july 2011 public private partnership program

TO:

THROUGH:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

ISSUE

ROGER S. MOLIERE CHIEF, REAL PROPE DEVELOPMENT

One Gateway Plaza Los An geles, CA 90012. 2 952

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

2 13.922.2000 Tel metro. net

July1,2011

In response to a motion made by Director Najarian at the December Board meeting staff, at the February 24, 2011 Board meeting, presented a report outlining preliminary costing information for the SR-71 0 North gap project. Discussion of the report at the February meeting generated some further questions from Board members concerning the basis of cost assumptions. These questions are discussed herein.

BACKGROUND

At the February Board meeting, an initial Interim Draft Report ("Preliminary Report") concerning the SR 710 North gap project cost analysis was presented in response Director Najarian 's December motion. The Preliminary Report contained a comparative cost analysis of a nominal tunnel option for the SR-710 North Gap project based upon independent cost estimates and an analysis of comparable tunnel construction costs of a tunnel which will utilize design and technology similar to that which could be used for the proposed SR-710 North Gap project.

The Preliminary Report findings validated the updated cost estimates for the SR-710 North Gap tunnel calculated for earlier strategic assessment work undertaken by staff and by our public private partnership ("PPP") consultants.

Staff and our consultant team has since completed a final version of the this report ("Final Report") which substantiates the initial findings and indicate that the presented costs are reflective of current market pricing. The Final Report contains further details relating to the specific bases of the concept design, project description phasing and assumptions as well as a detailed breakdown of the comparative cost analysis. A copy of the Final Report is attached,

As noted in both reports, the recent actual bids received for the generally-similar Alaska Way Tunnel in Seattle, WA confirm the viability of the per-mile construction cost estimates we are using for the preliminary engineering and environmental work on the proposed tunnel alternative.

In response to the questions raised at the February Board meeting, and to provide a more complete picture of the potential SR-71 0 North tunnel costs, our PPP consultant team also prepared conceptual deSigns and cost estimates for the north and south tunnel portals and added detailed cost assumptions for a separate ventilation tunnel and seismic treatment at the Raymond fault. At this stage of project development, the best estimate of total project cost utilizing nominal assumptions for a dual-bore 7.96 mile tunnel is that total cost will fall between $2.7 billion and $3.5 billion, with the most likely cost being $3.25 billion.

Discussion of the preliminary cost report at the February 2011 meeting generated some further questions from Board members concerning the basis of cost assumptions as well as questions related to other tunnel construction projects. Those questions and the responses prepared by staff and our PPP consultant team are as follows:

Question 1: Why didn't you consider total costs ofthe project, including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, lighting, etc.?

Answer: The construction costs shown in Table 1 of the Final Report include all of those costs. It is the total projected construction cost. The total project cost shown in Table 1 includes total capital construction cost plus agency engineering costs, agency management costs, an allowance for right-of-way, insurance, and contingency.

Question 2: What is the per mile cost for the tunnel and for the project as a whole?

Answer: Table 1 of the Final Report shows underground cost per mile ($349 million/mile) and Appendix A of the Final Report shows the Overall cost per mile -($455 million/mile for a single bore tunnel and $420 million/mile for dual bore -total $840 million/mile for the dual bore suggested configuration).

Question 3: How do these costs per mile compare to the Boston Central Artery, to the WMATA transit tunnels in Washington DC and to the BART tunnels?

Answer: These are substantially different projects and a comparison of costs is difficult to do in a meaningful manner. The Central Artery in Boston was a complex project that not only included a cut-and-cover tunnel, with immense environmental mitigation costs, but it also included a submersed tube tunnel, a high level signature bridge and significant project components outside of the tunnels. It was a design-bid-build project with the public agency retaining most of the risks of both cost overruns and time of delivery. As such it is a very different project model from PPP based construction. The other referenced transit tunnels were much smaller diameter tunnels than that contemplated for SR-71 0 North and were also delivered by design-bid-build.

It is important to note the Alaska Way Tunnel in Seattle which was used for comparative purposes to verify our cost estimates is the only tunnel in the U.S. that is a large diameter tunnel constructed with a tunnel boring machine and is being delivered design-build with a similar PPP risk allocation as is being considered for SR-71 0 North Gap project. Following are the comparisons on a per mile basis for these three projects:

SR710N Base Boston Central BART Warm SQrings WMATA Metro

Alternative, 2011 ~'s: Arter'L, 2007 ~'s Extension {1969-2001 ~'sl

Total Cost Esti mate $3.244B $14.8B $890M $8.8B

Overall project length 8 miles (two tunnels- 8 miles (5 miles in 5.4 miles (most but 103 miles (most but

4 miles long each) tunnel) notall in tunnel) not all in tunnel)

Total lane miles 32 161 2 tracks 2 tracks (typically)

Overall cost per mile $840M $1.85B $165M $85.4M

project length

Overall cost per lane mile $100M $91.9M $82.5M $42.7M

ortrackmile

Question 4: What is the cost if a different alignment is chosen? What if it is a 28,000' tunnel instead of a 21,000' tunnel?

Answer: Table 4 of the Final Report shows the cost of each of the five zonal alignment alternatives. The Zone 2 alignment is 27,500' and, at an underground cost of $325 million/mile, is estimated at a total project cost of $4.27B compared to $3.24B for the base (Zone 3) alternative at an underground cost of $331 million/mile.

NEXT STEPS

We are proceeding with the development of business cases for the six initial PPP candidate projects, including the SR-71 0 North Gap project. The information compiled for this cost analYSis will be beneficial to this next phase of work, which we expect to be completed by the end of this summer.

This Report will be released to the public, our stakeholders and will be published on our website, www.metro.net/ppp. We anticipate completing the Task 4A business cases by mid- to late-2011, and will be returning to the Board with recommendations. If appropriate, we will request authorization to proceed into a procurement phase.

ATTACHMENT

Final Report: SR-710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Public-Private Partnership Program

SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis

March 29th , 2011

Prepared by

INFRACONSULT LLC

Consultants

Englander & Associates

Sharon Greene & Associates Halcrow, Inc.

KPMG LLP Nossaman UP

SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report

Table of Contents o. Introduction and Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 1

1. Comparative Analysis with Seattle's Alaska Way Tunnel ......................................................................... 1

1.1 Basis of Comparison ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Results of Comparative Analysis ......................................................................................................... 2

Table 1: Alaska Way Tunnel and SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Comparison ............................................ 3

2. Portal Configuration and Estimate Adjustment ........................................................................................ 3

Table 2: Cost Estimates Based on Conceptual Designs ........................................................................ 3

3. Range Estimate ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 3: Reasonable Low, Best, and High Estimates ............................................................................ 5

4. Zonal Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 6

Table 4: SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone Comparison ...................................................... 6

5. Comparative Risk Assessment: SR 710 North to AWT ............................................................................. 7

Table 5: Risk Comparison between the SR 710 North and the Bids for AWT ....................................... 7

Appendices Appendix A: Detailed Breakdown of Comparative Cost Analysis

Appendix B: Conceptual Portal Designs

Appendix C: SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone vs. Alaskan Way Cost Plan Summary

InfraConsult ii

O. Introduction and Conclusions This report is in response to Metro Task Order 4A-2(a} under Metro's Public-Private Partnership Advisory

Services contract with InfraConsult, LLC. The Report presents a summary of a cost assessment for the SR

710 North Tunnel, as defined in the Strategic Assessment Report prepared previously. The primary

conclusion to draw from this assessment is that the tunnel cost estimate for the representative SR 710

North alignment derived for the earlier strategic assessment work is reflective of current market pricing.

The actual bids received for a generally similar project confirm the per-mile construction cost that Metro

is using for its preliminary engineering and environmental work on the proposed tunnel.

It is very early in the planning and design process and clearly there are unknowns that could emerge as

the planning and design process progresses. But given this early stage of analysis, the most likely

construction cost (low bid price) for the Zone 3 alternative in 2011 dollars is $2.8B and can be

reasonably assumed to fall between $2.3B and $3.0B. In terms of total project costs, it can reasonably

be assumed that they will fall between $2.7B and $3.5B and most likely be $3.25B, in 2011 dollars.

1. Comparative Analysis with Seattle's Alaska Way Tunnel In December 2010, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) opened bids on the

first large bore highway tunnel in North America using state-of-the-art tunnel boring machine (TBM)

technology. The Alaskan Way Tunnel (AWT) in downtown Seattle will be built using design and

technology similar to that proposed for the SR 710 North gap closure tunnel, should a tunnel be selected

by the Metro Board as the Locally Preferred Alternative during the environmental process. This section

of this report provides a summary comparison of the accepted bid price for the WSDOT tunnel to the

proposed SR 710 North tunnel as defined conceptually by Metro and the InfraConsult Team. It should be

noted that this comparative assessment has been prepared for the nominal tunnel alignment currently

under study for a potential public-private partnership {PPP} for the SR 710 North project. The results of

this study will represent a baseline with respect to the other alternatives that will be fully assessed in

the pending environmental and engineering work. Section 4 of this report applies the results of this cost

analysis to nominal alignments in the other four alternative zones to be studied in the pending

environmental assessment work.

WSDOT received bids from ACS/Dragados and FCC, both major European contractors with large bore

tunneling experience, a relatively recent technological advance in underground civil works. The bid

prices were very close to one another, and both were below the WSDOT estimate. While ACS/Dragados'

price was slightly higher {about $10M out of $1.1B}, it was awarded the project on January 6, 2011

based on a comprehensive evaluation of best value. The contract is a design-build contract, with the

contractor assuming substantial design and construction risk. The transference of risk from the public

sector to the private sector is a key advantage of a design-build/PPP approach. This would also be the

case with the SR 710 North tunnel under a PPP project delivery approach (Section 5 of this report

presents a comparison of risk transference anticipated for the SR 710 North tunnel project under a PPP

approach with that in the WSDOT AWT contract). The WSDOT requirement for such risk transference

1


assured that competition was effectively limited to those contractors with previous experience

designing and constructing large bore tunnels and confident in their ability to meet the contractual and

performance criteria.

1.1 Basis of Comparison

While there are many similarities between the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the proposed SR 710 North

representative tunnel alignment, there are also key differences which must be taken into account in

undertaking a comparative cost assessment. The most obvious difference is tunnel length. The Seattle

tunnel is 9,500' long, while the proposed nominal SR 710 North tunnel alignment is 21,000' and

currently anticipated to be a dual bore tunnel, creating a total center-line length of 42,000'. While this

approach obviously increases the cost, it also provides for economies of scale, thus a reduction in the

cost per mile of tunnel. For example, the purchase and placement of the TBMs - a substantial fixed cost

- needs to be undertaken only once for each tunnel. Efficiencies also improve as tunneling progresses.

Other key differences are as follows:

• The soils along the AWT tunnel alignment present a greater geotechnical challenge than the

soils in the vicinity of the SR 710 North tunnel.

• The AWT alignment under downtown Seattle encounters numerous high rise buildings, as well

as a number of historic buildings of substantial footprint. Certain special mitigation actions were

therefore included in the AWT which are unlikely to be needed for SR 710 North. (One of the

AWT bids included $36M for these costs, while the other bid carried $138M for such mitigation,

as shown in Appendix A).

• The ventilation requirements for the AWT are less substantial than for the SR 710 North tunnel,

owing to its shorter length. No interim vent stacks were necessary in Seattle, and horizontal

ventilation is contained within the bore itself. For SR 710 North, this is not the case. For the

purposes of this comparative analysis, the SR 710 North tunnel cost assessment incorporated

$90 million for a parallel small bore tunnel to accommodate horizontal ventilation and to serve

as a pilot bore and as an additional evacuation alternative.

• Both tunnels are in seismically vulnerable areas. The SR 710 North tunnel alternative considered

here would dissect the Raymond Fault at nearly a perpendicular angle. While this is not

considered particularly problematic, for the purposes of this assessment $50M has been

included for special handling of the fault crossing.

• The portals in Seattle must be newly constructed in dense urban areas. For SR 710 North, there

are stub freeway connections at both ends and the portal designs are relatively straight forward.

The portal configurations and likely costs are considered in more detail in Section 2 of this

report.

1.2 Results of Comparative Analysis

The primary conclusion to draw from this comparative analysis is that the tunnel cost estimate for the

representative SR 710 North alignment derived for the earlier strategic assessment work is reflective of

current market pricing. The actual bids received for a generally similar project confirm the per-mile

construction cost that Metro is using for its preliminary engineering and environmental work on the

I nfraConsu It 2


proposed tunnel. That is, the AWT tunnel construction cost, as bid, supports the value used in the earlier

analysis of $332M per tunnel mile for the costs of the underground construction, but now including the

$90M ventilation tunnel and the $50M seismic treatment at the Raymond fault. Also evaluated as part

of this costing analysis were an alternative to build only a single bore as a first phase of the total project

and building bores sequentially with a single tunnel boring machine (TBM) or simultaneously using two

TBMs. Table 1 shows the top level results of this analysis and a detailed spreadsheet with more specific

breakdowns is included with this report as Appendix A.

Table 1: Alaska Way Tunnel and SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Comparison

Underground Cost Total Construction Total Project per Tunnel Mile Cost Cost

(million $/mile) (million $) (million $) SR 710 North Tunnel PB 2006 Estimate - 2,514 2,891

Task 3 Cost Estimate - 2,849 3,469 Current Estimate: Twin Bore - 2 TBMs 331 2,846 3,344

Current Estimate: Twin Bore - 1 TBM 321 2,761 3,244

Current Estimate: Single Bore 349 1,596 1,882

Alaska Way Tunnel

WSDOT Estimate 428 1,365 2,155

FCC Bid 350 1,198 1,878

Dragados Bid 309 1,200 1,880

2. Portal Configuration and Estimate Adjustment

The portal design for SR 710 North is much simpler that AWT. The alignment being considered for the

Zone 3 base case alternative ties into two stub freeways with no additional right of way required and

favorable vertical alignment. For this study, we have extended and modified the previous assumptions

with conceptual designs for both the north and south portals. The conceptual design retains the same

access to city streets as currently exists. We have also segregated the cost by Phase 1 (first bore) and

Phase 2 (second bore). These conceptual design drawings are included herewith as Appendix B. The

cost estimate developed based on these conceptual designs, including contingency is shown in Table 2

below.

Table 2: Cost Estimates Based on Conceptual Designs

South Portal North Portal Total

Phase 1 $68.2M $27.3M $95M

Phase 2 $42.9M $18.3M $61.2M

Total $111.1M $45.5M

Grand Total: $156.6M

I nfraConsu It 3


The concept design is specifically based on the following:

Description

• Project Limits for South Portal: Hellman Avenue to Valley Road.

• Project Limits for North Portal: Palmetto Drive to Del Mar Boulevard.

Phase 1

• Construction of a single bored tunnel carrying 2 northbound (NBP1) and 2 southbound (SBP1)

lanes in a stacked configuration.

• Includes construction of an off ramp from NBP1 to Valley Boulevard.

• Includes on ramp from Valley Boulevard to SBPl.

• Includes partial reconstruction of Valley Boulevard to allow for NBP1 and SBP1 underpass.

• Includes an off ramp from NBP1 to Pasadena Avenue.

• Includes an elevated on ramp from Del Mar Boulevard to SBPl.

• It is assumed that existing access from 1-210 Foothill Freeway southbound to West California

Boulevard to remain as is.

Phase 2

• Construction of a second single bored tunnel carrying 2 northbound (NBP2) and 2 southbound

(SBP2) lanes in a stacked configuration.

• Includes partial reconstruction of on ramp from Valley Boulevard to SBP2.

• Includes partial reconstruction of Valley Boulevard to allow for NBP2 and SBP2 underpass.

• Includes partial reconstruction of on ramp from Del Mar Boulevard to SBP2.

• It is assumed that existing access from 1-210 Foothill Freeway southbound to West California

Boulevard to remain as is.

Assumptions

• The Cost Plan is based on Concept Engineering Design as shown in Appendix B.

• The Cost Plan is based at 1st Quarter 2011 prices.

• Drainage items are costed at 10% of Roadway Items 1 & 2.

• Minor Items are costed at 15% of Roadway Items 1 to 5.

• Mobilization is assumed to be 10% of Roadway Items 1 to 6.

• Utility Relocations are costed at 10% of Roadway Items.

• A Design Development/ Pricing Risk of 15% has been applied to the estimate.

• A Risk/Contingency of 20% has been applied to the estimate.

Exclusions

The Cost Plan excludes:

• All additional Taxes.

• Table 2 does not include any costs associated with land or property purchase. It appears that

the portals can be constructed within existing right-of-way but $13M is included in the total

project cost estimate to cover any such need that does emerge (see Appendix A).

• Any socio-environmental costs that may emerge.

I nfraConsu It 4


• Any 3rd Party costs that may emerge.

• Project management and preliminary design costs are excluded from Table 2 but are covered in

the total project cost estimate (see Appendix A).

• Price escalation and inflation beyond 1st Quarter 2011.

• All Maintenance and Operational Costs.

• No allowance has been made for any costs associated with Public Authorities.

• All finance or funding costs are excluded.

3. Range Estimate At this level of analysis it is necessary to consider a range of possibilities related to costs and physical

configurations. In determining the estimates presented in Sections 1 and 2 of this report we have

selected the most reasonable assumptions with respect to each of the several cost components. It can

be useful to assess the potential variability in these assumptions to place an upper and a lower bound

on the numbers and assess the possible margin of error. That is the purpose of this section.

In addition to the "Best Estimate" presented in Sections 1 and 2, we assessed a reasonable low cost or

best case estimate and a reasonable high cost estimate. The results of this analysis are shown in Table

3. The following can be concluded from this analysis:

• The most likely construction cost (low bid price) in 2011 dollars is $2.8B, but can be

reasonably assumed to be between $2.3B and $3.0B.

• In terms of total project costs, it can reasonably be assumed that they will fall between

$2.7B and $3.5B and most likely be $3.25B.

Table 3: Reasonable Low, Best, and High Estimates

SR 710 North Revised Dual Bore - 1 TBM

Item Description Reasonable Low

Best Estimate Reasonable High

Estimate Estimate

Millions, US$ Millions, US$ Millions, US$ Civils - Portals 122.4 156.0 156.0 Civils - Tunnels 2,059.0 2,413.5 2,495.1 TBM estimated fixed costs 55.0 85.0 85.0 Estimated Tunnel Variable costs: 2,004.0 2,328.5 2,410.1 f(length)

Civils - Tunnel Ventilation Structures 90.0 90.0 150.0 Civils - Special Treatment at Raymond 0 50.0 75.0 Fault Toll Collection Systems 15.0 16.0 18.0 Socio-Environmental Works 4.0 5.0 6.0 Operational Control Centre / Building 25.0 28.0 60.0 Geological Surveys 1.8 2.0 2.2 Sub-total Construction Costs 2,317.2 2,760.5 2,962.3 Design Costs 69.5 82.8 88.9 Project Management Costs 23.2 27.6 29.6 Land Costs / Right of Way 0 13.0 18.0 Total Project Base Costs 2,409.9 2,883.9 3,098.8

I nfraConsu It 5


Insurance 60.2 72.1 77.5 Risk I Contingency 241.0 288.4 309.9

Total Project Costs 2,711.1 3,244.4 3,486.2

4. Zonal Cost Estimates The initial cost estimate developed for the "nominal" project, known as the Zone 3 generic alternative,

was used to develop conceptual cost estimates for Zones 1, 2, 4, and 5. A number of construction

components with fixed costs were held constant: cost of 2 TBMs and 2 portals, allocation for special

seismic treatments, the cost of toll collections systems, an operational control center, and land

costs/right-of-way. Variable costs primarily related to the length of the tunnel and/or geologic

conditions varied between the zones: tunnel civil work costs, tunnel construction, ventilation structures,

design costs, and project management costs.

Overall Project Costs varied from $3.4 billion for the generic alternative in Zone 3 to a high of $7.8 billion

for the longest generic alternative in Zone 5. Construction costs varied from $2.8 billion to $6.6 billion.

Longer alternatives in Zones 4 and 5 had the highest overall costs. Appendix C contains a spreadsheet

with a more detailed breakdown of the costs.

Table 4: SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone Comparison

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone4 Zone 5 Generic Generic Generic Generic Generic

Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Overall Length

10.80 10.42 7.96 12.88 20.45 (miles)

Underground Cost per mile $324 $325 $331 $321 $315

(mi"ion $/mile)

Total Construction Costs $3,752 $3,637 $2,847 $4,386 $6,689

(million $)

Total Project Costs $4,404 $4,270 $3,345 $5,146 $7,840

(mi"ion $)

As a part of this study, the IC team reviewed the materials available on the geotechnical data for all the

zones, primarily the CH2M Hill 2009 geotechnical report "Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility

Assessment." Our conclusion is that at this level of detail the cost per mile will not significantly vary

based on geotechnical considerations. There is not much difference from one zone to the other for the

tunnel itself based on the level of available design, geology and constructability/feasibility assumptions.

Geologically speaking, there are comparable fault crossings in the various zones. The number of borings

and geophysics did not provide any significant discriminators among the zonal alignments with respect

to assignment of additional cost contributors.

InfraConsult 6


5. Comparative Risk Assessment: SR 710 North to AWT The purpose of this section is to compare the current SR 710 North risk register prepared in the strategic

assessment phase of this study with the recently submitted proposals for the WSDOT Alaskan Way

Tunnel. Both bidders for the AWT (Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP), the Dragados team, and Seattle

Tunneling Group (STG), the FCC team) submitted risk registers as part of their technical proposals. The

risk registers are prepared from the perspective of the bidding parties and primarily identify and assess

the technical risks associated with the construction contract.

As part of this task, we have reviewed both STP's and STG's risk registers in direct comparison with the

risk register prepared previously as part of the strategic assessment phase (Task 3) of the P3 Analysis

contract.

It should be noted that while it is possible to carry out a comparative study between these projects of a

similar nature, as noted earlier, each project has its own specific risks related to such things as

geotechnical ground conditions, degree of urbanization, proximity of buildings and other structures,

political environment, contract terms and conditions, technical design solutions and project objectives

including expected volumes of traffic.

Table 5 below summaries the risks, by topic, that have been included in the SR 710 North Task 3 risk

register compared to the Contractor's risks registers for the AWT.

Table 5: Risk Comparison between the SR 710 North and the Bids for AWT

Risk Topic SR 710 North Seattle Tunnelling Group Seattle Tunnel Partners

Risk Register (STG) (STP)

Risks included to cover N/ A - permits and N/ A - permits and Permits and Approvals Local, Regional and State approvals already approvals already

approvals - LACMTA risk obtained obtained

Risks identified to cover a change in political

N/ A - would be N/ A - would be Political support environment or a change

considered a WSDOT risk considered a WSDOT risk in political support-

LACMTA risk

Risks identified to cover a N/ A - would be N/ A - would be

Security Provisions change in security

considered a WSDOT risk considered a WSDOT risk requirements - LACMTA

as Contract awarded as Contract awarded risk

Numerous design and Numerous design and Numerous design and Design ofTBM and tunnel technical risks included - technical risks included - technical risks included-lining identified as Contractor's accepted as Contractor's accepted as Contractor's

risk risk risk

InfraConsult 7




Numerous construction, Numerous construction, Numerous construction,

Operation ofTBM during operational and technical operational and technical operational and technical construction risks included - identified risks included - accepted risks included - accepted

as Contractor's risk as Contractor's risk as Contractor's risk

Risks identified for Risks included for varying

inaccuracy of ground Risks included for varying Ground conditions and

conditions as a shared risk ground conditions as a

ground conditions as a contaminated material shared risk between

between LACMTA and WSDOT and STG

STP risk Contractor

Risks identified to cover a N/A-would be N/A-would be Change in Scope change in scope of works considered a WSDOT risk considered a WSDOT risk

- LACMTA risk as Contract awarded as Contract awarded

Risks identified covering Risk identified as a shared

Unforeseen Utilities discovery of unforeseen risk

No risks identified

utilities - Contractor risk

Risks included for

Subcontractor/ material subcontractor / material

Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP

supplier performance supplier poor

risk risk performance as a Contractor risk

Insufficient drainage leading Risks identified as a Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP

to flooding Contractor's risk risk risk

Fire / Explosion damage in Risks id entified as a Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP tunnel Contractor's risk risk risk

Numerous risks identified

Operations and Maintenance for the O&M phase of the N/ A - as O&M not part of N/ A - as O&M not part of project - both LACMTA the Contract the Contract and Contractor risk

Risks identified for the

Inaccuracies in Cost Estimate inaccuracy in quantities Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP and pricing - Contractor's risk risk

risk

Risks identified for the increase in construction

Risks included as a STG Cost escalation / inflation costs due to inflation /

risk No risks identified

price escalation -Contractor's risk

I nfraConsu It 8




Delays to public / state Risks included for delays to public / state funding- No risks identified No risks identified

funding LACMTA risk

Risks included for the Availability of Performance availability and premium

No risks identified No risks identified Securities / Bonds cost for Performance

Securities / Bonds

From this review of the three difference project risk registers, it is apparent that that they are

comparable and a cost comparison is valid from a comparable risk transference point of view. Certain

differences do exist however, primarily as follows:

1. The SR 710 North risk register includes some specific risks for Permitting and Approvals which

have already been obtained for the AWT.

2. The SR 710 North risk register includes Operations and Maintenance risks which are not

applicable to the AWT project.

3. All three risk registers include some detailed risks associated with the specific project

geography, geotechnical, technical and design constraints.

I nfraConsu It 9

SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report Appendix A, Detailed Breakdown of Comparative Cost Analysis

SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North Single Bore Revised Dual Revised Dual

Bore - 2 TBMs Bore - 1 TBM

Item Description US$ US$ US$ Civils - Portals 95,000,000 156,000,000 156,000,000

Civils - Tunnels 1,249,233,613 2,498,467,227 2,413,467,227

TBM estimated fixed costs 85,000,000 170,000,000 85,000,000

Estimated Tunnel Variable 1,164,233,613 2,328,467,227 2,328,467,227 costs: f(length)

Civils - Tunnel Ventilation 90,000,000 90,000,000 90,000,000 Structures Civils - Special Treatment at 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 Raymond Fault

Civils - Roadworks INCL INCL INCL

Mechanical and Electrical INCL INCL INCL systems Toll Collection Systems 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000

Socio-Environmental Works 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

Operational Control Centre / 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 Building Geological Surveys 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Utility Diversions INCL INCL INCL

Sub-total Construction 1,535,233,613 2,845,467,227 2,760,467,227 Costs Special Building Settlement NA NA NA Mitigation

Inflation / Price Escalation NA NA NA

Total Construction Costs 1,535,233,613 2,845,467,227 2,760,467,227

Design Costs 46,057,008 85,364,017 82,814,017

Project Management Costs 15,352,336 28,454,672 27,604,672

Land Costs / Right of Way 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000

Total Project Base Costs 1,609,642,958 2,972,285,916 2,883,885,916

Insurance 40,241,074 74,307,148 72,097,148

Design Development / ° ° ° Pricing Risk Risk / Contingency 160,964,296 297,228,592 288,388,592

Total Project Costs 1,810,848,328 3,343,821,655 3,244,371,655

Total other costs 275,614,714 498,354,429 483,904,429

% Additive due to Inflation NA LS added by WSDOT

Facts and Figures

Overall Length 3.98 7.96 7.96

Excavation diameter 57.40 57.40 57.40

Internal liner diameter 52.00 52.00 52.00

Underground Cost per 349 331 321 mile (millions $) Overall Cost per mile 455 420 408 (millions $)

InfraConsult

Alaskan Way Alaskan Way Alaskan Way WSDoT Seattle Seattle Tunnel

Estimate Tunneling Partners GroUp (FCC) (Dragados)

Bid Bid US$ US$ US$

INCL 324,000,000 340,000,000

770,000,000 630,000,000 557,000,000

85,000,000 85,000,000 85,000,000

545,000,000 472,000,000

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

100,000,000 INCL INCL

180,000,000 INCL INCL

° ° ° °

60,000,000 98,500,000 55,000,000

° ° ° 60,000,000 INCL INCL

1,255,000,000 1,052,500,000 952,000,000

INCL 35,802,000 137,700,000

110,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000

1,365,000,000 1,198,302,000 1,199,700,000

169,000,000 169,000,000 169,000,000

54,000,000 54,000,000 54,000,000

152,000,000 152,000,000 152,000,000

1,740,000,000 1,573,302,000 1,574,700,000

100,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000

° ° ° 205,000,000 205,000,000 205,000,000

2,155,000,000 1,878,302,000 1,879,700,000

790,000,000 790,000,000 790,000,000

8.76% 10.45% 11.55%

1.8 1.8 1.8

54.00 54.00 57.40

50.00 50.00 52.00

428 350 309

1197 1044 1044

SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report Appendix B, Conceptual Portal Designs

InfraConsult

L

..."

o 20 100 Curve = 58Pt-! PI STA. ~ 311.23.02 CU'-VO : NBP2-I

PI STA. = 209+13.'CJB Curve = SBP2-1 PI STA.::- 407+2g.01 Del t.oO ::. 30" 27' 29.'=18' {L Tl

o ~ 2' 01' 13.0Q· Dal~ = 30' 27' 29.98' (L TI Delt", = IS" 24' 43.51' IL Tl

!II;;;;~

Feet

.n0 440

410

..................

Cu.-vo = NSPI-I PI STA.::. 105+74.86 Delt", ::. 10° 02' 12.44" (L Tl o ' 2' 18' 10.3Q· T ' 218'<8 L ' 435.84 R ::. 2.488.00 PC 5TA.103+56.39 PT STA.107+92.22

~~

............

Cur-va ::. NBPI-2 PI STA. ::. 1lI+73.96 Delto ::. 20' 36'\c1.4S' CL Tl o ' 2' 43' 42.13' T , 381.74 L ::. 755.23 R , 2.100.00 PC STA.107+92.22 PI STA.1I5+47.45

. i 1/ \

N8 PHi RAMP

/ --=-~-/~_:__~_i_~-= =--:=-i-~~.

'" ~ ~

PGL

.... Ex '''1:.. end. <:! SBP2

T = 772.07 L ~ 1.507.61 R ::- 2.836.00 PC STA.303.50.% PT STA.3\8+58.56

PGL

o ~ 2' 48' 16.17' T ~ 556.1Q L = 1.086.05 R ::- 2.043.00 PC STtl.203+57.80 PI STA.214+43.85

.';-~~~ .. ---. :-::-::-

ENGINEER OF RECORD

II I III I I' 16700 E. P'''fi,H~:~:~~:~~W,y. S,H, 180

f.-. -1-. ----------~.-_+. --l.~.f__---------_+. -+. -I, C~~~F~~~~E ;~~~~~o~~~~~~~823604080 I I

3/2'V2011 ~:\PROJECTS\ho"'pO"O<lon\TATl~M - lA Mc~o ppp Sc''',co''6~ P~QJccc Wo_k,To,k -4 8~"no" Co,o\.~.2 'Ie HOd~"10 Non" ecoc ,o.,e.Won.<>1 Concop' Do"gn on<l E,<cmo<o,DGN Fdo,\PLAN.PROFILES.dg"

o , 2' 03' 02.<2' T = 378.06 L , 751.56 R = 2.]<:)4.00 PC STA.403+50.95 PT STA.411.02.51

- - - - PROPOSED EO? PH2 H{1iV,F-'

t!) Metro ~:ZIi\frJConSLIlt

----------------

ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

~

440

400

380

360

340

DRAWING NO

Cl

~

I

L

\

Cu.-va = 5BP2-2 PI STA.:: 414+42.IQ

Curve :: S8P2-J PI STA.:: 422+60.85

DeJta :: 13' 46' 12.10" ILl) Dalto :: 6' 23' 45.07" (An o ' 2' 02' 15.16' T :: 33<:).54 L ' 675.81 R :: 2.812.00 PC STA.411+02.65 PT STA.4\7+78.46

o ' 2' 06' 20.4S· T ' 152.03 L :: 303.74 R , 2.721.00 PC STA.421+08.82 PT STA.424+12.56

;!!

~

~ !'

'" ~ ~ - - - - PROPOSED EO? I ! ~ ~ ~ 220 ---- --------: -------- ---- -----------------~ 42~_-------

~ 215- --:';0",;0- ------ ---------------------------- -

CUr"ve = NBP2-2 PI STA. = 222+7Q.e13 Delto = 6' 23' -45.e17"IRTJ o ' 2' 04' 57.81' T = 153.7121 L = 3e17.e1Q R 0 2.751.00 PC STA.221+25.32 PT 5TA.22-4+32.41

r 5TA.125+18.leI = 51A.32-4+89.58

_____ -- _- - - - - ___ N--6'-23'-A5-'II- -12~~-:" ____ - - - --- CURVE NSPI-3

% _::~_=_~_-=-_=_-=--=-_=_=-~_=__=_ _____ ..:_--..:-- - ---- - ----;~·-2;·~~~ _______ eURVE"""5BPl=Z-----------"'C -aBuw-Nor-ttT

i ~1.5 __ -- -- - ----;S23' ;\:-W ..... --- - ;;

': --.:---..:- ~ ~ ~" Cur-va :: SBPI·2 ! ~ is "-PGL S8 PH! PI STA.:: 322+81.64 ~ ~ t-. PGL NB PHI Oet te :: 6' 23' 45.07' (AT) :..... :..... ~ ~ 0 :: 2' e'=!' 02.67" lSI Q)

44~

40~

Cu.-va :: S8PI.! T:: 148.84 t- PI STA.:: 311+23.02 L:: 297.38 0.. Dolto :: 30' 27' ZQ.9S' CL n R:: 2.664.00

I \

," ~ --I'--=-~"'-=::J / ',t.,,--=-=--=--:::-r=_ - tri ~- - I ~

+ •

o :: 2" 01' 13.09" PC STA,321+32.80 ,T :: ?~? .. ~~. PT STA.324+30.18

Pi 11

. .:.:.:J:.:.:~~..:.:;J~S'OF VALLEl ~30' IBM SIAGfNq AREA

--i tr "'I'~'~,,{,~c\~l"''''c:lc; fn OC ,~'"

Cur"ve = N8Pl-3 PI 5TA. = 122+95.89 Del t.o = 6" 23' 45.1217' IRll D = 2' 07' 36.45" T = 15121.52 L 0 300.73 R = 2.69-4.0121 PC STA.121+45.37 PT 5TA.124+46.11'1

ri ~

,RO

36~

, !

, '

"l ~ n F j ; \1 ~ ~. ~ rn :--~ ~I ~ + 7 14V'1

- - EXIst. G,.,d. D NBPl - - - - EXISt.. G,.,ci. ~ NBP2

..,. zc,'~

o 20 100 1O;o;; __ ~

Feet

44~

4~~

38~

36~

34~

PGL ~~~. A SBPV I=--Emr----t------t--------j~-----+-----;;-o,rt~,---+-----+---------I- --- EXIst. Gnd. '" SBPl ~~~E~,~,,~.-~G~nd~.~'~S~8~P2J1---t------r-----1------+------~----~-}3~2~~

I?'il~~ I'" 1 1 "" 1 0 I'" 1 1 "" 1 " 1 C,"SUC""'

MARCH 2011

'I I I I II I I I 6700 E_ P"if"H~:';:~~;~~w,y, s,no 180 f-, -+, ----------+, --+,-,f-I-, -----------+,--+, --1. C~~~~F~~~~E 6~~~~~og~~:r;~;Bi~OBO

t!j Metro infri'\Consul[

Y:\PflQJ~CIS\i~M.pO".o"o~qATLAM • LA Me ..... o ppp Sery,co,\G0 P,oJeet Wo,k\Tc,k "4 8U'Ino", Cc,0\4A.2 71~ No,.,,,,710 Noroh eoH ,o.,e.Won.o] Concopt DC'lgn ~nd ~.t,mc",\OG" F,1c.\PL"N_PIlOF1L£S.O~n

DRAWN BY

" ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

~~~tI1?/pl

300

rACZO

---I

L

<If1@. '2: __

!"~" o 20 100 - S8Pt-l " .... --........... Cur-vo :: S8P2-1 CUr"ve :: NBP2-'

" PI SlA.:: 209+13.98 PI 5TA. :: 407+2~.01 Feet /P ~tSTeA. ~ }lj~?~.~,22q.q.8' tl Tl DcdUl :: 30' 27' 2CJ.CJS" (L Tl Delta :: 15' 24·043.5I"(LTI ~. gelt.o -: ~;~!~V0q

~!..; T; 1.507.61 '! ~ l ~ 2.836.00 ~ • R A 303+50.95 '~, ,<t ~ l;.:,,".,.~ CO' CC

""'" '-:::::::::" ;~, <''' r r,e '" .... CO, , •• " l

o ~ 2' 03' 02.42' T :: 378.06 l ~ 751.56 R ~ 2.7Q4.00 PC STA.403+50515 PT STA.411+02.51

o ~ 2' 48' 16.17" T :: 556.19 l ~ 1.086.05 R :: 2.043.00 PC STA.203+57.80 PT STA.214+43.85

PHZ

,4. 'Be

4~

'/0 4000l,· ,",

Cu.-vet :: NaPI-! PI STt!.:: 105+74.86 Delto :: 10" 02'12.44" (Ll) o ~ 2' 18' 10.3Q· T :: 218.48 L :: 435.84 R :: 2.488.00 PC STA. 103+56.3Q PT STA.107+Q2.22

I

~0.'''' II \!:ll 380

lV0

p60'~" :' 'I

l~0

.340"

~"

r-----I - - - - PROPOSED EOP

<''?:~ ,J~~::"'<:;~~::::::::" '"" ',,,,,,,, ",,, ' I- : N

-"< '",,' C,,'; "'"",,~ '" ",_ ""_""",, _,,,",, "" " _____ " < "'" '",8

0

>, <. ,<, "'=, '10. ::....-=-__ ...,"' ~:~~~ «"'~'~i;::;:~~t_?>,;:~:~;~~~~::~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~:;~_~~~;c_ :c::CCC------::i \ • NBPI·2

~tSTA.:: !lk0~3j~~lq.4~. tL Tl Oelt.e -. 2' 043' 42.13 o ; 381.74

~ : ~~~i~0 ~C STA. 10~::t.il PT STA.lI

I

"""'--:--

PGl 1'113

.n "' ; ~ .; '!.'

PGl

/ 8PI & SBPe!

" " c

30' Under NBP2

u u ,

\

!\ 700' V.C.

~ .1 Ii;" i I M

I \ ~ ~

I ,M ~ J \ ~ ~-¥ -~ .=_~<~.-:-:,~;:::-j::~{'",===t-~~="'"=_c..:.c..

I' ~:::; .1 -~ HI0.500% 0. w t+l2.024%

, u cr

" "' ~ I I a

_L I ~

30' undi' !NBP2

1.623' V.c. , "

8Y I CONSULTANT I ENGINEER OF RECORD I PREPARED FOR

ROU TE 710 TUNNEL

440

400

380

360

340

I I I I I I I I I ~ Metro f/L A)j(f/f?9F./f, t DRAWING NO

(1~f'll/!; ~ I}y) C 3 Halcrowlnc.

6700E. Pacific Coast Highwny. Suite 180 Illfr~lCOn~ul[

f-+-------------f---+f-f-I------------+-+-II C~~~~F~~~~~;~ ~00~~o~;:;~;6~~8:60~80 MARCH 2011 ';;-;;=;------;;==---;c"""""""'=JECT5,,'M.P"'t.ot.JO,,,rATL""'I • LA Move PPP 5"""'0<>.,60 p,oJoc< ,"o""\T,,,k -4 Bo""",. C.,.e,.n.2 7i~ ,""",,,,711) Nonl-. coo< ,,,.\o.Wo,o.ol Co"c~<,< 00"9n end E.CI'.e....,\O(;N F,lo"PLAN.PRQrlLES.dqn Ir SHEEf IS LESS i"HAN 22' X 34" ITIS A REDUCED PRINT SCALE ACCORDINCLY

-.J

I

L

cu ..... o = SBP2-2 PI STA.:: 04J4+-42.IQ

Curve :: SBP2-3 PI 5TA.:: 422+60.85

Coho. :: IY 46' 12.10' (L Tl DelUl :: S' 23' 45.07' (Rli o ~ 2· 02· 15.16· T :: 33CJ.54 l ~ 675.81 R ~ 2.812.00 PC STA.411+02.65 Pi STA.417+78.46

o ~ 2· 06' 20.48· T :: 152.03 l ~ 303.74 R ~ 2.721.00 PC STA.421+08.82 PT STA.424+12.56

\ ."."

: n r-,<!L

~ ~ i!~ / ~ i ~.~ II ,/----FC,[ 58

~~ ~~ '! _ _ NQ J I

,--PC,1 .... "<Z" ~ E~ j/ _~ _____________ _

/ 22", _--- -- -; CURvE N8P2-2 ---- \ / -----------------

_ ~ 6· 23' 45· W _ _ 4J~- _ - - - - - - -t - - -r... _____ -8.JR\'£-SBf'2-:>- --

~ ---------- ---- --

I

I \

I I 440 I I I',

4001~-"""-=-"1':;:-';;--i -=::-

380

<i 1-:>9Jl.

~40

"I.'- -

S8

Cu'-vo : SBPI-2 PI STA. = 322+81.64 Doho = 6' 23' 45.07" IRTl o = 2' 09' 02.6?-

Curve = 58P)-) T = 148.84 PI STA. = 311+23.02 L: ZQ7.38 Dolto. = 30' 27' ZCJ.CJS- (L II R:: 2.664.00 o :: 2' 01' 13.09- PC STA.321+32.80 -; :: ?Z?,:~~. PI STA.324+30.18

__ /.: r2S' S. OF VALLE

~-"-I"---"-J-~I~--""" ~30' TAM STAG!Nq AAFA

--i tr "'r""n,,-'t F"~'\~*~';'C;·"', r"'"' "'CO '! I I

"

" o o " "

-lit '" ~ +

-r

L.

~ ~

~~ po "P' ~'" ~~

~ ~ '" .. "'-

Curve :: NBP2-2 PI STA.:: 222+79.03 Delt.o :: 6' 23' 45.07' IRTl o ~ 2· 04' 57,81· T ~ 153.70 L :: 307.0CJ R ~ 2.751.00 PC STA.221+25.32 PT STA.224+32."11

---t-

/5T:.',

r~T,-;,'_!.f_:}_·lS.lG

Due No ... t:h

~ M

Cuno = NBPI-3 PI STA. = 122+Q5.a<=l Oel tel = 6" 23' 45.07" (RTI o = 2" 07' 36.45' T , 150.52 L ~ 300.73 R = 2.6<=14.00 PC STA.121+45.37 PT STA.124+46.1~

M ~

_. _. E",::;", Gnd, Il:l NBP2

." .... ~ o 20 100 ~------""'

Feet

~R~~O~EO--~;J

4:'!..@.

400

380

360

340

r..,>(."-~~---I~=-=~~1=-----+-----+-----:i21~~----~----J------ EXI5t.Gnd.1l:l NBPI - - - - EX1"t. Gnd. Il:l SBP) ~.~~~.~E,~,,~,~.G:n~d·r·~S~B~P~2t---~-----t------~-----J----

PGl S8PI 8 -r· -...,~

I'w I 10

"0 I o'lw I 10

'0 I" I c""'"''

II II III I II 6700 E. P"ifi'~;~:~HI;~~WOy. Soil, 180

1-. -+. -----------1--+. --t.-~ .. ----------t· -+. -1' C~~~~F~~~~hE 6~ ~~~~o~~:;~~~~823~4080 MARCH 2011

y,\PROJECT$\TrQn'PQnQw,n\T:HLAH - LoA M~<rQ ppp S~'v,~oo\6H p'oJccc Wor~\To,k .~ 8y"no» Co>o\~~.2 711l No,,-h\71~ No"'" CO,L "<,,,e.\Po,,,,1 Conco~c Oo"gn ond (,L,",o",\OGN Fdo,\PLAN.PI10FllES.dgn

1?<o;lC\C\

m Metro "?lnfl~IConslilt

3~~

ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

~~~~ti~~E IDRA~~O

Ir SHEET IS LESS tHIlN 22" X )~. IT 1$ A REDucm PRINT SCALE ACCORDINGLY

I

-.J

I

L

'LT)

Curve :: 5B2Pl-l PI STA. :: 6133+12.33 Del to :: 12" 134' 56.0'1' (L Tl o :: 2' 57' 34.17' T :: 2134.89 L :: 408.25 R " I.R36.00 PC STA.60\+12I7.44 PT STA.6eJ5+15.69

Curve :: SB2PI-Z PI STA.:: 6111"79.87 Del to :: l!" 08' 25.5\' (RT) D " 2' 07' 02.50' T :: 263.91 L :: 526.15 R :: 2,706.130 PC STA.6139+15.96 PT 5TA.614+4Z.11

58P}

... o 20 100 ~---....,

Feet

e,,\ a. _.-1~J2-~_~_ ~

'"

~I~

-----------------------E-----, ~ - -..-z,--- Ii:! . I-

- - eur<vE-"§e~ _'_c---"--I~ '", --5 ~ !..---- ~

t:te-No.-t-k ::

...:~

c:' iii ~ '" !i:'

-----=======---- -----~;~~~~;-~-~---------

Curve :: NBZP}-! PI STA. :: 5138+13.36 Delto :: 6- 29' 15.81' (L T)

o :: I' 39' 14.53' T :: 196.33 L :: 392.24 R " 3.464.00 PC STA.506+17.133 PT STA.51Ql+Ql9.27

CURVE NB2Pl-l

~ L-PGL NSPI

~REMOVE EXIST. ON FlAt-IP

NB PHi RAMP

---- c •••. " •.• ""'1 'I"~ '00" ~ , ,. - - Eme. Gnd .• NB2P2 ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r I I I --- EX15t.Gnd.~ SB2Pl r--..r-,

.. EXI5t. Gnd. ~ SB2P2 ,~ - Ld

" i\

~I~ " yo:

Cur-va :: N82PI-2 PI STA.:: 514+46.68

- -' t: .' ~

<I :>:

Dalto :: 5' 32' 45.23' <ATl D " l' 37' 13.28' T " 171.27 l :: 342.26 R " 3.536.00 PC STA.512+75.41 PT STA.516+17.68

PGL NBRI & NBPe--,

1 8~~ I!! -+-- t-- d 001+ I :1 425' D.IM .. SB ,82<',00' Mer NB ".. .:: .. :.,l...-~.~l.-""\. I ;0

M

"' + (+) 121.5013% (-) 121.96121%

..,.--~ ,~--t---,=_-~~ -1- ~

--~"'--1~ • ./' • 'v

''':;, -:.:..:::-= :"~,-;,l~- - - -:; ~ ~ ---."'.~.~._l~.':"'O" .

PGL SBPll & SBPi?,-' '~'-''''''''''''-; .;I~ ~~

O:~

1"01 10"" I"' 1'° 1 1 '"" I" I """LT",

MARCH 2011 II I III I II 6700 E. Pd,H~:~:;~i~~W'Y. Soilo ,"0

f-. -+. -----------1.--+. -J.-.f-.-----------+. -+. -I- C~~~~F~~~~~ ;~~OS~o~~;~~:6~~23~4080

mMetro , InrrLl(Ollsult

r:\PROJEcrS\T,Qn'pO~'~"Qn\TI\TL~M .. Lt, Mcvo ppp 5~'''~Q,\G(j p'OJQC< ".,").,\T~,k ." BY"~o,, Co>~"A.2 7\1l ~o~,~\710 No,'" CO,. ,~"\~.Wor"'l Ccn~opt uO"9n ono E,,-,noro\QGN Fdo,\I'lAN.PRO'llE5.d9"

j16'VI ~ / //-/\ .. '" / , .,

DRAVlN8Y

"

" \ \.. , ,1:,\

ROuTE 710 TUNNEL

DRAWING NO

C5

I

L

8?0

\ r PGL

~ =--=~::.c=-S,,--;;;~:.-=~:.:-=I= :.:-'-" ) ,,! •. __ i '~

N- 0'-'56"", " ;;: '2!

--'~" :s: :~ ~55.-i:i ... ~- -!f! U V -ICl ," .

---

" 5~' ~l'W

58PI

:I-v> w

3 §

~-t~G~-N8PI <t

" '" if ::i

'" '"

NBP

Curve :; NB2Pl-Z PI STA. :; 514+46,68 Del to = 5' 32' 45.23" (RTl o ~ I' 37' [3_28' T = 171.27 L = 342.26 R = 3,536.00 PC STA.512+75.4\ PT STA.516'd7.68

I I

I

1

- - - - Eme, Gnd, 0 N82P'1 - - Ex),,;., Gnd. '" NB2P2

- - - - EX)5t. Gnd. e> S82Pl . . - .. - E"l»t. Gnd.1ll S82P2

PROPOSEO-- EO;]

1

.... "-<~

o 20 [00 -------....., Feet

I

820 I _APGL NBPI &

" 8~~ ~\ ~PGL 5~P[ & 58P2

,0 ~~c ~ ~11803'N8 &~0 TIE-[N I --+--- -4---4- 8 00 1

I:' , Z80 I

81 +00 71 +00 61 +00

760 51 +0"'

II I - -1- II I "" 1''1'''50''''' H<Jlcrowlnc.

6700 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 180

f-t------------f--i---ff------------i--+--II C~~~~F~~~~~ ;~~~~~o~~:~~:;;~~823G040BO MARCH 2011

Y:\PROJEcr5\T'onopono"o~\T"lL:>M LA "''',,"0 PPP S,,'vlco,\60 p~oJ"c< 1I",k\T",k "4 80""0" C",,\"".Z 7i~ N",,,,\71(! NCN'"'" CO'" ,,,v'''.\Po",o\ Ccncop~ O""'gn ond Enl",,,,,,\OG~ Ftlo,WLN<.PROI'lLES.dg"

G) Metro InfrClConsuli

DESIGN£OSY 00

ORA\\NBY

" ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

PL AN7PR(JFl-ln E (N Rfl-tg-'i ~ 'l y)

.2.8ll..

760

IDRA~~O

If $H([f1$ l(S$ TKAN 22" x 34" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT SCALE ACCOROINCl..'f

~

I

L

CUr-VII :: S8ZPZ-1 PI STA.:: 802+-48.56 0.1", ' S· 35' 24.50· (LTI o ' 3· 02' 57.37· T , 141.12 l :: 281.71 R , I.S7q.00 PC 51A.801.07.0404 PT STA. S03'Sq.15

i NOTES: I 1. SOlnt John Avenue TO REMAIN.

iL TJ

Curve :: N82PZ-1 PI STA.:: 707+Qa.Q., OelUll :: 5" 50' 3Q.ZQ- ell) o , I· 40' 54.15· T , l7~ql

l ' 347.52 R ' ~407.00 PC STA.706+)7.03 PT STA.10Q+S04.55

[ - - - - PROPOSED EOP 0,'0

",~'i'? ?,,7-

Zp o 20 100 IIO;; ___ ;;;;J

Feet

PGL SBP2 I~ '!! ~

2.SBPH2 Romp TO BE BRIDGED OVER SOlnt john AvEtnu~.

... ... " ~ ~

.' --------, '" • _ .. ----------~ .. --- • ~C ----'= t ,~"' ~"'-, ,. ' :~0 ~~:: ~ __ md_"'"::-~"-~~~~_ _ _ .. -o_""~ __ -_~~-:~~==::;.~~;;:]~j;1f:.~~,,-~"-'--. .-... - m '\ i

___ ~ _ _ _ \ CURVE NB2e2-\ CURVE NS2P2-2 - - ": .~ M"', ,

;LTI

PGL NSA1 & NBP;>--'

\. _./ .... ----'~--

"

PGL SBP11& SBP~~

Curve :: fr4B2P2-2 PI STA.:: 711+16.QS Delta ::.4,' 5<4' 0B.71" CRn o ' I· 36' 33.q6· T , 152.40 l ' 304.61 R , ~560.00 PC STA.70Q+S-4.55 PT STA.712+SCi.16

---- -- ------ ---- -y'-- ---: ---. -.-- -- ~ -u J: . ~ . __ ~ _______ <I :>:

,~tl 1-;1, nHI'W Cu ... "e = SB2P2-Z .-~--~---------~." PI STA.:: 811+72.-43

0.1 t.a :: W 08" 25.51- (RT) o ' 2·05' 06.00· T , 26S.00 l ' 534.31 R , 2.74S,00 PC STA.80Q+004.043 PT STA.814'38.75

~P. T)

~I l I l 700' f,c, b I I I~ ~I. t:: . t:: b r; Ig: -'

'" ggt ,,;

M

~ (+J 0.500% C-10_560%

-' '" <0 "

~I; / y" - + I 'I :1825' ~ B~~~,~el ~e .. NB

.>:....,.L..~'_\ •. :'\

'j I I ,VI

" ~ , .

I~I / /I \ \ I, -1----_ ~-----== _ 1 _~d'___.~

/' I '.~/ "-I

\/ ,'Y .~.~ .-:::::... - - -;.-: :..i,-;t...... ~ =L· ~

.'-..-.-.-~-':

DIITt I 8~ , CONSULTANT

"'I'" <OM

~~ iL~ 510~00

OESICNEOBY 00

ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

I I I I I I I I I tr) Metro -.:.;)nfr,\Con~Lllt C7

Hlllcrowlrtc. 6700 E. Pacific Coasl HighwilY. Suilo 180

DRAWING NO

f---t------------j--+-j---j-----------+-+--II C~~~~F~~~~E ~~ ~OS~~O~~:~~:6~~i604080 MARCH 2011

Y,\PROJ~CTS\T~o"'po"otLcn\TAl1.~M "LA l"I~to'c ppp Se,",ce,\6(J p~oJoc< \lc'k~To'k -4 Bu,",'e" Co,~\~A.2 71\) No,tk\7J0 No,t~ Co" ,ev,o.\Po,-.."l Co"cop< Oe"gn end £,<,mo<o\DGN Fdo,\PLr'N_PROFlLES.d~n

-l

I

L

d~-' """""'" 5€"3i''">r" - - !

-5--

g; z J

'" "-

___ ""' __ --' ____ f'_' .. ,~, --N" e'""'58'''Sl''W - - ---. -- - -,//

_···"Gl

15 ----,---.,.,.c'---~5t5N 0~~_~~.: ___ ~. ____ . __ .

~ I~~~~:rc=:-, ~ :

\

I

NBP

l'E3P2

I ---- PROPOS~~EOP

1

- - - - Em', Gnd, 0 N82P'1 - - L'as':.. Gnd. i.O NB2P2

- M - - E~lst. Gnd. <:> SB2Pl . . ... EXlSl:. Gnd.ill S82P2

I

...,. L<~

o 20 100 !II;;;; __ --;;;01

Feet

B03' NB & SBI SR 210 TIE -It<

r]PGL NBPI&

820 "'I 1_- 1 1 820 I /' " I .. :,j ------1- -i- ------1-/ \ g~

I \ 00 CO

co z o

800

7R~

7h~

~PGL SSPI & SBP2

81!+00 71 +00 61 +00 51 +00

Iii' \: .

DAlE ISy,C()NSU!..TANT

~ ~~~~ ~~~~~:r~;~g:~~ig~~:ri ;~~~~~gg co I I I I I I I I H,I"owl",

f---f--------------j--f---j-f-------------f--+-l CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION. 26480 MARCH 2011

T,\PROJ£Ci5\T"<>mPQrcoc<on\TllhAM - L'; Mc".o PPP Sc,~,cc,'6\J ProJoc, \lo'k\To,~ '. OU>Jno" Co,c,':A.2 710 No~"'\71~ N.,..", ~o" ,~v •• ~\?oncl Co~eGP~ o.,,~~ ond E",mOl~\OGN FoJo,\PLAN.PROFjL(S.d~n

C1j Metro

Infr,lCon~ul[

OESlGNEOUY 00

DRAWN BY

" ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

f/L/W/f/HUf Ht (~~!f;l/!;~ yll

800

7R~

lP,\l_

IORAc~O

SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report Appendix C, SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone vs. Alaskan Way Cost Plan Summary

SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North Alaskan Way Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 4 Zone 5 Seattle Tunnel generic generic generic generic generic Partners

alternative alternative alternative alternative alternative (Dragados) Bid (2 TBMs)

Item Description US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ Civits - Portals 157,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 340,000,000 Civils - Tunnels 2,498,467,227 3,328,056,807 3,217,483,866 3,937,670,588 6,153,224,706 557,000,000 TBM estimated fixed costs 170,000,000 170,000,000 170,000,000 170,000,000 170,000,000 85,000,000 Estimated Tunnel Variable 2,328,467,227 3,158,056,807 3,047,483,866 3,767,670,588 5,983,224,706 472,000,000 costs: f(length) Civils - Tunnel Ventilation 90,000,000 122,065,327 117,791,457 145,628,141 231,263,819 NA Structures Civils - Special Seismic 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 INCL Treatment Toll Collection Systems 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 0

Socia-EnVironmental Works 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0

Operational Control Centre 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 55,000,000 / Building Geological Surveys 2,000,000 2,712,563 2,617,588 3,236,181 5,139,196 0

Sub-total Construction 2,846,467,227 3,751,834,696 3,636,892,911 4,385,534,910 6,688,627,721 952,000,000 Costs Special Building Settlement ° 0 0 0 0 137,700,000 Mitigation Inflation / Price Escalation 0 0 0 0 0 110,000,000

Total Construction Costs 2,846,467,227 3,751,834,696 3,636,892,911 4,385,534,910 6,688,627,721 1,199,700,000

Design Costs 85,394,017 112,555,041 109,106,787 131,566,047 200,658,832 169,000,000 Project Management Costs 28,464,672 37,518,347 36,368,929 43,855,349 66,886,277 54,000,000

Land Costs / Right of Way 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 152,000,000

Total Project Base Costs 2,973,325,916 3,914,908,084 3,795,368,627 4,573,956,306 6,969,172,830 1,574,700,000

Insurance 74,333,148 97,872,702 94,884,216 114,348,908 174,229,321 100,000,000

Design Development / 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pricing Risk Risk / Contingency 297,332,592 391,490,808 379,536,863 457,395,631 696,917,283 205,000,000

Total Project Costs 3,344,991,655 4,404,271,595 4,269,789,706 5,145,700,845 7,840,319,434 1,879,700,000

Total other costs 498,524,429 652,436,898 632,896,795 760,165,935 1,151,691,713 790,000,000 % Additive due to Inflation LS added by WSDOT 11.55% Facts and Figures Overall Length 7.96 10.80 10.42 12.88 20.45 1.8

Excavation diameter 57.40 57.40 57.40 57.40 57.40 57.40

Internal liner diameter 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00

Underground Cost per 331 324 325 321 315 309 mile (millions $) Overall Cost per mile 420 408 410 400 383 1044 (millions $)

I nfraConsu It

july 2011 public private partnership program

Documents