestrian tunnel would cross beneath each DART LRT track to escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the DART station platforms above. See Exhibit A.7.3.1.8 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.




7.3.2 DAL Terminal Building PMC Station Location Options

The PMC station at the Dallas Love Field Terminal Building should be located so that it provides convenient access to the components of the airport such as ticketing, baggage claim and security processing. Construction of this facility must also be considered when determining a location. The daily operation of the airport takes priority over construction. The ideal location of the PMC station would be in the core of the terminal building so that departing passengers would be able to exit from the PMC and immediately proceed to any of these functions within a minimal walking distance. In addition, the selected station location should provide intuitive wayfinding for those arriving passengers with and without checked luggage.

At a design workshop, five potential PMC station concepts at the Dallas Love Field Terminal Building were developed. From these five concepts, four were identified for further study - Dallas Love Field Terminal Building PMC Station Concepts 1, 2, 4 and 5. From these four station concepts, numerous station options were studied at a more detailed level.

During the October 19, 2007 progress meeting with representatives of the Aviation and Public Works and Transportation departments, nine PMC station options were identified to carry forward for further development. During a November 15, 2007 design charrette with representatives of the Aviation and Public Works and Transportation an additional terminal station concept (TSO1C) was developed. These ten station options are described in the following subsections.

7.3.2.1 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1A (TSO1A)

The first Love Field PMC station option is located airside, on the west side of the future main terminal building which is part of the airport modernization project. This station location would terminate under the apron directly to the west and outside the limits of the future central hall. The station would remain in an underground configuration with a pedestrian tunnel continuing underneath the main terminal building and connecting to escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the concourse level of the

central hall above. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.1 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.




7.3.2.2 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1B (TSO1B)

The second Love Field PMC station option is identical to TSO1A except that it does not have the pedestrian tunnel connecting to the center of the central hall. It is located airside, on the west side of the future main terminal building which is part of the airport modernization project. This station location would terminate under the apron directly to the west and outside the limits of the future central hall. The station would remain in an underground configuration with escalators, elevators and

stairs connected to the concourse level west wall of the central hall. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.2 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.

7.3.2.3 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1C (TSO1C)

The third Love Field PMC station option is similar to TSO1B except that it is rotated to align parallel and directly behind the baggage claim hall of the future main terminal building which is part of the airport modernization project. This station location is airside and would remain in an underground configuration with escalators, elevators and stairs connected to the concourse level west wall of the central hall. In addition, an additional set of escalators, elevators and stairs could connect directly to the

baggage claim hall. Dual access to baggage claim and the central hall would assist with passenger wayfinding. A passenger claiming checked luggage would not be required to back track to access the PMC station. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.3 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.

7.3.2.4 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 2 (TSO2)

The fourth terminal station option would have the PMC remaining in an underground condition with the station being located at the end of the baggage claim facility. Meeters and greeters could make an immediate level change to the baggage claim area, whereas traveling passengers would utilize a pedestrian tunnel to the core of the terminal building where they would use escalators, elevators and stairs to access security, ticketing and check-in facilities. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.4 for a plan

and profile drawing of this option.





The fifth terminal station option would have the PMC remaining in an underground condition with the station being located at the end of the baggage claim facility. In this option, the station is rotated westerly towards the DART Love Field LRT station to eliminate a curve in the guideway alignment. All passengers would use escalators, elevators and stairs to make an immediate level change to the baggage claim area. Traveling passengers would walk through the baggage claim hall to reach the core of

the terminal building where they would access security, ticketing and check-in facilities. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.5 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.


The sixth Love Field PMC station option is located airside, on the north side of the future central hall. In this option, the guideway alignment approaches the main terminal building parallel and to the west of the baggage claim hall then turns easterly, terminating under the apron directly to the north of the future central hall. The station would remain in an underground configuration with two pedestrian tunnels from each end of the platform continuing underneath the main terminal building and

connecting to escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the concourse level of the central hall above. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.6 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.


The seventh Love Field PMC station option is located airside, on the north side of the future central hall. This option is very similar to TSO4 except that the station is rotated westerly to align towards the DART Love Field LRT station eliminating a curve in the guideway alignment. In addition, the station is shifted west eliminating one pedestrian tunnel and its associated vertical circulation. The station would remain in an underground configuration with one pedestrian tunnel from the east end of the

platform continuing underneath the main terminal building and connecting to escalators,




elevators and stairs to reach the concourse level of the central hall above. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.7 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.


The eighth terminal station option is on the landside of the terminal building in the vicinity of the lower level roadway and adjacent to the first bay of parking garage “A”. The PMC would travel underground across the airfield and terminate at a station located under the lower level roadway. Passengers would then exit the station platform and proceed through an underground pedestrian tunnel to escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the concourse level of the central hall above. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.8

for a plan and profile drawing of this option.


The ninth terminal station option is very similar to TSO5 except that the station is shifted southeasterly into the first bay of parking garage “A.” It would travel under the airfield and lower level roadway and terminate at a station located on the landside of the terminal building. Passengers would then exit the station platform and proceed through an underground pedestrian tunnel to escalators, elevators and stairs to reach the concourse level of the central hall above. This option could be either an underground or at-grade open air station, such as the DART

Mockingbird Lane LRT station. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.9 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.

7.3.2.10 DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 5B (TSO5B)

The tenth terminal station option is very similar to TSO5 except that the station is rotated westerly to align towards the DART Love Field LRT station eliminating a curve in the guideway alignment. The PMC would travel underground across the airfield and terminate at a station located on the landside of the terminal building under the lower level roadway and the baggage claim hall. Passengers would then exit the station platform and proceed through an underground pedestrian tunnel to escalators,




elevators and stairs to reach the concourse level of the central hall above. See Exhibit A.7.3.2.10 for a plan and profile drawing of this option.

7.4 POTENTIAL ROUTING ALIGNMENTS The routing alignments for the people mover connector will connect the two end stations with the most direct route. The people mover connector will traverse the airfield area in a tunnel. Dependent on the selected station locations, the people mover will either remain in a tunnel for the entire length or proceed out of the underground condition at the ends for either an at-grade or elevated station. The tunneling methods which can be used to cross the airfield are discussed in detail in Section 5.0 of this Love Field People Mover Connector Feasibility Study report.

7.5 OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES Based on the distance, round trip time and potential hourly ridership of the people mover, it is likely that the system will operate as a dual-lane shuttle. The trains will operate independent of one another and will be synchronized so that typically every two and a half minutes, a train arrives at each passenger station.

7.6 SUPPORT FACILITY LOCATIONS

7.6.1 Maintenance and Storage Facility

Based on the operational strategy discussed above for the people mover connector, the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) configuration is simplified. Since there will not be multiple people movers on each lane of the system, the MSF can be located beyond one of the end stations. Alternately, if underground, the MSF could be located at any point between the two stations to the side of the guideway behind roll up doors. Maintenance on the vehicles is done from underneath the guideway and from the side of the vehicles. If the configuration of the system is entirely underground, consideration for access to the guideway by means of a hatch will be needed.




7.6.2 Central Control Facility

The Central Control Facility (CCF) can be located at one of the end stations or within the confines of an adjacent building such as the terminal or parking garage. Based on the operational strategy for this system, the size of the CCF is anticipated to be smaller than many systems. Operation of the system will typically be handled by a single Central Control Operator (CCO). Cameras along the guideway and within the PMC stations will be cabled back to the CCF for observation by the CCO. Provisions for these feeds to run to an airport operations center can be made. At this time, it is the Owner’s intention to co-locate the CCF in the Airport Operations Center (AOC).

7.6.3 Power Distribution Substations In order to ensure a more consistent operation, a Power Distribution Substation (PDS) will be required at each PMC station. These facilities provide the power needed to move the train along the guideway between the passenger stations. All elements of the people mover system (not including facilities such as stations and the MSF) are powered from the PDS.

7.6.4 Equipment Rooms Equipment rooms for the PMC will contain train control equipment and back-up power supply systems. These rooms are normally located within the passenger stations. The equipment in these rooms supports the operation of the PMC and allows for communication between the guideway and the CCF.

7.7 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND REQUIREMENTS The majority of this project will be constructed on property owned by the City of Dallas. The Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between the City of Dallas and DART allows the use of DART right-of-way. Dependent on the final alignment selected, additional property acquisition may be required. Certain options will require property acquisition or construction/permanent easements. Exhibit 7.7-1 below identifies the property owners adjacent to the DART Love Field LRT Station. Additional information shown on this exhibit includes current appraised values and lot sizes. This information was gathered from the Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) website for purposes of determining an order of magnitude cost based on a cost per square foot.


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 7-12 July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied in whole or in part without written permission from Lea+Elliott, Inc.

Exhibit 7.7-1 - Real Estate Parcel Identification Map




7.8 EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

The 18 station location options described in Section 7.3 above were reviewed in a design charrette with owner input and then evaluated using criteria which were weighted to emphasize the degree of importance to the project. The evaluation methodology and the criteria used are described below.

7.8.1 Qualitative Evaluation of APM Station Concepts (Weighted)

The criteria used for the evaluation of the possible PMC system alternatives are described in the following sections. This qualitative evaluation is the first step. The station options will subsequently be evaluated in combination with other stations.

7.8.1.1 Perception Level of Service Factors Degree of Perception of “Seamless Integration” – This criterion is the degree to which the user of the station concept would perceive his trip to or from the APM station to either the various Terminal areas (baggage claim, ticketing, security, etc.) or the DART Love Field Station to be seamlessly integrated.

Degree of Perception of PMC being a Public Entrance to Airport – This criterion is the degree to which the user of the station concept would perceive his arrival (or departure) via the PMC as being through a public entrance (or exit) to the Airport.

Overall Image/Aesthetics – This criterion reflects the degree to which the user of the station concept would perceive the overall image and aesthetics of the station concept favorably.

7.8.1.2 Performance Level of Service of Factors

Comfort/Convenience/Ease of Use

• Visibility of System/Stations – This criterion reflects the relative visibility of the PMC system and stations from either the DART Love Field Station or from the Terminal and greatly contributes to the ease of use of the APM system.




• Wayfinding – This criterion reflects the design, location and proper integration of the wayfinding signage throughout the areas generally used by the public, so that clear, concise directions are available to potential users of the PMC throughout the terminal complex and at the DART Love Field Station to direct them to the station platforms.

• Accessibility of System

- Station Locations – This criterion reflects the location and proximity of the station relative to other facilities also used by the PMC system users.

- Horizontal – This criterion reflects the reality that the optimal configuration locates the station platforms so as to minimize the required horizontal circulation for users of the PMC system and that adequate space is provided for horizontal circulation.

- Vertical – This criterion reflects the reality that the optimal configuration locates the station platforms at the same level as the other facilities also used by the PMC users, however, when this is not possible, these elements should be optimally located as to minimize the required vertical circulation for users of the PMC system and that adequate space is provided for vertical circulation.

- Maintainability – This criterion reflects the relative ease of maintenance of the station concept.

7.8.1.3 Accommodation of PMC Support Facilities • PMC Maintenance Facility – This reflects the relative degree to which the station concept lends itself to accommodating a PMC Maintenance Facility.

• PMC Vehicle Access – This reflects the relative degree to which the station concept lends itself to accommodating PMC vehicle access (such as when vehicles are first brought into the system from the manufacturer, for example).




• PMC Tunnel Ventilation Equipment - This reflects the relative degree to which the station concept lends itself to accommodating PMC tunnel ventilation equipment (such as ventilation stacks, for example).

7.8.1.4 Relative Cost

This criterion reflects the relative cost of the station concept as compared to the other station concepts.

7.8.1.5 Ease of Construction

This criterion reflects the relative ease of construction as compared to the other station concepts (for example, would it allow for “cut and cover” tunneling vs. mined tunneling, or difficulty of construction equipment access, or difficulties due to avoiding operational impacts, or avoiding physical impacts, such as building underneath existing foundations).

7.8.1.6 Operational Impacts

• Terminal Area Impacts – This reflects the relative degree to which the station concept minimizes operational impacts to the terminal area.

• DART Area Impacts - This reflects the relative degree to which the station concept minimizes operational impacts in the general vicinity of the DART area.

7.8.1.7 Phasing and Scheduling This criterion reflects the relative impact the station concept might have on project phasing and scheduling.




7.8.1.8 Expandability This criterion reflects the relative impact the station concept might have on any potential project to increase the system capacity to accommodate future ridership. This can be accomplished by increasing the platform length, adding vehicle station doors and adding vehicles to increase the train length

7.8.1.9 Right-of-Way Acquisition • Legal (Property Acquisition/Easements and Cost & Schedule Impacts) – This criterion reflects the relative availability of the property required for building the station concept, in terms of legal ownership (Airport vs. DART vs. Stakeholders vs. others), the relative ease of acquiring the property (if owned by others), the relative ease of acquiring easements (if owned by others), and the associated cost and schedule impacts due to these “legal” property availability issues.

• Physical (Settlement, Depth) – This criterion reflects the relative availability of the property required for building the station concept, in terms of the potential physical impacts, such as the potential for settlement of foundations and buildings above the station concept and associated guideway Right-of-Way (ROW), and the necessary depth of station concept and associated guideway ROW in order to avoid potential problems such as settlement of foundations and buildings above.

7.8.2 Alternative Evaluation

The station location options and the evaluation criteria described above where developed into an evaluation matrix. Each evaluation criteria was assigned a weighted factor. Each station location option received two scores – unweighted (raw) and weighted. This evaluation matrix is presented in Exhibit 7.8.2-1. The evaluation matrix along with 16 of the 18 station location options were presented at the November 15, 2007 design charrette with the Owner and the design team. During this design charrette, station location options DLFSO2C (Section 7.3.1.4) and TSO1C (Section 7.3.2.3) were developed at the Owner’s direction. These final two station location options completed the list of 18. During the design charrette, representatives from the Aviation and Public Works and Transportation departments stated that factors not listed on the evaluation matrix such as roadway and utility impacts favored option TSO5A over TSO5.



Exhibit 7.8.2-1




7.9 SHORT-LIST OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS



1. DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2C (DLFSO2C) 2. DART Love Field PMC Station Option 6 (DLFSO6)


3. DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1B (TSO1B)

4. DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 5A (TSO5A)

After reducing the number of station location options to four, it was decided to introduce a simplified naming convention for these five options being carried forward. The new names assigned to each option are listed below:

New names assigned to remaining four station location options to be carried forward:




3. Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal 4. Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage APM Station


Lea+Elliott, Inc. A7-1 July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


SECTION 7.0 APPENDIX


Lea+Elliott, Inc. A7-2 July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied in whole or in part without written permission from Lea+Elliott, Inc.

Exhibit A.7.3.1.1 - DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2 (DLFSO2)



Exhibit A.7.3.1.2 - DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2A (DLFSO2A)



Exhibit A.7.3.1.3 - DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2B (DLFSO2B)



Exhibit A.7.3.1.4 - DART Love Field PMC Station Option 2C (DLFSO2C)



Exhibit A.7.3.1.6 - DART Love Field PMC Station Option 5A (DLFSO5A)



Exhibit A.7.3.1.7 - DART Love Field PMC Station Option 5B (DLFSO5B)



Exhibit A.7.3.2.1 - DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1A (TSO1A)



Exhibit A.7.3.2.2 - DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1B (TSO1B)



Exhibit A.7.3.2.3 - DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 1C (TSO1C)



Exhibit A.7.3.2.4 - DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 2 (TSO2)



Exhibit A.7.3.2.10 - DAL Terminal PMC Station Option 5B (TSO5B)



8.0 Preliminary Facilities Requirements

8.0 Preliminary Facilities

Requirem

ents8.0 Prelim

inary FacilitiesR

equirements


Lea+Elliott, Inc. i July 10, 2008 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


REPORT OUTLINE










8.0 Preliminary Facilities Requirements CAI 10-JUL-08








Lea+Elliott, Inc. ii July 10, 2008 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.0 PRELIMINARY FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS ................................................... 8-1 8.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 Architectural......................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Structural.............................................................................................. 8-1

8.1.3 Mechanical (HVAC), Electrical and Plumbing ..................................... 8-1 8.1.4 Miscellaneous....................................................................................... 8-2

8.1.4.1 Safety..................................................................................... 8-2 8.1.4.2 Accessibility .......................................................................... 8-2

8.1.4.3 Wayfinding and Signage ........................................................ 8-3 8.2 GUIDEWAY ................................................................................................... 8-4

8.2.1 Guideway Clearances ........................................................................... 8-4 8.2.2 Emergency Walkway Requirements ..................................................... 8-4

8.2.3 Guideway Access and Egress ............................................................... 8-5 8.2.4 Guideway Interface .............................................................................. 8-5

8.2.4.1 Platform Edge Walls .............................................................. 8-6 8.2.4.2 Automatic Platform Doors ..................................................... 8-6

8.2.4.3 Emergency Walkway Access in Station.................................. 8-6 8.2.4.4 “Piston Effects”...................................................................... 8-7

8.2.5 Guideway Tunnel Requirements........................................................... 8-7 8.2.5.1 Cross Passages ....................................................................... 8-7

8.2.5.2 Tunnel Ventilation ................................................................. 8-7

8.3 STATIONS...................................................................................................... 8-8

8.3.1 Functions.............................................................................................. 8-8 8.3.2 Platform Configuration......................................................................... 8-8

8.3.3 Phasing – System Capacity Expansion.................................................. 8-9 8.3.4 Passenger and Baggage Check-in Facilities ........................................ 8-10

8.3.5 Passenger Screening Locations ........................................................... 8-11 8.3.6 Concessions........................................................................................ 8-11

8.3.7 Platform Circulation Patterns.............................................................. 8-12


Lea+Elliott, Inc. iii July 10, 2008 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


8.3.8 Structural Systems .............................................................................. 8-13 8.3.9 Equipment .......................................................................................... 8-13

8.4 POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SUBSTATION.................................... 8-14 8.5 STATION EQUIPMENT ROOMS ................................................................ 8-16

8.5.1 Circulation and Access ....................................................................... 8-16 8.5.2 Area Requirement............................................................................... 8-17

8.6 MAINTENANCE FACILITY........................................................................ 8-17 8.6.1 Potential Locations ............................................................................. 8-19

8.6.2 Employee and Visitor Parking ............................................................ 8-19 8.6.3 Structural............................................................................................ 8-20

8.6.4 Electrical ............................................................................................ 8-20 8.6.5 Grounding .......................................................................................... 8-20

8.6.6 Mechanical ......................................................................................... 8-21 8.7 CENTRAL CONTROL FACILITY ............................................................... 8-21


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 8-1 July 10, 2008 ©This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


8.0 PRELIMINARY FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS

This section provides an overview of the Preliminary Facilities Requirements (PFR) for the People Mover Connector (PMC) at a planning level. Facilities programming will be performed in the Programming and Schematic Design Phase.

Three classes of APM technologies have been identified in Section 4.0 - Technology Assessment of this report as meeting the Dallas Love Field system requirements. These technologies are the Self-Propelled APM, Cable-Propelled APM and Low-speed Maglev systems. Once a specific APM technology / system has been procured, more specific facility and special systems requirements can be developed. Refer to Section 4.0 - Technology Assessment for more details.

8.1 GENERAL

8.1.1 Architectural

In this PFR, architectural design considerations are provided and discussed in terms of functional requirements such as room dimensions, locations, and layouts. It is not the intent of the PFR to specify aesthetic or special systems requirements.

8.1.2 Structural Structural systems may vary and must be considered as each system is affected by station location, alignment configuration, and relationship of the station to grade. Maintenance facilities and support spaces are included in or adjacent to the station and will have to be refined based on selection of technology. Refer to Section 5.0 - Tunneling Methods Assessment for additional information relative to below grade facility structural requirements.

8.1.3 Mechanical (HVAC), Electrical and Plumbing

Mechanical spaces will be provided to supply HVAC to required areas. The size and layout will vary based on station location and configuration.




An electrical room will be provided to supply power to the systems that support the function and operation of the APM facilities. This space may be adjacent to or combined with the APM propulsion space, and will require 300-500 square feet.

Plumbing will be provided to spaces as needed for proper function. Sump pumps shall be provided in the tunnel section for spillage and sub-soil drain tile. The APM stations shall have a hose bibb and, if required, a storm drainage system. Guidelines for design shall follow the latest NFPA Standards; ASPE Handbooks; and the City of Dallas Codes.

8.1.4 Miscellaneous

8.1.4.1 Safety

Emergency call stations or Blue light stations will be provided at required areas of refuge or crossover stations throughout the tunnel. Additional stations might be located in parking area or around the station as required by the City of Dallas.

8.1.4.2 Accessibility Accessibility requirements are specified in applicable codes. In general, the APM System is required to be fully accessible. Final designs include rules implementing the transportation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), issued by the Department of Transportation, namely 49 CFR Parts 27, 37, and 38; and the ASCE APM Standards Section 10.1, Disabled Persons Access Requirements. Where conflicts exist between any of these standards, rules, and regulations, the most stringent requirement should take precedence.




8.1.4.3 Wayfinding and Signage Maps and signals are essential to ensure that the APM is easy for passengers to use. Maps should be coordinated with the overall Airport signage program and the design of new and existing terminal buildings. Wayfinding signs are required in all buildings to direct passengers to the APM station platforms. Station identification graphics, visible from trains, are required at each station platform. Dynamic station signs will display train arrival/departure and other System-related information.

Exhibit 8.1.6.3-1 Images of wayfinding signage

Signage is required along the guideway, in adjacent right of way spaces, and in all APM facilities in accordance with requirements defined in the ASCE APM Standards Section 11.5, Signage. Signage is also required to do the following: provide safety information and warnings to passengers, operations, and maintenance personnel; provide information on the use of the APM System to passengers; communicate location and wayfinding information to passengers; provide information for maintenance and manual vehicle operations (power zone, ATC block boundaries, and station stopping points); identify communication devices located along the guideways; provide information related to APM System equipment; and provide operational and miscellaneous information in the Maintenance Facility. Some signage can be dynamic while others remain static. Regardless of function these signage components will need coordination with the facilities requirements. Square footage may need to be allocated for floor mounted directories. Ceiling mounted signage should be coordinated with structural requirements.




8.2 GUIDEWAY

8.2.1 Guideway Clearances Horizontal and vertical clearances should be coordinated between guideway structures and adjacent infrastructure in accordance with local, State and Federal requirements specified by the governing authorities. Exact requirements based on vehicle dimensions will not be known until vendor has been selected. This may have impacts on adjacent facilities/architecture.

8.2.2 Emergency Walkway Requirements A continuous walkway is required along the entire guideway length to provide emergency egress for evacuating passengers and safe access to guideways and wayside equipment by operations and maintenance personnel. The walkway must be continuous through switches or other elements that may act as barriers. Where barriers cannot be eliminated, a means of egress to the ground surface or other appropriate location should be provided so that there are no “dead ends” to the walkway.

The walkways should be located at or below the vehicle floor level under both normal and worst-case vehicle suspension failure conditions. It is desirable to locate the emergency walkway not less than 12 inches below the vehicle floor level. The walkway must not be more than 40 inches below the vehicle floor level under any circumstances.

The horizontal gap between the vehicle door threshold and the emergency walkway must accommodate the vehicle clearance envelope, but should not be greater than 12 inches except in curves where the minimum feasible gap should be maintained. For planning and preliminary design purposes, the horizontal gap between the edge of the emergency walkway and vehicle clearance envelope should be minimized.

Walkways located at the edge of an elevated guideway rather than shared between dual-lane elevated guideways must have guardrails (railings) along the outside edges to prevent evacuating passengers and maintenance personnel from falling from the guideway. Guardrails are required along walkways anywhere users are exposed to a falling hazard of 48 inches or more. Railings must not impede evacuation from vehicles nor encroach into the clearance envelope provided for vehicles and guideway equipment. Walkways without a railing should be at least 44 inches wide and walkways with a railing should be at least 30 inches wide. Wider walkways are desirable and should be provided wherever possible.




Emergency walkway lighting is required along the entire walkway and egress route. Walkway lighting should maintain a minimum of 0.25 foot-candles over the entire emergency egress route, including the walkway surface, and at least 2 foot-candles at 18 foot maximum intervals and at all vertical or directional discontinuities. Lighting should illuminate the walkway and not shine upwards in any way.

8.2.3 Guideway Access and Egress Guideway access and egress points must protect against unauthorized entry to the guideway. Any door, gate or other mechanism providing access to the guideway must be alarmed at Central Control. Doors between the walkways and the station platforms are normally locked from the platform side and provided with manually activated release mechanisms on the guideway side to permit egress from the walkways to the platforms.

Prudent safety precautions do not allow any person to be within an active guideway. In station areas, passengers are separated from the guideways by the platform edge wall. No activities are permitted in an active guideway.

Refuge areas under and along the station platform edges are required in the unlikely event that a person is on the guideway and needs to escape the path of an oncoming train.

8.2.4 Guideway Interface Unique requirements and dimensions exist for guideways in station areas so that APM vehicles can properly interface with station platforms, and provide safe conditions for passengers, operations, and maintenance personnel during maintenance and emergency situations. These requirements will be further developed in a later design phase.

The horizontal dimension between guideway centerline and platform edge varies among System Suppliers. Dimensions associated with the selected APM System Supplier will not be known until System Supplier has been selected.




8.2.4.1 Platform Edge Walls The interface between the station platforms and APM System guideways and vehicles is defined by the station platform edge walls and integrated automatic platform doors. Platform edge walls are required along the full length to separate the passengers on the platform from the guideways. Automatic platform doors are provided for normal circulation between vehicles and the station platforms and must be fully integrated with the platform wall edge system. This wall system must be designed to allow passenger evacuation from APM vehicles in an emergency or in the event of a train misalignment with the automatic station platform doors. To accomplish this, emergency doors or breakaway panels are required between all sets of bi-parting, automatic platform doors and between the automatic platform doors and the ends of the platform. These emergency doors will remain locked from the platform side, but must be equipped with panic hardware on the guideway side to allow passengers and others to move quickly from the guideway or vehicles onto the station platform.

Platform edge walls must be planned to prevent entrapment of persons between vehicle and automatic platform doors, both of which will be provided and installed by the APM System Supplier. To facilitate this, construction tolerances associated with the platform edges and vehicles must be carefully coordinated with the APM System Supplier. Coordination with the System Supplier is also required to fully define the requirements for System elements that are to integrate with the platform edge walls.

8.2.4.2 Automatic Platform Doors

The APM will have automatic platform doors that will open in unison with the vehicle doors when the vehicle arrives at the platform. The platform doors will be wider than that of the vehicle doors to accommodate for inaccuracies in APM vehicle stopping.

8.2.4.3 Emergency Walkway Access in Station

Doors must be provided to allow access from the guideway emergency walkways to the station platforms as discussed earlier in this Section 8.2.




8.2.4.4 “Piston Effects” Vehicles entering the station enclosed within platform edge walls can create problematic air pressure differentials. These “piston effects” should be evaluated and mitigated to avoid passenger discomfort, noise or more significant problems that can result from such pressures.

8.2.5 Guideway Tunnel Requirements

8.2.5.1 Cross Passages Due to the impracticality of evacuating passengers up from the tunnel to an active airfield, NFPA 130 guidelines allow for cross passages between the two tunnels. In an emergency, these cross passages provide a safe exit route in lieu of vertical egress points (stairs) from the tunnel to the surface. These cross passages must be spaced no greater than 800 feet apart.

8.2.5.2 Tunnel Ventilation Ventilation for the tunnel portion of the project will be divided into three (3) categories - natural, mechanical, and emergency. The system shall consist of vane axial fans in mechanical shafts strategically located above the tunnel. The shafts shall provide natural ventilation by an automatic damper system bypassing the vane axial fans. In the mechanical ventilation mode, the dampers shall be open to the fans at normal speed. In an emergency, the fans shall sequence up to high speed. Guidelines for the design of the system shall be the latest editions of the “Subway Environmental Design Handbook,” ASHRAE Handbooks, NFPA 130 and the City of Dallas Codes.




8.3 STATIONS

8.3.1 Functions Automated People Mover (APM) stations accommodate the boarding/deboarding of passengers to and from the vehicles while providing for passenger dwell time. Stations also provide the required space for passengers to circulate between the platforms at each station. A portion of the DART PMC Station may potentially function as a lobby to the airport and provide various amenities such as seating, concessions, or even a family center.

8.3.2 Platform Configuration

A center platform configuration is recommended for both PMC Stations. The center platform is the most efficient use of space for boarding and deboarding all passengers. This configuration allows for passenger to board/deboard on either side of a shared platform.

Preliminary platforms should be a minimum length of 185 feet, in order to accommodate a potential 2-car train dual-lane shuttle operation. The platform length will also accommodate the ability to add a third car in the future if needed. Adjacent to the platforms, a minimum of 50 feet of over-run distance (including buffers) should be maintained. Based upon the estimated rider-ship and vertical transition needs, it is suggested that a center platform width of 40-45 feet be maintained, this will also allow adequate room for circulation, queuing and boarding, see Exhibit 8.3.7-1. It is suggested that a minimum height of 15 feet, if possible, be maintained for the center platforms.

Diagrams for both APM stations are shown in Exhibits 8.3.2-1 and 8.3.2-2.




Exhibit 8.3.2-1 Diagram of DART PMC Station platform configuration

Exhibit 8.3.2-2 Diagram of Love Field Terminal Station platform configuration

8.3.3 Phasing – System Capacity Expansion

The primary APM Stations should be designed and constructed with future growth in mind. Where appropriate, facilities should be designed to accommodate future APM vehicle expansion. It is suggested that provisions for 2-car-trains be provided for initially while retaining station flexibility for future growth to accommodate increases in ridership projections.




Exhibit 8.3.3-1 Diagram of future expansion

8.3.4 Passenger and Baggage Check-in Facilities

One potential passenger amenity is the ability to check-in at e-ticketing kiosks prior to entering the station platform. This activity would be planned for the “Lobby” space currently shown in Exhibit 8.3.2-1. Passengers who have electronic tickets can go to a self-help kiosk to check in without needing to wait for assistance from a human clerk (see Exhibit 8.3.4-1). In addition, passengers only need a valid ID to use the machine; once the ID has been validated, the passenger can use the kiosk to check seating options, make changes to itinerary, or check in for the flight. The passenger’s boarding pass will be printed out automatically.

Exhibit 8.3.4-1 Image of e-ticketing kiosks




Baggage check-in could potentially be available for passengers in the future, but not planned for at this time. This function would potentially require a substantial commitment by multiple stakeholders and considerably more facility space resulting in a much higher cost.

8.3.5 Passenger Screening Locations

Passenger screening at the station has been considered. Due to heightened security and TSA employee availability, passengers will not be processed through TSA security checkpoints until they have reached the terminal. However, the airport can plan for temporary security measures to be employed such as bag checks and wanding stations for riding passengers.

8.3.6 Concessions

Space for small concessions or kiosks can be made available within the DART PMC Station “Lobby” area. Types of concessions to consider would be fast food, different types of merchandise, vending machines, internet connection, musical entertainment, printing of digital photographs, Smarte Carts as well as displays for flight information, CNN, and weather. Depending on the service, a kiosk would use an area between 50 square feet to over 100 square feet. Providing the passenger access to various kiosks, accommodating both their needs and indulgences, enhances their travel experience. Smarte Carts can be made available to the rider at both the airport terminal station and the DART PMC station; however the use of the Smarte Carts on the train will be at the discretion of the owner.

Exhibit 8.3.6-1 Concessions – Internet Exhibit 8.3.6-2 Concessions – News Stand




Exhibit 8.3.6-3 Concessions – Gaming Exhibit 8.3.6-4 Concessions – Coffee Bar

8.3.7 Platform Circulation Patterns

For each APM station, the passenger circulation should be identical to create familiarity to the passenger. The function of deboarding and boarding will be similar to that of the DART rail system. Once a vehicle arrives, passengers will first deboard to the platform making room for passengers to then board. Stairs, escalators, and elevators will be available for vertical circulation to and from each station. In addition to the primary egress route, fire stairs may be required at the opposite end of the station to satisfy applicable code requirements.

Exhibit 8.3.7-1 Diagram of passenger circulation




8.3.8 Structural Systems

The anticipated structural systems for the APM stations will include an enclosed elevated structure at the DART PMC platform. The structural system will require adequate stiffness to resist the lateral and dynamic forces caused by the APM operation. The Love Field Terminal platform would be a below grade cast-in-place concrete cut and cover box. These structures will also accommodate the vertical circulation elements to include stairs, escalators and elevators.

8.3.9 Equipment APM station platforms have various system equipment elements, including automatic platform doors, dynamic passenger information signs, and Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras. APM station platforms also include various communications equipment monitored and supervised by the Central Control Facility (CCF), including a station public address (PA) system and an emergency telephone system.

Fire Detection and Protection will be provided for as required by the various codes adopted by the city of Dallas.

CCTV

The CCTV system includes surveillance cameras at stations, along the guideways, and within the Maintenance Facility. In the stations, these are located to monitor passenger activity, particularly during the boarding/deboarding of trains and at the ends of vertical circulation cores.

Associated equipment includes electronics (video switcher/amplifier) in the station and CCF equipment rooms, a control panel in the central control console (CCC) and numerous video displays (typically one per platform with selectable/sequencing) also at the CCF. A digital video recorder is provided to enable the central control operator (CCO) to selectively record video from any of the camera locations.

Access Control

A system to control access to non-public APM System fixed facilities, particularly restricted areas, is required and must be coordinated with the Owner and with the existing Love Field (DAL) Access Control System. The APM System will be fully automated. Driverless trains will




operate along guideways with exposed high voltage power distribution systems, and the APM command, control and communications systems are critical for safe operations. Accordingly, the Access Control system designs must consider both security and life safety.

The areas of controlled access include, but are not limited to, station equipment rooms, wayside equipment rooms, power distribution system substation, guideway access/egress points, the Maintenance Facility, the CCF, and the administrative offices. The Access Control System may be a conventional key based, card-key based, or other type of system to be defined by the Owner. The system should provide a high level of security and should be easily expandable.

Alarms

APM facility fire and security alarms must be annunciated at the CCF and as required by the local authorities. APM facility alarms to be provided and annunciated at the CCF include, but are not limited to: fire and smoke detection and protection alarms; emergency egress door alarms; alarms for Controlled access doors, including all doors providing access to APM equipment rooms, power distribution system, and guideways; and alarms associated with loss of facilities power.

Many alarms must be integrated with the Automatic Train Control (ATC) or other APM subsystems.

Emergency Evacuation

All APM facilities must be designed to enable the orderly evacuation, in a safe and timely manner, of all passengers and personnel, including the mobility impaired and disabled (MI&D) with assistance, and passengers in APM vehicles located anywhere along the guideways.

Emergency egress points from emergency walkways along the guideways are required at least at each station, at any barrier on or gap in the emergency walkway, and as required by applicable code requirements.

8.4 POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SUBSTATION This section provides generic Power Distribution System (PDS) design criteria prior to the APM System Supplier being selected and technology-specific requirements being available. Following




selection of the APM System Supplier, design criteria should be adjusted to provide for the unique requirements of the selected technology.

A typical layout of the equipment that will be provided by the APM System Supplier in the PDS substation is shown in Exhibit 8.4-1. The area needed for a typical PDS substation room is approximately 2200 square feet.

Exhibit 8.4-1 General plan view of PDS area. (size and configuration may vary) The APM System Supplier will be responsible for the PDS designs and equipment. The APM System Supplier will address issues such as constructability, equipment loads, rated walls and doors, conduit accommodations, and grounding during the design and development of the PDS substation. Coordination will be required between the Airport Facility Designers and the electric utility company to determine the source of the existing utility that must be extended to the PDS substation location. The APM System Supplier is responsible for the design of the final routing from the existing utility source to the required location on the APM System.

The PDS substation should be located as close to the guideway as possible, not exceeding 500 ft. to minimize voltage drop.




The design should provide walls, roof, floor, doorways, locks, and ventilation to meet all applicable code requirements. The routing of conduits and cables between the substation, guideways, and other location must be considered in the design.

The PDS substation should have easy access to a truck loading area for transformers and switchgear equipment installation as well as for future removal/replacement. Overhead, roll-up doors are required to provide adequate access. The path between truck loading area and the substation must be sized to accommodate movement of the equipment along the path. A minimum access clearance of 3 to 6 feet, depending on primary feeder voltage levels, around the entire perimeter of equipment cabinets is required for maintenance access and testing by maintenance personnel. These access clearances should meet all applicable codes and will impact the final PDS room area requirements.

8.5 STATION EQUIPMENT ROOMS Following the selection of the APM System Supplier, design criteria should be adjusted to provide for the unique requirements of the selected system. A system equipment room should be provided at each end of the system (typically near the passenger stations). The rooms can be located on the same level as the platforms or in close proximity to them (within 200 cable feet for a cable system). These rooms will be used to house its control and interface equipment for the station doors, dynamic graphics, station CCTV, ATC equipment, UPS equipment, internal APM telephone system and public address systems.

The station equipment rooms should be located adjacent to each station and should be as close to the guideway as possible. The design should include walls, ceiling, floor, doorways, lights, fire detection and protection locks, and HVAC.

8.5.1 Circulation and Access

The station equipment rooms should have easy access (double doors) for equipment removal/replacement, personnel for maintenance, and testing. A clear path is required between these doors and the equipment to facilitate change-out or replacement. There should be no columns or other obstructions inside these rooms. The equipment cabinets located within these rooms have removable panels to access the equipment inside. A minimum access clearance of 3 feet around the entire perimeter of equipment cabinets is required. Access should be controlled to allow authorized access only.




8.5.2 Area Requirement

Each APM station equipment room will require approximately 600 square feet of floor space. The number of equipment rooms required will depend on the selected APM system technology.

Clearance requirements will be defined once a vendor is selected.

8.6 MAINTENANCE FACILITY The Maintenance Facility typically houses service, inspection and repair areas, equipment and materials storage areas, offices, lunch/break area, restrooms, locker area(s), personnel wash facilities, loading dock facilities and service access roads for delivery/removal of parts and/or equipment (including vehicles). Design of the facilities should also include access pathways to either a delivery dock or drop off area, exterior lighting, parking, signage, and means of controlling access into and out of the Maintenance Facility. The area required for the Maintenance Facility would be approximately 10,000-11,000 square feet with a vertical clearance of about 25 ft. Exhibit 8.6-1 shows a conceptual layout of a Maintenance Facility. The type of APM selected (Self-propelled, Cable-propelled or Maglev) will determine the design layout needed for the selected technology requirements.




Exhibit 8.6-1 General Plan View of Potential Maintenance Facility




Exhibit 8.6-2 – Section View of Potential Maintenance Facility Under Aerial Station

8.6.1 Potential Locations The Maintenance Facility could be located at either the DART PMC Station or the Love Field Terminal Station. Because the people mover system is anticipated to be a dual-lane shuttle operation, then technically, the Maintenance Facility could be located below either station; however, this is not suggested for two primary reasons: 1) The system is already in a tunnel, and locating the Maintenance Facility below underground stations would simply place facilities deeper underground, at greater expense, and 2) Access for vehicle, parts, system equipment and personnel would be more difficult. Locating the Maintenance Facility offline between the stations is not recommended for the access difficulties cited in the second reason above.

8.6.2 Employee and Visitor Parking Parking for automobiles for operations and maintenance (O&M) personnel and visitors should be provided at appropriate locations. Visitors would be defined as persons who are non-passengers and non-maintenance facility employees. The Maintenance Facility requires parking spaces for land-based maintenance response vehicles and deliveries. Parking should be provided at remote guideway access locations, power distribution substation facilities, and other locations throughout the System that may require O&M personnel to respond to foreseeable events. This may require the airport to provide parking within the Airport Operations Area at the terminal as needed.




Parking for persons with disabilities should be provided in accordance with applicable code requirements and consistent with the expected use of the respective parking locations.

8.6.3 Structural

The Maintenance Facility potentially could be located below the elevated DART PMC Station at grade. This will require a wall system around the perimeter and additional vertical circulation paths for maintenance equipment and personnel. Concrete panels or CMU could be utilized for durability. The area could also accommodate an at grade loading dock.

8.6.4 Electrical

The electrical design for the tunnel and APM Stations will include the power distribution system (high & low voltage) fed from the local transmission network. The power supply system will include reliable power supply-based transformers, an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) System, emergency generators, stations and tunnel lighting and emergency lighting systems.

The electrical design will reflect a comprehensive system with emphasis on safety-related functions which reduces the risks of accidents and limits the consequences should an accident occur. The system will include integrated local controls and monitoring systems, radio and alarm systems, ITS and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA). All electrical designs will adhere to the latest versions of the NEC, ANSI/NFPA, IEEE and the City of Dallas Codes.

8.6.5 Grounding

The Tunnel and APM Stations will have Grounding and Lightning Protection Systems designed in accordance to NEC guidelines. The primary design criteria are to protect personnel and property, and to provide a controlled, low-impedance path for lightning-induced currents.




8.6.6 Mechanical HVAC – The system shall provide comfort ventilation in maintenance areas and ventilation and cooling in technical rooms.

8.7 CENTRAL CONTROL FACILITY The Central Control Facility is planned to be co-located in the airport security complex with the terminal operations center. Exhibit 8.7-1 provides a typical layout arrangement for the CCF. The room size depicted is approximately 525 square feet. The systems size, technology, and potential co-located operations may not require this much square footage.

Exhibit 8.7-1 General Plan view of the Central Control Facility



9.0 Recommended Alternative

9.0 Recom

mended

Alternative9.0 R

ecomm

endedAlternative




REPORT OUTLINE











9.0 Recommended Alternative ALL 10-JUL-08









TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.0 DEVELOP RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................... 9-1 9.1 ANALYZE AND SIMULATE SHORT-LISTED ALTERNATIVES............... 9-6

9.2 EVALUATION OF SHORT-LISTED ALTERNATIVES.............................. 9-12 9.2.1 APM System Performance.................................................................. 9-12

9.2.2 Maintenance and Storage Facility ....................................................... 9-13 9.2.3 Tunneling Requirements..................................................................... 9-13

9.2.4 Station Locations................................................................................ 9-13 9.2.5 Order of Magnitude Cost Assessment ................................................. 9-14

9.2.6 Schedule Assessment.......................................................................... 9-16 9.2.7 Environmental Impacts and Issues ...................................................... 9-16

9.3 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE............................................................. 9-16




9.0 DEVELOP RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE





3. Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal

4. Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage

Through different station location combinations, four alternatives were derived. These four alternatives are shown in Exhibits 9.0-1 through 9.0-4. These short-listed alternatives were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated to compare their strengths and weaknesses. The steps to this process are described below.



Exhibit 9.0-1



Exhibit 9.0-2



Exhibit 9.0-3



Exhibit 9.0-4




9.1 ANALYZE AND SIMULATE SHORT-LISTED ALTERNATIVES Each of the short-listed alternatives were analyzed using Lea+Elliott's LEGENDS© family of analytical tools. Computer simulations of the alternatives were performed to precisely describe the performance of each study system. Output of these system analyses for each alternative is illustrated in Exhibits 9.1-1 through 9.1-4. An Operational Analysis of the four alternatives is illustrated in Exhibit 9.1-5.


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 9-7 July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied in whole or in part without written permission

from Lea+Elliott, Inc.

Exhibit 9.1-1

Aerial APM Station at DARTto Underground AirsideAPM Station at Terminal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sta. 0+00 Sta. 5+00 Sta. 10+00 Sta. 15+00 Sta. 20+00 Sta. 25+00 Sta. 30+00 Sta. 35+00Location

Velo

city

(mph

)

Cable-PropelledSelf-Propelled OutBoundSelf-Propelled InBound

Note: The Cable-Propelled Velocity Profile is identical for Inbound and Outbound




Exhibit 9.1-2

Aerial APM Station at DARTto Underground Landside

APM Station at Parking Garage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sta. 0+00 Sta. 5+00 Sta. 10+00 Sta. 15+00 Sta. 20+00 Sta. 25+00 Sta. 30+00 Sta. 35+00 Sta. 40+00Location

Velo

city

(mph

)






Exhibit 9.1-3

Underground APM Station at DARTto Underground Landside


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sta. 0+00 Sta. 5+00 Sta. 10+00 Sta. 15+00 Sta. 20+00 Sta. 25+00 Sta. 30+00 Sta. 35+00 Sta. 40+00 Sta. 45+00Location

Velo

city

(mph

)






Exhibit 9.1-4

Underground APM Station at DARTto Underground AirsideAPM Station at Terminal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sta. 0+00 Sta. 5+00 Sta. 10+00 Sta. 15+00 Sta. 20+00 Sta. 25+00 Sta. 30+00 Sta. 35+00 Sta. 40+00Location

Velo

city

(mph

)






Exhibit 9.1-5 – APM System Operational Analysis

Dallas Love Field PMC Lea+ElliottAPM System Operational Analysis

General Technology Type Alignment OptionRound Trip

Time(1) (seconds)

Headway (seconds)

Number Of Trains

Number Of Cars/Train

Operating Fleet

Spares (4)

Total Fleet

Capacity Provided (PPHPD)

ROUNDED Capacity Provided

Aerial APM Station at DART to Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal 260 130 2 1 2 0 2 1468 1500

Aerial APM Station at DART to Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage 280 140 2 1 2 0 2 1363 1400

Underground APM Station at DART to Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage 320 160 2 1 2 0 2 1193 1200

Underground APM Station at DART to Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal 296 148 2 1 2 0 2 1289 1300

Aerial APM Station at DART to Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal 262 131 2 2 4 0 4 1869 1900

Aerial APM Station at DART to Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage 282 141 2 2 4 0 4 1736 1700

Underground APM Station at DART to Underground Landside APM Station at Parking Garage 322 161 2 2 4 0 4 1520 1500

Underground APM Station at DART to Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal 300 150 2 2 4 0 4 1632 1600

Notes: 1. Assumes 30 second dwells at new stations. 2. PPHPD = Passenger per hour per direction flow rate. 3. Assumes Large AGT capacity with approximately 5.0 sq. ft./standing pax (non-secure pax with checked bags) 4. Assumes 0% spare ratio (no spares for shuttle)

Large Cable-Propelled - for calculation purposes, assume DCC:DCC: Each car has 130.7 sq. ft. available for standees / 5.0 sq. ft. per pax = 26.14, say 26 standing pax.Each car includes 8 seats; 130.7 sq. ft. does not include floor area for seated pax' feet. 130.7 5.0 26 8 34Therefore, 26 standing pax + 8 seated pax = 34 total pax per car.

Large Self-Propelled - for calculation purposes, assume CX-100:CX-100: Per IAH Phase 2 proposal, each car has 253 sq. ft. available for standees. Must deduct floor area for seated pax' feet.Each car includes 4 seats; Assume approx. 247 sq. ft. does not include floor area for seated pax' feet. 247 5.0 49 4 53Therefore, 247 sq. ft./5.0 sq. ft. per pax = 49.4, say 49 standing pax.Therefore, 49 standing pax + 4 seated pax = 53 total pax per car.

Large Self-Propelled

Large Cable-Propelled

Floor Area for Standees Sq. Ft./Pax # Standing

Pax# Seated

Pax Total # of Pax

Floor Area for Standees Sq. Ft./Pax # Standing

Pax# Seated

Pax Total # of Pax




9.2 EVALUATION OF SHORT-LISTED ALTERNATIVES

9.2.1 APM System Performance

The System Performance (trip times, travel times, capacity and expansion) are very similar for the four alternatives. The difference in the travel time on the PMC between the shortest and the longest route is less than 60 seconds. This overall difference in travel time is considered insignificant in the evaluation of a recommended alternative.

The calculation of capacity is a function of the trip time between station pairs, the selected technology and the allocated square footage per passenger. The capacities for the PMC range between 1,200 and 1,900 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) on each guideway. The shorter routes provide a reduced trip time and therefore provide a higher capacity. The range of capacities is more than enough to convey the estimated daily riders of the PMC based on the available ridership projections.

Expansion of capacity for the APM can be accommodated equivalently for any of the four remaining alternatives. As discussed in Section 8.0 of this report, the APM station platforms are sized to accommodate up to a 3-car APM vehicle (train).

If the system was to be extended beyond the currently proposed two station configuration, the cable-propelled technologies would have a reduced level of failure management due to the fact that they typically do not utilize switching between guideway lanes however this is not considered a fatal flaw to a system extension or technology selection.

Given the relatively minor differences in System Performance Characteristics, the level of service is considered the same for the four remaining alternatives. Each of the four alternatives provides similar levels of performance to convey passengers between the DART Love Field station and the Love Field terminal building. System performance is therefore a neutral evaluation characteristic for the recommended alternative.

Each of the remaining four alternatives is configured to operate as a dual lane shuttle. This allows complete redundancy of the operating system should one guideway lane shut down unexpectedly. It also provides the ability to continuously convey passengers between the DART Love Field Station and the Love Field terminal building on one guideway lane at a reduced




capacity while performing maintenance on the other guideway lane. This results in a very reliable system.

9.2.2 Maintenance and Storage Facility The Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) is an integral part of the successful operation of the PMC. Each of the four alternatives has an area programmed into the alignment to allow maintenance personnel to work on the PMC equipment and vehicles. The alignment alternatives that have the aerial station at the DART Love Field Station provide the ability to utilize the space under the APM station for maintenance activities. The aerial station area also provides flexibility to insert and extract the APM vehicles without special equipment or access hatches. The alignment alternatives that are entirely underground present a somewhat more challenging method to supply the MSF and allow for insertion and/or extraction of the PMC vehicles. However, this is not considered a fatal flaw to the selection of one of the alternatives but will result in additional capital costs to construct an access hatch or shaft to accomplish these tasks.

9.2.3 Tunneling Requirements The tunneling requirements for each of the four alternatives are generally the same with the biggest difference being the length of tunnel. The longer tunnels will result in a higher capital cost for the tunnel as well as the associated tunnel ventilation requirements to conform to applicable codes. The tunnel methods described in Section 5.0 of this report can be utilized for any of the four station/alignment alternatives.

9.2.4 Station Locations

The facility requirements for the four alternatives will vary dependent on the stations selected at either end. As stated earlier in this section, the aerial station allows the MSF to be under the PMC station at the DART Love Field station site. The aerial station also provides an enhanced ability to use the PMC station as an architectural landmark indicating the arrival at Love Field. The architectural design could resemble what will take place as part of the Love Field Modernization Program as well. Implementation of the underground station at the DART Love Field site will require significant coordination with the operation of the DART LRT System as well as the freight railroad. Both station alternatives at the terminal site are underground. However, it appears that as part of the modernization program, there will be a phase of work where the apron will be closed and reconstructed. This could allow access to complete the station structure and tunnel in a cut and cover methodology without interference with airport operations. The landside option would require significant structural modifications to the existing




parking garage “A” as well as a modification in the vehicle flow through the garage during construction.

9.2.5 Order of Magnitude Cost Assessment The comparative costs of the four alternatives vary dependent on the station pair combination selected. The longer alignments are entirely within a tunnel and are incrementally higher in costs. The APM System costs also are higher for the longer alignments due to the added APM System related equipment which must be procured, installed and maintained. The order of magnitude construction cost difference between the shortest alignment and the longest alignment is approximately $125,000,000 (2010 Dollars). When evaluating the four alternatives, this is perhaps the evaluation element which helps determine the recommended alternative. A comparative rough order of magnitude program cost assessment for the four alternatives is provided in Exhibit 9.2.5-1.


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 9-15 July 10, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied in whole or in part without written

permission from Lea+Elliott, Inc.

2008 Dollars

2010 Dollars (assuming 8% annual escalation)

$425,000,000 $455,000,000

Comparative Order of Magnitude Program Costs

$330,000,000 $370,000,000

Station Pair/Alignment Route DescriptionAerial APM Station at DART Aerial APM Station at DART Underground APM Station at DART Underground APM Station at DART

$375,000,000

to Underground Landside


to Underground Airside

APM Station at Terminal

$270,000,000 $305,000,000 $350,000,000

to Underground Airside

APM Station at Terminal

to Underground Landside


Exhibit 9.2.5-1 - Comparative Order of Magnitude Program Costs




9.2.6 Schedule Assessment

The schedule assessment for the four alternatives directly relates to the comparative cost assessment. The longer alignments will have a longer duration for the construction phase which will in turn result in higher indirect construction costs and soft costs for support of the construction phase. The shorter alignments can be accomplished within a shorter period of time and therefore will have a corresponding reduction in indirect and soft costs.

9.2.7 Environmental Impacts and Issues Based on the information compiled and discussed in Section 3.0 Environmental Study Issues, there are no differences in environmental impacts for the four alternatives. Similar mitigation methods during the construction phase will have to be implemented and the ultimate operation of each of the remaining alternatives will be the same. This evaluation criterion is neutral.

9.3 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

Each of the four alternatives would provide a level of service to passengers and employees of Dallas Love Field that is equivalent to or better than other airports throughout the United States. The evaluation criteria described in this section provided industry standard metrics to help determine the recommended alterative. The comparative cost evaluation is the criterion that carries the most weight in the evaluation process. Additionally, the comparative schedule evaluation criterion is a function of cost and therefore should be considered a good determinant of recommending an alternative.




The recommended alternative is the Aerial APM Station at DART to Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal shown in Exhibit 9.3-1.

Exhibit 9.3-1 - Recommended Alternative This recommended alternative should be considered a feasibility level concept and not a final design concept. During the next phase of design of the PMC, the concept should be refined to optimize the interface between the PMC and the terminal. Coordination with the terminal designers will be important to create the best possible passenger orientation and experience.



10.0 Investigate Alternative Procurem

ent Methods

10.0 Investigate Alternative Procurem

ent Methods

10.0 Investigate Alternative Procurement Methods


Lea+Elliott, Inc. i May 30, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


REPORT OUTLINE












10.0 Investigate Alternative Procurement Methods L+E 30-MAY-08






Lea+Elliott, Inc. ii May 30, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.0 INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT METHODS..........................10-1 10.1 APM OPERATING SYSTEM PROCUREMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................... 10-2

10.1.1 Sole Source Procurement.................................................................... 10-2

10.1.2 Competitive Procurement ................................................................... 10-3 10.1.2.1 Competitive One-Step.......................................................... 10-3

10.1.2.2 Competitive Two-Step ......................................................... 10-4 10.1.2.3 Competitive Negotiated Procurement ................................... 10-5

10.2 APM PROCUREMENT CONTRACTING APPROACH .............................. 10-6 10.2.1 Packaging the Work ........................................................................... 10-6

10.2.2 Contracting Approach Alternatives..................................................... 10-7 10.2.2.1 Conventional Design-Bid-Build ........................................... 10-8

10.2.2.2 Limited Design-Build......................................................... 10-10 10.2.2.3 Design-Build...................................................................... 10-14

10.2.2.4 Design-Build-Operate-Maintain ......................................... 10-17 10.3 U.S. AIRPORT APM PROCUREMENT APPROACHES ........................... 10-20


Lea+Elliott, Inc. 10-1 May 30, 2008 © This document contains intellectual property copyrighted by Lea+Elliott, Inc. No part of this document may be copied


10.0 INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE PROCUREMENT METHODS

Unlike conventional rail systems (heavy rail, commuter rail or light rail) where multiple suppliers can provide vehicles and equipment that can coexist within a single system, APM technologies are unique and proprietary and cannot operate with one another. This characteristic requires the procurement process to be different than a conventional approach commonly used for many public works projects. Multiple APM operating system suppliers might be capable of delivering the specified result in a different way due to the proprietary nature of APM operating systems. A procurement process that permits the APM operating system suppliers capable of meeting the performance-based specifications will result in increased competition. This process has been utilized by the majority of municipalities and airports in the United States that have procured APM operating systems and has evolved into the industry standard.

An additional aspect that is important in the procurement process is simultaneously procuring a separate contract with the supplier for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) responsibility for the APM operating system once it has been constructed. The Owner can simultaneously receive bids for the Design and Construction and the O&M from an APM operating system supplier. This provides the Owner added assurance that portions of the work that should be a part of the Design and Construction phase are not shifted into the O&M phase of the work. Another benefit of including the O&M of the APM operating system into the scope of the APM Supplier is that the quality of the initial work tends to be higher because the responsibility to maintain the System rests with the APM supplier after final acceptance. Finally, awarding both the Design and Construction and the O&M to the supplier allows the Owner to assign a single point of responsibility for both phases of the work.

When packaging the work related to an APM, it is advantageous to assign responsibility of items that affect the performance of the APM operating system into the APM operating system supplier contract. Doing this assures that the APM operating system supplier does not have justification for failures in meeting the performance requirements of the contract. This ultimately benefits the Owner as well as the APM Supplier. The APM Supplier is best-suited to manage this risk due to the proprietary nature of APM operating systems.

It should be noted that the focus of this Section 10.0 is on the procurement process for the APM operating system supplier and fixed facilities and how it is packaged overall. Section 5.8 also provides some discussion of specific tunnel procurement issues.




Section 10.0 will define contracting approaches for the proposed People Mover Connector (PMC) at Dallas Love Field (DAL). This section will discuss the following topics:

• APM Operating System Procurement Process Alternatives

• APM Procurement Contracting Approach

• U.S. Airport APM Procurement Approaches

10.1 APM OPERATING SYSTEM PROCUREMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

Since the unique characteristics of the APM operating system are major determinants of the procurement process and methodology, this section first addresses those issues.

The procurement of the APM operating system is normally one of the earlier tasks undertaken in airport development programs in order to allow the specific requirements of the selected APM operating system supplier to be incorporated into the design of facilities.

10.1.1 Sole Source Procurement

In a non-competitive, sole source procurement, the Owner determines that only one supplier is capable and/or strongly preferred for the delivery of the APM operating system. State and local statutes/ordinances usually permit agencies to make this determination if they can demonstrate that a sole source procurement is in the best interest of the project (due to existing conditions, budget, and/or schedule) and that a competitive procurement process would not yield any greater benefits. In such a case, the Owner enters into negotiations with the selected supplier and when the contractual terms, scope of work, and price are agreed, a contract is awarded.

The DAL PMC will be newly built and is not an expansion or addition to an existing system. There are multiple technologies that can provide the required service. Thus a sole source procurement is not justified, so a competitive procurement approach should be pursued for this project.




10.1.2 Competitive Procurement

Many different competitive procurement processes have been used successfully for public procurements of APM operating systems. Three basic types are:

• Competitive One-Step

• Competitive Two-Step (Low Bid)

• Competitive Negotiated Procurement (Best Value)

These are summarized in the following subsections. There are many variations involving these approaches. The exact procedure is developed in coordination with the Owner’s customary contracting and procurement procedures in conjunction with applicable laws and regulations.

In all of these, an Owner can first use a Request For Qualifications (RFQ) process to pre-screen proposers and technologies. Alternately, the Owner can go directly to the proposal stage without any such screening. The pre-qualification process can save prospective bidders who are not qualified the cost of preparing a proposal and detailed bid. Because the RFQ is an additional step, it normally extends the length of the procurement process.

10.1.2.1 Competitive One-Step

The competitive one-step procurement approach is characterized by a solicitation by the Owner to which potential contractors submit their technical, management, commercial, qualifications (if no RFQ), and price proposals all at one time. The Owner evaluates the responses and makes a determination on responsibility and responsiveness, then selects the lowest priced responsible and responsive proposer for contract award. This approach is best suited for a clearly defined project with a set of prescriptive design specifications. This is appropriate for an APM fixed facility. Given that APM operating systems are proprietary and designed by the supplier to meet performance specifications; this is less applicable to APM operating systems.




10.1.2.2 Competitive Two-Step

The competitive two-step procurement approach is a method used when the suppliers’ products and/or services being solicited might not be considered equal in terms of technical merit, quality and/or price.

Step One consists of the advertised Request For Proposal(s), without pricing, and their subsequent evaluation to determine the acceptability of the prospective Proposer. There can (and usually will) be an iteration that clarifies questions in the proposals and requirements, addenda to the Request For Proposal (RFP) may be issued, and final conformed proposals submitted. Proposals will be categorized as either qualified or not qualified for formal offers.

Step Two begins upon successful completion of Step One. An invitation to submit formal offers including prices will be issued. Those firms whose Proposals have been qualified under Step One will be eligible to submit formal offers. Qualified proposers shall certify that the proposed methods of fulfilling the contract requirements will be in accordance with the proposers’ Proposal as amended during Step One.

In step one, the Owner solicits technical and management proposals, and qualifications (if the RFQ step has not been used) for the APM operating system. The Proposal under Step One shall not contain any reference to costs or prices. The Proposals are reviewed for responsibility and responsiveness prior to determination of the suppliers’ qualifications and capabilities. Responsive and responsible proposals and proposers are judged to be in the “competitive range”. If not, they are not considered further.

If, during the evaluation, it is determined that a proposal can reasonably be qualified by submission of additional clarifying or supplementing information without changing the proposal as submitted, the Owner will advise prospective proposers of any deficiencies within their proposal(s), request that additional information be submitted to eliminate the deficiencies and arrange discussions with the prospective proposers to clarify any questions the prospective proposers may have regarding deficiencies within their proposal(s). Incomplete resubmittals may result in disqualification. All prospective qualifiers shall submit a final complete Proposal in conformance with all clarifications arising out the evaluation of the Proposals.

The evaluation criteria to determine qualification will be established in advance and provided in the Instruction to Proposers (ITP). The criteria normally include items such as: demonstrated successful experience in designing, implementing, and operating systems similar to the project; evidence that equipment is technically mature and capable of satisfying the availability requirements; compliance with provisions in the contract; corporate resources sufficient to back




up performance guarantees and warranties; demonstrated ability to complete project of similar size and complexity on time and within budget; experience and capabilities of key personnel; aesthetic compatibility and physical and structural fit of the system in the provided facilities; and ability for future expansion.

At the end of this (single or iterative) step, proposers deemed by the Owner to be qualified for the project are invited to participate in Step Two. Those proposers found to be “not qualified” will be notified of the reason(s) for this determination and will not be permitted to proceed further.

The second step of the process occurs when the Owner requests formal offers from the qualified proposers. The Owner then evaluates these and makes a determination based on the low price. The award of the contract will be to the qualified proposer submitting the lowest responsible sum total of the fixed price for the APM Operating System Procurement Contract and the total APM Operating System O&M Contract (normally a five year term). If there are important options included in the RFP, the prices for these options can also be included, but this must be determined in advance.

At any point in the process, the Owner may decide to award the contract, cancel the procurement, or re-advertise the procurement.

10.1.2.3 Competitive Negotiated Procurement The competitive negotiated procurement approach is a method whereby the contract award is made on the basis of price and other evaluation factors that are considered to be in the best interest of the Owner. The Owner has the ability to negotiate with multiple proposers at the same time in strict confidence on all matters in the proposals.

The Owner solicits proposals for the APM operating system to be procured. The respondents are required to submit their technical, management, qualifications (if no RFQ), and price proposals at the same time but in separate envelopes. No cost, price or financial information is to be included in the technical or management proposals. Initial evaluations of those proposals are completed without knowledge of price and financial data to assure that such evaluations are objective and free from any low-price bias. Proposers and proposals are rated and ranked based on these non-price proposals, by either a quantitative or qualitative procedure.

After opening the price proposals, in confidence, the Owner evaluates them independently, then in conjunction with the technical and management proposals to determine the competitive range.




The Owner can then conduct negotiations on technical, management, pricing and other matters, in strict confidence with each of the suppliers whose proposals are found to be in the competitive range or thought by the Owner to be able of being brought to this level by the proposer.

Upon completion of negotiations, the Owner may request best and final offers (BAFOs). The BAFO follows the same format as the initial proposals and can include updates on any or all aspects of the proposal requested by the Owner. BAFOs are evaluated in accordance with the same criteria and procedures as the initial proposal. The award is made on the basis of price and other evaluation factors that are considered to be in the best interest of the Owner. At any point in the process, the Owner may decide to award the contract, cancel the procurement, or re-advertise the procurement.

The term "bid" is not used in the competitive negotiated procurement method. The acceptability and quality of a proposal is assessed in terms of a set of requirements and evaluation criteria. Most competitive negotiated procurements score the qualifications of the suppliers as part of the basis for the award. Even with a best value approach, price is usually considered the key evaluation factor because it is the determinant of project affordability and proposal value.

The Owner must determine before soliciting BAFOs whether to evaluate the responsive proposals on the basis of the lowest price or to score the proposals using pre-determined criteria to identify the best overall value to the Owner. The best value may be based on a pre-determined weighted combination of the price, technical merit, management, qualifications, and/or commercial scores or a ranking.

10.2 APM PROCUREMENT CONTRACTING APPROACH The contracting approach is the way the work is divided into packages (contracts) that best suits the nature of the project and the parties expected to carry it out. These are described in general and some of the benefits and risks are discussed.

10.2.1 Packaging the Work The work of an APM project can best be divided into two general areas:

• Operating System includes all of the mechanical and electrical equipment that comprises the system that performs the transportation function (vehicles, control system,




communications systems, power distribution system, station equipment, guideway equipment, safety equipment, other equipment and the maintenance equipment and tools).

• Fixed Facilities are the buildings, spaces within buildings, building mechanical and electrical systems, guideway structures, stations, power substations, and other structures and civil works associated with and in support of the APM operating system.

Assigning the work should be based on a firm’s technical expertise. As discussed in section 10.0., the operating systems of APMs are all proprietary, often with patented designs, and are available only as unique complete packages. Therefore, it is best that at least the operating system be the subject of a single contract with a qualified supplier.

Minimizing interfaces, conflicts and contractor dependencies should be among the deciding factors in assigning the work of the fixed facilities. Facility work that is not involved with other construction (such as concourses and other airside facilities), which only serve the APM, can be packaged with the operating system or designed and built separately depending on these and other project factors. Having different contractors working in the same spaces can create conflicts. For areas where several contractors will be interfacing with each other, the contractors will be dependent on each other for the correctness of the interfaces and the schedule. Such conflicts, disagreements over interfaces and delays of the schedule can lead to claims being filed by the contractors and an increase in costs. More contracts mean more Owner coordination and management effort and increased risks associated with managing and controlling the interfaces.

10.2.2 Contracting Approach Alternatives

The various alternatives to project delivery are:

• Conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

• Limited Design-Build (LDB)

• Design-Build (DB)

• Full Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM)




10.2.2.1 Conventional Design-Bid-Build

Design-Bid-Build (DBB) is the conventional project delivery method under which the Owner contracts separately with a designer(s) and construction contractor(s). The Owner contracts with a design entity to provide prescriptive design documents. The Owner subsequently solicits fixed price bids from construction contractors to perform the work provided in the design documents. The contractor is usually selected on the basis of lowest price.

The Owner awards a contract for construction of the project in accordance with the prescriptive set of plans and specifications. The design entity may separate the project design documents into multiple specialty contracts. Exhibit 10.2.2.1-1 depicts this approach. This approach requires the Owner to award and administer separate contracts to each contractor. This alternative allows the Owner to retain maximum design control, but also has the most risk for design responsibility, coordination, integration, and scheduling for the Owner.

Dallas Love Field Airport would need to develop a large staff or set of consultants for contract administration, project management and design to assume responsibility for the multiple contracts. It would be responsible for the cost, schedule, and technical risks of integration and the interfaces among projects. DBB is a common procurement method for conventional rail, commuter rail and light rail where vehicles and equipment from multiple suppliers can coexist on a single system.

DBB is not as well-suited for APM operating systems due to their proprietary nature.




Exhibit 10.2.2.1-1 Design-Bid-Build Project Approach

Benefits of DBB:

• Well-understood approach offers clear roles for each party. The DBB approach’s long history provides clear models for the roles of the public Owner, the A/E and the general contractor. These roles are generally well understood in the construction industry and public sector alike.

• Oversight role offers public Owners greater control over design and construction. The Owner’s direct involvement in both the design and construction processes would give it a great deal of control as the project proceeds.

• Owner control over design may result in design choices that will minimize operating costs. Because the Owner will oversee the design of the project, it can consider design features or equipment specifications that would reduce the long- term operating costs of the system.

• Inherently fair to contractors with a single set of requirements and concurrent bid openings ensuring confidentiality of the bid values.

VEHICLE ATC COMM. PDS OTHER GUIDEWAY STATIONS MAINT. OTHER

PLAN / PROCURE /

PROJ MGMT / OVERSEE

DESIGN

MFGR / INSTALL /

CONSTRUCT

CONTRACT A

CONTRACT B

CONTRACT C

CONTRACT D

CONTRACT E

CONTRACT F

CONTRACT G

CONTRACT H

CONTRACT I

TEST AND COMMISION

OPERATE AND

MAINTAINOWNER

OPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIESSUBSYSTEMS

ACTIVITY

OWNER ASSISTED BY CONSULTANTS

CONTRACTOR / CONSULTANTS




Risks of DBB:

• Due to the proprietary nature of the system suppliers equipment (vehicle, train control, etc), this type of delivery method is not recommended for the APM operating system.

• High level of Owner involvement will increase the level of risk borne by the Owner. The Owner’s controlling role in a DBB approach would require that the Owner establish a large number of staff (or consultants) to oversee the design and construction processes. Building such a staff could take time, possibly delaying the project, and would cost money, possibly adding to the project’s budget. A more serious concern from the Owner’s standpoint, however, is the fact that the DBB approach would not allow risk to be shifted from the Owner to the design or construction teams to the same extent that other approaches would. Thus, the Owner would retain a significant share of the project’s risk in terms of claims, delays and cost overruns.

• Project costs will not be known until design is complete, all bids are in, and adequate contingencies have been calculated, resulting in the potential for budget problems. With the DBB approach, budget control over the project can be difficult to maintain. Even if the A/E designing the project estimates costs during the design phase, the true cost of the project will not be known until much later. If the bids come in over budget, the Owner may have to delay construction and return to the design phase.

• Lack of team approach may result in problems with construction or system integration. In a DBB approach, contractors are typically not part of the design process. This lack of coordination between the design and construction phases of the project may result in problems during construction that may require additional budget to resolve. Low bid contractors may seek ways to find deficiencies in the design documents or the Owner’s actions to request or claim additional compensation, thus increasing the project cost.

• The process is time-consuming. In a DBB approach, all design work must be completed prior to solicitation of the construction contract.

10.2.2.2 Limited Design-Build

A Limited Design-Build (LDB) project delivery method contracts with a single entity to perform all operating system design, manufacture, implementation, and testing under a single design-build contract to guarantee the performance of the APM as an integrated system. The facilities




are each designed, procured, and built separately (either as a whole or part of each facility type; for example, the stations could be all together as one package or separated by each station) using the conventional design-bid-build method (see Exhibit 10.2.2.2-1). This alternative allows the Owner to retain facility design control, but transfers most of the system integration responsibility to the Contractor, except for the interfaces among the operating system and facilities. This is the approach taken by most U.S. airports for their APM projects. Usually the supplier is also given an extendable five-year Operations and Maintenance (O&M) contract to prove the system during an initial operating period.

Dallas Love Field Airport staff should consider, as a minimum, the LDB approach for the PMC operating system. This approach would reduce risks associated with system performance. DAL would retain the risks of integrating the operating system with the facilities, something many other airports have managed effectively. The LDB method could provide DAL with the best balance of maintaining control and minimizing risk.





PLAN / PROCURE / PROG DIR / OVERSEE

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

FINAL DESIGN

MFGR / INSTALL /

CONSTRUCT

CONTRACT A

CONTRACT B

CONTRACT C

CONTRACT D

TEST AND COMMISION

OPERATE AND MAINTAIN (TYP.

5 YRS, EXTENDABLE)

ACTIVITY

OPERATING SYSTEM CONTRACTOR

CONTRACTOR / CONSULTANT

OPERATING SYSTEM CONTRACTOR OWNER


SUBSYSTEMSOPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIES

Exhibit 10.2.2.2-1 Limited Design-Build Approach

With this approach, DAL could package the facilities in several ways, as noted below:

• Stations

○ Individually or both in one package

• Guideway

○ All in one package, or tunnel and elevated guideway separately

• Maintenance Facility

○ Maintenance Facility in one package or in station package(s)

• Power Distribution Substations




○ Geographically: the substations could be built as part of the facilities where they are required.

Benefits of LDB:

• The APM operating system supplier is provided more of an opportunity to control the cost and schedule aspect of the APM project due to all operating system elements being a part of the APM operating system supplier contract. The risk to meet performance requirements of the APM operating system is the responsibility of the APM operating system supplier.

• The owner maintains design control over the facilities design. This provides the Owner the opportunity to construct APM fixed facilities that resemble other planned improvements or existing facilities which the APM will tie into.

• Due to the APM operating system supplier having design and construction control over APM operating system elements, the APM supplier is responsible for the integration of all components of the operating system.

• The APM system supplier maintains responsibility for operating system financial risks through the APM operating system Operations and Maintenance (O&M) contract. The quality of the APM operating system will likely be better due to this future requirement to maintain the operating system.

• The Owner control over the facilities design results in a manageable contingency amount for unknown conditions similar to a design-bid build contract.

Risks of LDB:

• The owner loses some design control over the operating system. The Owner will participate in prescribed APM operating system design reviews through the course of the design phase, however the final design authority remains the responsibility of the APM operating system supplier.

• The facilities contractors perform their work similar to a design-bid-build process. The risk related to facilities construction remains the responsibility of the Owner. As a result, the Owner must have some method of oversight of the facilities contractors to ensure that the contracted availability dates listed in the APM operating system supplier contract are met.

• The Owner is responsible for ensuring that the interfaces needed by the APM operating system supplier are included in the design and constructed according to




the performance requirements of the APM operating system supplier. The Owner maintains the risk for the failure to include these items in the facilities construction packages.

• The Owner has budgetary responsibility for the design, construction and commissioning of the fixed facility elements of the project. The Owner must ensure that the scope of the design does not creep beyond the prescribed needs of the fixed facilities as well as guarantee compliance with all applicable codes and standards.

• The Owner is responsible for the acquisition of any necessary property to construct and operate the APM. The Owner must coordinate the relocation or providing of service from local utility companies. The Owner must contract and provide geotechnical services to the design and construction phases of the project

10.2.2.3 Design-Build The Design-Build (DB) alternative allows the Owner the maximum opportunity to reduce cost and schedule risks by contracting with a single entity for design and construction of the entire project. With this alternative, the contractor assumes responsibility for all the design, construction, integration, schedule, and cost risks and the Owner has one organization with which to coordinate (see Exhibit 10.2.2.3-1). The single procurement and internalized project integration can result in a shorter overall schedule.

The Owner has a single, large package for procurement activity and takes the design to 30% or so: enough to define the project thoroughly and obtain valid prices. It subsequently loses some control of the detailed design and construction packaging and implementation. DAL will want to retain some design and schedule control over the project due to airport operational needs, this is possible with proper use of design reviews and payment milestones.

Because no single contractor has all the needed expertise in operating system and facilities, the Owner selects a team. The winning team might not include the best APM technology, the best designers, or the best construction contractors. The Owner still has to resolve operations and maintenance issues.

This approach would not provide the control or flexibility DAL might need and would probably not be appropriate at Dallas Love Field.




Exhibit 10.2.2.3-1 Design-Build Approach

Benefits of DB:

• Single point of responsibility. With both design and construction in the hands of a single entity, there is a single point of responsibility for quality, cost, and schedule adherence. The design-builder is motivated to deliver a successful project by fulfilling multiple parallel objectives, including aesthetic and functional quality, budget, and schedule for timely completion. With design-build, the owner is able to focus on scope/needs definition and timely decision-making, rather than on coordination between designer and builder.

• Increased system integration. For the APM to function well and provide smooth, safe travel to passengers, all of its components must work well together. The vehicles, train control, power supply and distribution, guideway, bridges, and stations must all be compatible, in some cases with a very small tolerance for error.



PRELIMINARY DESIGN

FINAL DESIGN

MFGR / INSTALL /

CONSTRUCT

TEST AND COMMISION

OPERATE AND

MAINTAINOWNER

ACTIVITY


SUBSYSTEMSOPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIES

OPERATING SYSTEM CONTRACTOR




• Improved Risk Management. Performance aspects of cost, schedule and quality are clearly defined and responsibilities / risks are appropriately balanced (individual risks are managed by the party best positioned to manage that risk). Change orders due to "errors and omissions" are virtually eliminated, because the design-builder had responsibility for developing drawings and specifications as well as constructing a fully-functioning facility.

• Team approach to design and construction aids constructability. The DB’s team structure uniting design and construction could aid construction and lower costs and risks.

• DB approach offers early certainty about cost and schedule. A successful DB team would commit to a schedule for design and construction for a fixed price, and would assume the risk, if either schedule or price could not be met except in limited circumstances. As a result, a number of the risks normally borne by the Owner would be shouldered by the contractor, giving the Owner a high level of certainty about its budget and schedule early in the process.

• Faster project delivery. Because design and construction are overlapped, and because bidding periods and redesign are eliminated, total design and construction time can be significantly reduced. With design-build, materials and equipment procurement and construction work can begin before the construction documents are fully completed. The resulting time savings translates into lower costs and earlier utilization of the completed facility.

Risks of DB:

• Owner loses considerable design and construction control.

• Risk transfer is not free. Lower level of risk may mean a higher project cost. A DB contractor would assume a higher level of risk than contractors in either a DBB or CM approach would. While this assumption of risk by the contractor would lower the Owner’s risk, the contractor would expect to be compensated for shouldering design and construction risk.

• Limited assurance of quality control. DB team is only required to meet the minimum criteria standards set in the contract documents.

• Subjective contract award. With design-build, the design and construction work generally is awarded based on subjective criteria such as experience, qualifications, and best value. Owners have established contractor evaluation and selection processes and policies to try to mitigate the risks of subjective judgments, but drawbacks still exist, such as:




1. Selection Committee has discretion in awarding "Points." Owners frequently use a points system. The number of points awarded to competing firms on various criteria is arrived at subjectively. There is no objective way to determine the correct number of points to award a competitor on a given criterion.

2. Criteria may not relate directly to the specific building being procured. While evaluating contractors based on qualifications and experience provides a measure of contractors' competence, it is not a guarantee on the project outcome. This is because under design-build a specifically designed building is not the "deliverable."

3. Comparison of alternative proposals for "added value" is difficult. It is difficult to make a reasoned comparison of alternative added value proposals. In addition, many of the benefits can only be realized over time, often after the building has been completed, adding to the difficulty of comparing alternative proposals.

• Limited access for small contractors. Because design-build contracts mostly are awarded based on qualification and experience, this method may tend to work against small, newly established contractors, who do not have the range of experience of large, long-established firms. As a result, access to design-build contracts, especially the large contracts, may be limited for these contractors.

• Focus on design and construction may not emphasize long-term O&M costs. As with CM, a process that is focused around design and construction would most likely not provide meaningful incentives for the DB team to concern itself with long term operational and maintenance issues.

10.2.2.4 Design-Build-Operate-Maintain The Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) alternative transfers the operations and maintenance of the system to the Contractor in addition to the design and construction of the operating system and facilities (see Exhibit 10.2.2.4-1). The advantage to the Owner is that the Contractor will be responsible for all aspects of the design and construction through the operations and maintenance period of the project. Another possible advantage is that the schedule for procurement and construction might be reduced. One challenge with the DBOM procurement approach is that as teams form the Owner may ultimately select the best operating system supplier but a less-qualified tunnel contractor or vice versa. These two components of the DAL PMC are key to its ultimate success and, therefore, may present complexities for a DBOM approach.




The Owner gives up considerable control of all aspects of the project. As with the Design-Build approach, this approach is probably not appropriate for DAL. This makes the contractual and procurement documents and phases critical to the success of the project.

The operating system component of the DBOM contract can be written to include a separate O&M Contract within the same procurement.




Exhibit 10.2.2.4-1 Design-Build-Operate-Maintain Approach

Benefits of DBOM: The DBOM approach offers all the benefits of the DB approach, with one additional benefit that only applies to the APM Operations and Maintenance contract.

• Fixed price responsibility for operations and maintenance provides incentives for life cycle cost efficiency in design and construction. The DBOM team’s ultimate responsibility for operating the system at a fixed or guaranteed price for a set amount of time provides a powerful incentive for the team to build a high-quality system that will stand the test of time. In addition, since the team is compensated over the life of its operations contract, early capital expenditures that could yield later-year operational cost savings (that might otherwise be too expensive to be borne) may be financially feasible if the DBOM team will get the reward of lower operating costs in later years.



PROJ MGMT AND DESIGN

MFGR / INSTALL /

CONSTRUCT

TEST AND COMMISION

OPERATE AND

MAINTAIN

ACTIVITYSUBSYSTEMS

OPERATING SYSTEM FIXED FACILITIES


CONTRACTOR




Risks of DBOM: The DBOM approach offers all the risks of the DB approach, with one additional risk that only applies to the APM Operations and Maintenance contract.

• Long-term relationship with project team could pose a risk if the DBOM team disintegrates or businesses fail. Because the project would be relying on the project team, not just for design and construction, but also for some number of years of operation of the system, any change to that team through corporate mergers, bankruptcies, or changes in focus, could affect the viability of the system’s operations.

• Typically, the DBOM approach utilizes two separate contracts with the contractor - one for the design and construction of the Operating system and one for the O&M. If, due to financial reasons, the DBOM team is unable to complete the first contract (design and construction), the O&M contract will not be executed.

• Contractors capable of obtaining the proper bonding and insurance for such large projects are limited.

10.3 U.S. AIRPORT APM PROCUREMENT APPROACHES

Procurement approaches used by U.S. airports for APM projects is summarized in this subsection to help DAL understand what has been done elsewhere and what might be most appropriate for its PMC.

Exhibit 10.3-1 lists APM projects undertaken since 1971 and the procurement approach used for each. The majority used a limited design-build or limited design-build-operate-maintain approach for the APM operating system. This approach is favored because it gives the Owner control over the design and construction of projects in or near the terminals and airport airside while continuing airport operations. It is usually more efficient and cost-effective to have the system supplier operate and maintain the APM, particularly at the high reliability and service levels necessary for an airport APM. In a few cases, the Owner has assumed the operation and maintenance after the supplier quit the job (DFW AIRTRANS) or performed an initial operate-maintain term to verify the design through operation (ORD).




CONTRACTING METHOD

PROJECT YEAR OPEN

CONVEN-TIONAL

RAIL

LIMITED DB

DESIGN-BUILD

FULL DBOM

TAMPA 1971 SEATTLE 1973 DFW AIRTRANS 1974 ATLANTA 1980 MIAMI 1980 HOUSTON WEDWAY 1981 ORLANDO 1981 LAS VEGAS 1985 DFW TRAAM 1991 TAMPA EXTENSION 1991 TAMPA GARAGE 1991 PITTSBURGH 1992 CHICAGO O’HARE 1993 CINCINNATI 1994 DENVER 1995 NEWARK 1996 HOUSTON AIRSIDE APM 1999 NEWARK EXTENSION 2000 MINNEAPOLIS HUB TRAM 2001 DETROIT 2001 MINNEAPOLIS CONCOURSE TRAM 2002 SAN FRANCISCO 2002 NEW YORK JFK 2002 TAMPA AIRSIDE E 2002 SEA-TAC OVERHAUL 2004 HOUSTON 1ST EXTENSION 2004 DFW SKYLINK 2005 MIA NORTH TERMINAL Ongoing DULLES Ongoing HOUSTON 2ND EXTENSION Ongoing MIC-MIA Ongoing

Exhibit 10.3-1 US Airport APM Procurement Approaches



11.0 Planning Level Cost Assessment

11.0 Planning Level Cost

Assessment

11.0 Planning Level Cost

Assessment




REPORT OUTLINE













11.0 Planning Level Cost Assessment ALL 10-JUL-08







TABLE OF CONTENTS 11.0 PLANNING LEVEL COST ASSESSMENT .............................................................11-1

11.1 BASIS FOR PLANNING LEVEL COST ASSESSMENT............................. 11-1 11.1.1 Soft Costs........................................................................................... 11-1

11.1.2 Estimated Costs.................................................................................. 11-1 11.1.3 Escalation........................................................................................... 11-1




11.0 PLANNING LEVEL COST ASSESSMENT

Following the analysis and evaluation of the shortlisted alternatives in Section 9.0, a rough order of magnitude planning level capital cost assessment was developed for the recommended alternative of the Dallas Love Field People Mover Connector (DAL PMC) utilizing past experience on similar projects and current construction industry cost trends

11.1 BASIS FOR PLANNING LEVEL COST ASSESSMENT

This assessment was based on sketches and renderings that were developed during the feasibility study and are not based on specific design details since they had not yet been developed. The individual elements of the capital cost assessment were prepared by the lead specialty consultants for the feasibility study. These elements were then compiled into a construction cost assessment and presented to the Public Works and Transportation and Aviation departments for review and discussion.

11.1.1 Soft Costs

Following this review, the team was requested to add “soft costs” to the construction cost assessment in order to determine the overall program cost. A sample program cost spreadsheet was provided by the Public Works and Transportation department for this task. Based on other projects of similar size and scope and guidance from the Public Works and Transportation Department, the team applied project specific percentages for design, construction administration, construction management, geotechnical testing, LEED specific requirements, a project art program, basic commissioning as well as values for other project costs and contingencies.

11.1.2 Escalation

An escalation rate should be applied to the planning level cost assessment based on the current industry escalation rate for similar size and scope projects. In recent years, escalation rates for the construction industry have been higher than the current rate of inflation. This is due in part to the increasing number of large scale capital construction projects throughout the United States and abroad. This demand has resulted in higher capital costs for projects ranging from street improvements to complex commercial and public works projects such as the DAL PMC.




Another trend that should be considered along with escalation is the current value of the United States Dollar in relation to other world currencies. Two of the major components (Tunnel and APM System) of the DAL PMC could be supplied by a firm that is from outside of the United States. This factor could have an adverse effect on competition and cost.

Perhaps the biggest contributor to higher costs for capital projects such as the DAL PMC is the increase in energy costs. This increase has an effect on goods and services being fabricated and delivered to the project site as well as the effect that it plays on inflation and the general cost of living. Contractors are adding these cost increases in their unit prices which results in bids that are higher than the program budget. These increases hopefully will be accounted for by properly adding escalation and contingency to the program budget.

11.1.3 Program Costs

The planning level cost assessment for the DAL PMC is $270,000,000 (2008 Dollars) or $330,000,000 (2010 Dollars assuming an annual escalation rate of 8%). This cost included the capital cost of the recommended alternative as well as the associated soft costs described above. This estimated amount did not include the cost for operations and maintenance of the APM System or the fixed facilities following the completion of the project.

The estimated cost for five years of operations and maintenance for the APM System was $20,000,000 (in 2008 dollars). This would include the labor necessary to operate the APM System for the airport during this five year period. The estimated cost for five years of operations and maintenance of the facilities was estimated to be $4,120,000. The estimated capital program cost and operations and maintenance costs are illustrated in Exhibit 11.1.3-1. An escalation table used to calculate the estimated program cost with different escalation rates at a future point in time is illustrated in Exhibit 11.1.3-2.




Exhibit 11.1.3-1

Aerial APM Station at DART to Underground Airside APM Station at Terminal

Date: May 19, 2008Building Type: Transportation and related facilitiesBuilding Area S.F.LEED Rating: Silver

Project Cost in 2008 Dollars (NO ESCALATION INCLUDED) Estimated A. Projected Land Cost

1 Area in Square Feet - 7.8 acres 339,768 2 Cost in Dollars per square foot $20

Total Land Cost $6,795,360

B. Design and Construction Management Expenses:1 Feasibility Study $750,0002 Design & CA Fee - 12% of Construction Cost $25,038,0003 Construction Management - 6% of Construction Cost $12,519,0004 LEED Related Costs - 1% of Station Construction Cost $455,0005 Additional/Special Services $06 Reimbursables $150,0007 Design and Construction Management Sub-Total $38,912,0008 Contingency - 10% of Design & CM Sub-Total $3,891,2009 Design & Construction Management Expenses Sub -Total $42,803,200

C. Project Expenses:1 Art Program - 1.5% of Design/CM and Construction Costs $3,771,7982 Material Testing, Environmental - 1.5% of Construction Cost $3,129,7503 Basic Commissioning - 0.75% of Facilities Construction Cost $1,028,6254 Electrical Service $250,0005 Telecommunications/Phone/Data $100,0006 Traffic Controls (Included in Construction Cost) $07 Furniture (Included in Construction Cost) $08 Equipment (Included in Construction Cost) $09 Permits $150,000

10 Interim Submittals Reproduction Costs $25,00011 Printing - Bid Documents $50,00012 Expenses Sub-Total $8,505,17313 Project Expenses Contingency - 10% of Expenses Sub-Total $850,51714 Project Expenses Sub-Total $9,355,690

D. Construction Budget :1 Off Site Utility Work (Gas, Water,Sewer,Electrical) $2,000,0002 Construction Costs

2a Tunnel/Structural/Ventilation Construction Cost $68,000,0002b Station Construction Cost $35,000,0002c Civil/Site Construction Cost $2,500,0002d APM System Construction Cost $55,000,000

Construction Cost Sub-Total $160,500,0003 Construction Contingency - 30% of Construction Cost Sub-Total $48,150,0004 Construction Budget Sub-Total $210,650,000

Total Projected Project Cost/Budget (A+B+C+D) $269,604,250

Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimated

Operations and Maintenance Cost:A Facilities 5 Year O&M - 4% of Facilities Construction Cost $4,120,000B APM System 5 Year O&M * $20,000,000

Total Operations and Maintenance Project Cost/Budget (A+B) $24,120,000

Notes: No Escalation is Included; Project Cost is Estimated in 2008 DollarsAPM System Commissioning Included in APM System Construction Cost




% / YrJune December June December June December June December June December June December June December

5% 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.376% 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.26 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.42 1.467% 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.14 1.18 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.36 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.558% 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.21 1.26 1.31 1.36 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.59 1.659% 1.00 1.05 1.09 1.14 1.19 1.24 1.30 1.35 1.41 1.48 1.54 1.61 1.68 1.7510% 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.16 1.21 1.27 1.33 1.40 1.46 1.54 1.61 1.69 1.77 1.8611% 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.17 1.23 1.30 1.37 1.44 1.52 1.60 1.69 1.78 1.87 1.9712% 1.00 1.06 1.12 1.19 1.25 1.33 1.40 1.49 1.57 1.67 1.76 1.87 1.97 2.09

% / YrJune December June December June December June December June December June December June December

5% 269,604,250$ 276,344,357$ 283,084,463$ 290,161,574$ 297,238,686$ 304,669,653$ 312,100,620$ 319,903,136$ 327,705,651$ 335,898,293$ 344,090,934$ 352,693,207$ 361,295,481$ 370,327,868$ 6% 269,604,250$ 277,692,378$ 285,780,505$ 294,353,920$ 302,927,336$ 312,015,156$ 321,102,976$ 330,736,065$ 340,369,154$ 350,580,229$ 360,791,304$ 371,615,043$ 382,438,782$ 393,911,945$ 7% 269,604,250$ 279,040,399$ 288,476,548$ 298,573,227$ 308,669,906$ 319,473,353$ 330,276,800$ 341,836,488$ 353,396,176$ 365,765,042$ 378,133,908$ 391,368,595$ 404,603,281$ 418,764,396$ 8% 269,604,250$ 280,388,420$ 291,172,590$ 302,819,494$ 314,466,398$ 327,045,053$ 339,623,709$ 353,208,658$ 366,793,606$ 381,465,350$ 396,137,095$ 411,982,578$ 427,828,062$ 444,941,185$ 9% 269,604,250$ 281,736,442$ 293,868,633$ 307,092,721$ 320,316,810$ 334,731,066$ 349,145,323$ 364,856,862$ 380,568,402$ 397,693,980$ 414,819,558$ 433,486,438$ 452,153,318$ 472,500,217$ 10% 269,604,250$ 283,084,463$ 296,564,675$ 311,392,909$ 326,221,143$ 342,532,200$ 358,843,257$ 376,785,420$ 394,727,583$ 414,463,962$ 434,200,341$ 455,910,358$ 477,620,375$ 501,501,394$ 11% 269,604,250$ 284,432,484$ 299,260,718$ 315,720,057$ 332,179,397$ 350,449,264$ 368,719,130$ 388,998,683$ 409,278,235$ 431,788,538$ 454,298,841$ 479,285,277$ 504,271,713$ 532,006,657$ 12% 269,604,250$ 285,780,505$ 301,956,760$ 320,074,166$ 338,191,572$ 358,483,066$ 378,774,560$ 401,501,034$ 424,227,507$ 449,681,158$ 475,134,808$ 503,642,897$ 532,150,985$ 564,080,044$

2012 2013 2014Estimated Escalation for Recommended Alternative Based on Program Cost of $269,604,250

2008 2009 2010 2011

Estimated Escalation Rates2012 2013 20142008 2009 2010 2011

Exhibit 11.1.3-2



12.0 Project Schedule 12.0 Project Schedule12.0 Project Schedule




REPORT OUTLINE














12.0 Project Schedule ALL 10-JUL-08






TABLE OF CONTENTS 12.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE..............................................................................................12-1

12.1 DESIGN PHASE ........................................................................................... 12-3

12.1.1 Fixed Facilities ................................................................................... 12-3 12.1.2 APM System ...................................................................................... 12-3

12.2 PROCUREMENT.......................................................................................... 12-4 12.2.1 Fixed Facilities ................................................................................... 12-4

12.2.2 APM System ...................................................................................... 12-4 12.3 APM SYSTEM MANUFACTURING ........................................................... 12-5

12.4 CIVIL/SITEWORK CONSTRUCTION......................................................... 12-5 12.5 TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 12-5

12.6 STATION CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 12-6 12.7 APM SYSTEM INSTALLATION................................................................. 12-6

12.8 APM SYSTEM TESTING AND DEMONSTRATION.................................. 12-6




12.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

A capital development project such as the Love Field People Mover Connector (DAL PMC) takes place over a number of years and includes design, construction, implementation and commissioning phases. It is estimated that the overall project duration of the DAL PMC is seventy-two (72) months. The overall program schedule for the DAL PMC should be developed with necessary interfaces with the schedule of the Love Field Modernization Program. The following sections further describe the project schedule which is shown in Exhibit 12.0-1.




Exhibit 12.0-1 – Project Schedule

Task Duration

Total Project Duration 72 Months

Task Description

July 10, 2008

18 Months

9 Months

DALLAS LOVE FIELDPEOPLE MOVER CONNECTOR

PRELIMINARY PROGRAM SCHEDULE

Civil/Sitework

18 Months

Procure Facilities Contractor 6 Months

Final Design

9 Months

Station Construction

Tunnel Construction

APM System Manufacturing 28 Months

20 Months

APM System Procurement

26 Months

APM System Testing and Demonstration

APM System Installation

6 Months

Schematic Design 9 Months

YEAR 6YEAR 4 YEAR 5YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3




12.1 DESIGN PHASE

12.1.1 Fixed Facilities

Following the completion of the one year feasibility study, the next step of the program would be to initiate the schematic design (SD) phase. During this phase, the team will work with the Departments of Aviation and Public Works and Transportation, the Modernization Program Design Team and other affected stakeholders in the program. Planning and programming of the specific elements of the DAL PMC will be determined during this phase on a volumetric basis (general size of tunnel, station, maintenance facility, APM vehicles, etc.) The SD phase will take place over a period of approximately nine months.

Once the SD phase is complete, the final design phase will commence. During final design, the team will progress the SD plans to a design development (DD) phase for review by all affected stakeholders and City of Dallas departments. Review comments will be incorporated and a construction plan set (CDs) will be developed. It is anticipated that this phase will take approximately eighteen (18) months to complete.

12.1.2 APM System The APM System design phase will take place concurrent with the facilities design phase. During the APM System design phase, the APM System design team will provide APM System related design information to the facilities designers so that a number of different APM System Suppliers providing proprietary APM System technologies can propose on the DAL PMC.




Simultaneous with this effort, the APM System design team will develop detailed performance based procurement documents for the APM Suppliers to propose on the DAL PMC. The detailed performance specifications for the APM System will be developed based on relevant codes and standards, the System Performance requirements discussed in Section 6.0 of this report as well as other pertinent information developed during the APM System design phase. The reference drawings will be based on the CDs developed by the facilities designer and will provide pertinent information to the APM System Suppliers on the fixed facilities that will be provided for their use such as equipment and substation room size and location(s), tunnel diameter and alignment, station size and location(s) and maintenance facility size and location. The procurement documents will be developed in cooperation with the City of Dallas Legal and Procurement departments to comply with the city regulations for a high tech procurement.

12.2 PROCUREMENT

12.2.1 Fixed Facilities In the next phase of work, the facilities will be procured using the methodology determined by the City of Dallas. One possible procurement method for the facilities work would be to select a Construction Management at Risk (CMR) contractor during the design phase to allow input to take place during the DD phase. The CMR would then procure the fixed facilities contractors once the design reaches the CD level. For planning purposes, the procurement of a facilities contractor is anticipated to take approximately six (6) months.

12.2.2 APM System The procurement of the APM System Supplier is a unique process in that the procurement documents discussed in 12.1.2 above are developed in a manner that allows multiple suppliers with proprietary equipment to meet the requirements set out in these documents. This is done to increase competition for the APM System procurement. The procurement of the APM System Supplier will be timed so that the System Supplier is selected prior to the end of the fixed facilities design phase. Selecting an APM supplier prior to the completion of the facilities design affords the design team the ability to refine the size of the fixed facilities to specific requirements of the selected APM System.

The procurement of an APM System Supplier will take place over a period of approximately nine (9) months.




12.3 APM SYSTEM MANUFACTURING

Soon after the APM supplier is selected, the APM System supplier shall provide proprietary design and construction interface documentation which contains the System specific requirements of the fixed facilities design including necessary tunnel diameter and alignment, equipment and substation room sizes, station platform lengths and maintenance requirements.

Following the selection of the APM System Supplier and the completion of the design/interface document, the APM System Supplier will commence with the manufacturing of the APM System elements. Proprietary system design reviews and fabrication inspections will take place by the APM System Design team during the APM System manufacturing phase so that the elements of the APM System comply with relevant codes as well as fit within the fixed facilities (tunnel, stations and maintenance facility) that have been designed and are under construction. The APM System manufacturing will take place over a period of approximately twenty-eight (28) months.

12.4 CIVIL/SITEWORK CONSTRUCTION The first construction activity to take place as part of the DAL PMC program will be the civil/sitework. During this work, any necessary demolition or site preparation will take place as well as the relocation of aerial and underground utilities so that the tunnel and station construction can proceed without delay. The civil/sitework will take place over a period of approximately nine (9) months.

12.5 TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION

The construction of the tunnel is perhaps the most complex element of facilities work within the DAL PMC program. It is anticipated that the construction of the tunnel will progress from the DART Love Field Station site towards the Love Field Terminal Building site due to the schedule of construction of the DART Love Field Station as well as the phasing of the Love Field Modernization Program. It is imperative that the shell construction of the station at the Love Field Terminal site take place during the phase of the Modernization Program that involves the demolition of the last portion of the west concourse and associated apron of the existing facility.

The tunnel construction across the airfield will require close coordination with Airfield Operations as well as with Southwest Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration. Monitoring of runway 13R/31L for settlement during construction will also take place to prevent




disruption in airport operations. The tunnel construction will take place over a period of approximately twenty-six (26) months and will overlap with the station construction phase.

12.6 STATION CONSTRUCTION The station construction is dependent on the successful completion of the tunnel construction. As previously stated, the construction of the station at the Love Field Terminal site is interdependent on the phase of the Modernization Program that involves the demolition of the last section of the west concourse and apron.

The other APM station adjacent to the DART Love Field station does not necessarily have to be a part of the tunnel construction bid package. This station has a dependency on the construction of the tunnel and the DART Station but can be constructed somewhat independently with routine coordination with the other projects and potentially no impact to airport operations. The station construction will take place over a period of approximately eighteen (18) months and will overlap with the tunnel construction and the APM System Installation phases.

12.7 APM SYSTEM INSTALLATION

Once the APM System Final Design phase is completed and the tunnel and station construction projects have completed the portion of those facilities needed by the APM Supplier, access will be granted to begin System Installation by the APM Supplier. The APM Supplier will install all required running surfaces, guidance systems, propulsion systems, train control systems, maintenance items and vehicles necessary to operate the APM System. The APM System Installation will take place over a period of approximately twenty (20) months.

12.8 APM SYSTEM TESTING AND DEMONSTRATION

Once these discrete elements have been installed and individually tested for compliance with the requirements of the contract, the elements will be tested in an operating state to verify that the System functions as required. This testing, also known as System Demonstration generally is the last element of work to take place prior to substantial completion of the program. Included in the System Demonstration is dynamic testing of the entire System, readiness drills with agencies having jurisdiction (e.g. - Fire and Police) and certification of safety systems, equipment and personnel. The APM System Testing and Demonstration will take place over a period of approximately six (6) months.



13.0 Funding Sources and Options

13.0 Funding Sources andO

ptions13.0 Funding Sources and

Options




REPORT OUTLINE















13.0 Funding Sources and Options KG 10-JUL-08





TABLE OF CONTENTS

13.0 FUNDING SOURCES AND OPTIONS .....................................................................13-1




13.0 FUNDING SOURCES AND OPTIONS

For a project of this nature, there are several funding alternatives available to airports. Since the primary mission of the project is the safe and efficient handling of passengers into and out of the airport, the project becomes eligible for funding under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program. This eligibility would extend to all elements of the program with the exception of operation and maintenance costs. It is important to note that with the ongoing development initiatives for the Airport, AIP funding resources may be limited to higher priority projects as identified by the Airport’s Capital Improvement Program and the FAA.

The PFC program provides a valuable revenue stream for capital projects of this nature. Under current regulations, an airport operator can apply to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval to levy the PFC at a rate of $1.00, $2.00, $3.00, $4.00, or $4.50 per enplaned passenger, which is collected by the air carrier operator and remitted to the airport on a monthly basis. An $0.11 administrative fee is retained by the carrier as compensation for collecting, accounting for, and remitting the PFC to the Airport operator. These resources are available for both capital and financing costs associated with the program.

For the purposes of funding capacity analysis, there are a few things to consider:

• The PFC is collected at the first two departing airports of a passenger’s itinerary on each leg of the trip.

• The PFC is not collected on tickets that are issued as “Frequent Flyer” awards.

• PFC programs are approved based on a total amount of “PFC Revenue” required not on a specific time of collection.

With these items in mind, a high level analysis of the PFC funding capacity was accomplished to identify total revenue available for the PMC program. Using actual 2007 enplanement data as the base year and forecasting the growth with the FAA Terminal Area Forecast growth rates, the following table represents a forecast of future enplanements.




Year Enplanements

2007* 3,980,867

2008 4,065,719

2012 4,421,003

2017 6,448,202

2022 8,236,284

2027 9,133,237

*indicates actual data

Exhibit 13.0-1 Summary of Forecasted Enplanement Levels

To compute the PFC revenue capacity, we then apply some conservative assumptions:

• Passenger traffic is expected to grow in accordance with industry norms until long-haul flight operations are initiated (2014).

• When long-haul flight operations are initiated, a significant surge in passenger levels is expected, which will level off over the ensuing five – seven years and then return to a growth rate back in line with industry norms.

• 95% of the ticketed passengers using the facility are flying on revenue tickets versus frequent flyer tickets.

• PFC revenues are not pledged against other projects.

With this in mind, the following table depicts potential revenue to be collected by the PFC for use on the program. The table assumes collections in 2009 at the current $3.00 PFC level and increasing to the current maximum $4.50 PFC level in 2010.




Year Projected PFC Revenue

2009 $ 11,400,629

2010 $ 17,683,156

2011 $ 18,056,392

2012 $ 18,437,795

2013 $ 18,827,559

2014 $ 20,841,435

2015 $ 22,856,621

2016 $ 24,873,259

2017 $ 26,892,228

2218 $ 28,913,770

2019 $ 30,937,017

2020 $ 32,960,497

2021 $ 33,647,586

2022 $ 34,349,423

2023 $ 35,066,336

2024 $ 35,798,663

2025 $ 36,546,756

2026 $ 37,310,481

2027 $ 38,090,166

2028 $ 38,886,145

Total $ 562,375,914

Exhibit 13.0-2 Summary of Projected PFC Revenue Collections




The funding capacity analysis performed above assumes that the entire amount required for the DAL PMC would be borrowed at the onset of the project. It is likely that the utilization of these bond proceeds would occur during the design and implementation of the program.

The total estimated collection through a Passenger Facility Charge based on the current forecast is $562,375,914. Other aviation related financial sources that could be examined include traditional General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARB); Customer Facility Charges, Airport Rates and Charges, and other Federal programs such as the Federal Transit Administration’s funding.

Potential funding may exist from non-aviation funding sources to help finance the DAL PMC. These funding sources may include municipal bonds, local government corporation funding, and Dallas County funding as well as other funding sources available through the City of Dallas. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has committed $20,000,000 and the Regional Transportation (RTC) has earmarked $100,000,000 for rail access into airports in the North Texas Region.

These committed funding sources along with the use of a PFC and the other potential funding sources listed above would be the mechanism to design, construct and commission the DAL PMC.



14.0 Preliminary Project Feasibility

14.0 Preliminary Project

Feasibility14.0 Prelim

inary ProjectFeasibility




REPORT OUTLINE
















14.0 Project Feasibility L+E 10-JUL-08




TABLE OF CONTENTS

14.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY ..........................................................................................14-1




14.0 PROJECT FEASIBILITY

The PMC will provide a high level of service to air travelers and employees connecting between Dallas Love Field and the DART Love Field Station. The resulting service will be perceived by users as a seamless connection and will provide access to Dallas and the region via the regional rail network. The PMC will create a new entrance to Love Field that will reflect a high quality of service consistent with the airport image. This new entrance will introduce passengers to the new Dallas Love Field and provide a level of service similar to other long-haul airports throughout the United States. The passenger experience will potentially include all of the features of the modernized Love Field terminal facility and the architecture of the station will accordingly reflect the Love Field experience.

The PMC can be constructed for a reasonable cost in comparison to similar APM systems. The construction of the PMC can be accomplished with minimal impact to the terminal and airfield areas. Integration with the modernization program and the DART Love Field LRT station has been considered in the development of the recommended alternative through coordination with the TARPS and DART Northwest Corridor Expansion projects during the course of the feasibility study.

Based on the level of detail which has been developed to date, a planning level cost assessment has been developed for the recommended alternative. Escalation has been added to address the cost of materials, the rising cost of oil, and competition for skilled labor regionally. In addition to these factors, the year in which the project is constructed and the value of the US dollar in comparison to other world currencies will have an impact on the overall cost of the program. The program cost estimate is not based on a design but rather the information which has been developed during the course of this study.

The planning level cost assessment for the DAL PMC is $270,000,000 (2008 Dollars) or $330,000,000 (2010 Dollars assuming an annual escalation rate of 8%).

Funding for the DAL PMC is anticipated to be from a number of sources. The estimated revenue from a $4.50 Passenger Facility Charge appears to be adequate to cover the recommended alternative project cost. Other known sources of funding include the DART $20,000,000 commitment and a portion of the $100,000,000 commitment for rail access into airports in the North Texas Region from the Regional Transportation Commission. Other funding sources within the City of Dallas may also be available as well as from the County of Dallas and perhaps even the Local Government Corporation that will be developed for the terminal modernization program.




In consideration of the information presented above and within this report, the DAL PMC is a feasible project and will provide the benefits desired by the City of Dallas.