5.0 - preliminary cost reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images...r systems pl rt...

5.0 - PRELIMINARY COST REPORT

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study

Preliminary Cost Report

Prepared for: Prepared by: HNTB Corporation in collaboration with Parsons Brinckerhoff, EMI, IBI Group, and V&A November 2012

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Preliminary Cost Report

Page i

TableofContents1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Sources of Cost Data ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Metro Historic Projects ................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Representative Projects ................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Vehicle Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................. 4

3 Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Cost Estimates ............................................................................... 5

3.1 Capital Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1 Concept #1 ‐ At‐Grade Sepulveda Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ................................. 5

3.1.2 Concept #2 ‐ At‐Grade Freeway Managed Lanes ................................................................. 8

3.1.3 Concept #3 ‐ Highway Viaduct Managed Lanes .................................................................... 8

3.1.4 Concept #4 ‐ Tolled Highway Tunnel .................................................................................... 8

3.1.5 Concept #5 ‐ Fixed‐Guideway Light Rail Transit Tunnel ...................................................... 12

3.1.6 Concept #6 ‐ Highway/Private Shuttle Tunnels .................................................................. 15

4 Rough Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Summary ............................................................................ 18

4.1 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate ................................................................................ 20

Appendix 1 – Draft Guideway Technology Alternatives for Charette One Sepulveda Pass Systems

Planning Corridor Study

Appendix 2 – Concept #5 Aerial Viaduct Preliminary Cost

Appendix 3 – Initial Operating Segment

SepulvedaPrelimina

1 INTR

This repor

as part of

through w

the Trans

Corridor S

Charrette

This repor

maintena

the conce

against on

Indices an

The cost e

studies su

It is impor

engineeri

approach

2 SOU

In accorda

provided

the Metro

and indus

The unit c

alternativ

assigned a

construct

because t

Where ap

have also

Metro rai

per mile a

a Pass Corridory Cost Repo

RODUCTIO

rt presents th

the Sepulved

working sessio

portation Pla

Systems Plann

#2.

rt will presen

nce cost for e

eptual nature

ne another by

nd other evalu

estimates wil

uch as an Alte

rtant to note

ng drawings.

that would b

URCES OF

ance with the

by the Metro

o Cost Estima

stry resources

costs in this re

ves are quanti

a typical unit

ion cost. For

they are part

ppropriate, th

been adjuste

l project has

and have bee

or Systems Plrt

ON

he preliminary

da Pass Corrid

ons with Met

nning, Dema

ning Study, an

t Rough Orde

each systems

of the study

y the Transpo

uation measu

l continue to

ernatives Ana

that general

Therefore, q

be expected in

F COST DA

e contract and

o Cost Estimat

ting Departm

s.

eport are mea

ified by a cost

factor. The c

example, veh

of the Metro

he unit costs h

ed to reflect t

a station eve

n adjusted ac

anning Study

y cost estima

dor Systems P

ro planning s

nd Modeling,

nd from input

er of Magnitu

planning con

and should b

ortation Plann

ures by the De

be refined as

lysis.

concept draw

quantities are

n later develo

ATA

d scope of wo

ting Departm

ment, the desi

ant to repres

t per mile un

costs are also

hicle costs are

provided cos

have been adj

the physical c

ry one mile.

ccordingly.

y

tes for the en

Planning Stud

taff, input fro

, and Environ

t received at

ude (ROM) co

ncept. The co

be used as a h

ning Task Ord

emand Mode

s the concept

wings were de

e at a very hig

opment of the

ork for this pr

ments. In case

ign team relie

ent the conce

it and major f

meant to ref

e included in

sts.

justed to refl

haracteristics

Some of the

ngineering co

dy. The conce

om the other

mental task o

Planning Cha

st estimates f

ost estimates

high level met

der and to dev

eling Task Ord

ts are further

evelop as par

gh level and n

e concepts.

roject, the un

es where info

ed upon avail

epts at a very

features such

flect the prog

the per mile

ect economie

s of the conce

concepts in t

oncepts devel

epts have bee

consultant te

orders for the

arrette #1 and

for capital, op

presented in

tric to compa

velop the Cos

der.

developed in

rt of this stud

not a detail bo

nit cost factor

rmation was

able data fro

y high level. F

h as transit st

gram cost, no

costs for the

es of scale. T

ept. For exam

this report ha

P

oped and ref

en developed

eams working

e Sepulveda P

d Planning

perating and

n this report r

re the alterna

st Effectivene

n subsequent

y, not detaile

ottoms up

s have been

not provided

m similar pro

For instance,

ations are

ot just the cap

rail concepts

The cost estim

mple, the typi

ve fewer stat

Page 1

fined

d

g on

Pass

eflect

atives

ess

ed

d by

ojects

pital

s

mates

ical

tions

SepulvedaPrelimina

2.1 Me

A

p

Red LinSegmen

Red LinSegmen

Red LinSegmen

Blue LinLong Beach

Green LiEl Segun

Gold LinPasaden

Gold LinEastsid

Mid-CitExpositi

Phase

OrangeLine SaFernand

Valley

MOL Extensio

San Fernand

Valley


etro Histor

key source o

rojects. Table

Length(Miles)

ne t 1 4.4

ne t 2 6.7

ne t 3 6.3

ne

h 22

ine ndo 20

ne na 13.7

ne de 6

ty on 1

8.6

e an do y

14

on

do y

4

or Systems Plrt

ic Projects

of data for the

e 2.1.1 provid

h )

Number of

Stations

5

8

3

22

14

13

8

10

14

4

anning Study

s

e preparation

des a summar

Table 2.1.1:

Technolog

HR

HR

HR

LR

LR

LR

LR

LR

BRT

BRT

y

n of this cost e

ry of historic

Metro Histori

gy ConstruSta

198

199

199

198

199

200

200

200

200

200

estimate was

Metro Projec

ic Project Cos

uction art

CurBu

(Mil

86 $

91 $

94 $

85 $

91 $

00 $

04 $

06 $

03 $

09 $

data on histo

cts

sts

rrent dget lions)

Adjufo

Infla(Mill

20

1,439 $ 3

1,739 $ 2

1,313 $ 2

877 $ 1

712 $ 1

735 $

899 $ 1

927 $ 1

340 $

216 $

P

orical Metro

usted or ation ions)

012

Cost Mi

(Millio201

3,013 $

2,930 $

2,033 $

1,870 $

1,200 $

979 $

1,092 $

1,055 $

424 $

231 $

Page 2

Per le ons) 12

685

437

323

85

60

71

182

123

30

58

SepulvedaPrelimina

Th

in

2.2 Re

In

re

C

Tu

d

Ta

Highway/RProjec

Metro ExpressLaI-110 and

Selmon ExpresswaFlorida Alaska Highway Viaduct ReplacemeTunnel

Metro PurpLine Extension Twin Bore Tunnels

Metro BlueLine

Miami TunProject

Footnotes:1. Metro Ex mile. Co2. Derived 3. Derived 4. Metro W5. Metro Es


he Metro Est

n the develop

epresentati

n addition to t

epresentative

oncepts. The

unnel Project

iameter bore

able 2.2.1.

Rail t

Length(Miles)

anes I-10

25.0

ay 14.1

ent 1.8

ple

9.0

e 22

nnel 0.75

xpress Lanes A

onstruction costfrom Publishedfrom Published

Westside Subwastimating Histo

or Systems Plrt

imating Depa

ment of alter

ive Project

the Metro His

e projects tha

e representat

t (Alaskan Wa

ed highway tu

h )

Number oTransit

Stations

9

0

0

7

22

0

Average Bid Prt has been incrd Reports d Reports ay Extension Poric Costs Esca

anning Study

artment provi

rnatives for P

ts

storic project

t had similar

ive projects r

ay Viaduct Re

unnel. Repres

Table 2.2.1: R

of Technolo

At-GradeManaged

Lanes

ManagedLanes

58' SinglBore

HighwayTunnel

20' HeavRail Twin

Bore Tunnels

LRT At-Grade

43' DuaBore

HighwayTunnels

rices for 2 Exprreased to cove

Project (2012) alated to 2012 d

y

ided the draft

lanning Chare

ts, the design

features and

range from lo

placement Pr

sentative proj

Representative

gy ConstrucComple

e d 2012/20

d 2007

e

y 2013

vy n

s

2022-20

- 1990

l

y s

2014

ress Lanes (mir management

dollars

t cost data pr

ette #1.

team gather

scopes to th

ocal Metro hig

roject), whic

jects that we

e Projects

ction etion

Bud(Milli

013 $2

7 $4

3 $2,0

036 $4,5

0 $8

4 $1,0

id point of const and programm

resented in A

red cost data

e six Systems

ghway projec

h is construct

re reviewed a

dget ions)

Adjufo

Infla(Milli

20

90 $2

20 $4

034 $2,0

536 $4,5

77 $1,8

000 $1,0

struction 2012)matic costs.

P

Appendix 1 to

from

s Planning

ts, to the SR‐

ting a large‐

are presented

usted or ation ions)

012

CostMi

(Milli20

290 $18 - $

475 $33

034 $1.04

536 $50

870 $85

000 $1.33

= $12M per

Page 3

aid

‐99

d in

t Per ile ions) 12

$30 (1)

3 (2)

44 (3)

04 (4)

5 (5)

33 (6)

SepulvedaPrelimina

6. Derived

2.3 Ve

As w

cos

bas

com

cos

to e

hig

inc

It is

min

ma

the

The

veh


from Published

ehicle Cost

was noted ea

sts. As such, t

se, per‐mile c

mponent, wh

sts for these c

estimate the

h range fleet

luded in the c

s important to

nimum speed

intain this mi

e vehicle cost

1. The first

will be o

that can

2. The seco

Sepulve

e low range fl

hicles are sho

or Systems Plrt

d Reports

t Estimates

arlier, vehicle

he vehicle co

apital costs. H

ich is not incl

concepts wer

required flee

size was perf

concepts.

o note that th

d of travel is 4

inimum speed

estimate.

t option is to

operating ove

n maintain 45

ond option is

da Pass

eet size and t

wn in Table 2

anning Study

s

costs are inc

sts associated

However, con

uded in the in

e calculated s

et size, a plann

formed by th

he modeling f

45 mph. The v

d over the Se

replace the e

er the Sepulve

mph over th

to purchase

the high rang

2.3.1.

y

luded in the p

d with Conce

ncepts #1, #2,

nfrastructure

separately fro

ning‐level cal

e Demand M

for the manag

vehicles in M

epulveda Pass

existing engin

eda Pass with

e Sepulveda

new vehicles

ge fleet size as

per‐mile capi

epts #5 and #6

, and #4 inclu

e capital costs

om the infras

culation for a

odeling Task

ged lanes con

etro’s existin

s. Therefore,

e and transm

h a more pow

Pass

s that can ma

s well as the t

ital costs for t

6 are contain

ude a Bus Rap

s for these co

structure capi

a low range fl

Order for the

ncepts assum

ng bus fleet ar

two options

mission in thos

werful engine

intain 45 mph

two options f

P

the per‐mile r

ed within the

pid Transit

ncepts. Vehic

ital costs. In o

eet size and a

e three BRT ro

mes that the

re unable to

are presente

se vehicles th

and transmis

h over the

for upgrading

Page 4

rail

e

cle

order

a

outes

ed in

hat

ssion

g the

SepulvedaPrelimina

BRT Rou

Sylmar toSylmar toOrange L

Assump1. Refur ($20,0 minim2. New v navig

3 ROU

The c

Plann

3.1 Ca

Th

an

co

in

ar

ca

3

3.1.1 C

C

C

Sa

d


ute

o LAX o Purple Line/VAine/Sepulveda

ptions: rbished vehicl000 for new e

mum managedvehicle cost aate the Sepu

UGH ORDE

capital cost e

ning Concept

apital Cost

he six System

nd the System

overs so they

nto account th

re attributabl

apital cost est

.2.1.

Concept #1

oncept #1 pro

entury Boule

an Fernando

evelop the ro

Should

should

or Systems Plrt

MPRti

A to LAX T Tota Ve

le cost assumengine and trad lane speed assumes purclveda Pass at

ER OF MAG

stimates for i

s.

Estimates

ms Planning Co

ms Planning C

y will be descr

hose items w

le to highway

timates. A su

- At-Grade

oposes an at‐

vard station w

MetroLink St

ough order of

der improvem

der running b

anning Study

Table 2.3Max Peak Run ime

15% Layove

94 14.1 83 12.4565 9.75 otal Buses Pe

al Buses Both ehicle Cost Re Vehicle

mes replacemansmission) inof 45 mph.

chase of new t the minimum

GNITUDE (

infrastructure

s

oncepts are p

Concepts Draw

ribed in gener

hich are attri

y improvemen

ummary of all

Sepulveda

‐grade Bus Ra

with the Gree

ation on the

f magnitude c

ments on the

uses from Ve

y

3.1: Vehicle Co

rEffective Run Time H

109 96 75

er Direction Directions

efurbished1 Cost New2

ent of enginen order to nav

vehicle for thm managed la

(ROM) COS

e and vehicles

presented in d

wings and En

ral terms in th

butable to tra

nts. A 30% co

l concepts is p

a Boulevard

apid Transit (B

en Line and C

north. The m

cost estimate

northbound a

entura Blvd to

osts Low Ran

Coded Headway

BuDir

10 5 5 $1,8 $36,

e and transmisvigate the Se

he fleet ($400ane speed of

ST ESTIMA

s are present

detail in the I

gineering Issu

his report. Th

ansit improve

ontingency ha

presented at

d Bus Rapid

BRT) that pro

renshaw/LAX

major compon

are:

and southbou

o Sepulveda B

nge

us Per rection

EqHead

11 420 315 146 92

840,000 ,800,000

ssion in existepulveda Pass

,000 per bus)45 mph.

ATES

ted below for

nitial Route C

ues Report un

he capital cos

ements and t

as also been a

the end of th

d Transit (B

ovides a conne

X LRT line on t

nents of the c

und I‐1405 to

Blvd

P

High Range

quil. dway

Bus PDirect

.2 26

.9 25

.6 47 98 196 $3,920, $78,400

ing fleet s at the

) in order to

the six Syste

Concept Repo

nder separate

st estimates t

hose items w

applied to all

his section in

BRT)

ection betwe

the south to t

concept used

o accommoda

Page 5

Per ion

6 ,000

0,000

ms

ort

e

take

which

Table

een

the

to

ate

SepulvedaPrelimina

Th


At‐gra

Modifi

Priorit

Blvd a

he Rough Ord

or Systems Plrt

de BRT Statio

ications at th

y treatments

nd Van Nuys

der of Magnit

anning Study

ons

e Orange line

, intersection

Blvd

tude Capital C

y

e station

ns modificatio

Cost Estimate

ons, and queu

e for Concept

ue jump lanes

#1 is present

P

s along Sepulv

ted in Table 3

Page 6

veda

3.1.1.

SepulvedaPrelimina

Table 3.1.Rough Or

IBus on ShoShoulder Im

BRT Statio

Install TurnOrange Lin

Priority TreIntersection

IntersectionReconfigur

Queue Jum

Assumpt1. Should2. At-Grad3. See Co Engine4. There a priority 5. Five int6. 55 of th receive7. A 30% the stud8. High Ra9. Cost ha


.1 rder of Magni

Item oulder - mprovements1

ons2

naround at ne Station3

eatments @ ns4

n / Median ration5

mp Lanes6

Manageme

tions: er Improvemede BRT Statioonceptual Draering Issues are 105 signatreatment.

tersections whe 105 intersee Queue Jumpcontingency dy. ange Vehicleas been incre

or Systems Plrt

itude Cost Es

At-Unit

Miles $ 2

Each $ 1

Each $ 1

Each $

Each $

Each $

ent and Progr

ents in NB anons. awing in Final Report.

alized intersec

ill receive Inteections could p Lanes. has been app

Cost Estimateased by 50%

anning Study

stimate – Con

Concept #-Grade SepulvCost Q

2,500,000

,000,000

,250,000

40,000

500,000

350,000

Srammatic Adju

30% ContVehic

nd SB directio

Systems Pla

ctions along c

ersection/Medpotentially re

plied to the su

te from Table% to cover man

y

ncept 1

#1veda BRT Quantity

8.4 $

8 $

1 $

85 $

5 $

20 $

$

Sub Total $ ustments9

$

engency7 $

cle Costs8 $

Total $

ons from Vent

anning Conce

concept route

dian Reconfigceive Queue

ub-total due to

e 2.3.1. nagement an

Transit

21,000,000

8,000,000

1,250,000

3,400,000

2,500,000

7,000,000

-

43,150,000 21,575,000 19,417,500 78,400,000 162,542,500

tura Blvd to S

pts Drawings

, assume 85

guration. Jump Lanes

o the concept

d programma

Highwa

$ - $ - $ - $ -

Sepulveda Blv

s and

(80%) receive

. Assume 20

tual nature of

atic costs.

P

ay

Tot $ 43,

$ 21,5 $ 19,4 $ 78,4 $ 162,5

vd.

e

0

f

Page 7

al 150,000 575,000417,500400,000 542,500

SepulvedaPrelimina

3.1.2 CC

w

w

d

m

ri

ro

co

Th

3.1.3 CC

A

of

Th

3.1.4 CC

tw

si

b

co

b

th

A

es

le

p


Concept #2 oncept #2 pro

with I‐5 in the

would consist

irection. Nor

managed lane

ght‐of‐way a

oadway. The

ost estimate a

Constr

tolling

Direct

The in

he Rough Ord

Concept #3 oncept #3 pro

ve and the Pi

f magnitude c

Constr

Direct

The in

he Rough Ord

Concept #4 oncept 4 wou

wo lanes of h

ngle bore wit

ores with two

onfiguration s

e required at

he rough orde

A large

Portal

low range an

stimate reduc

ength of tunn

resented in T

or Systems Plrt

- At-Grade oposes to con

north to I‐10

of five genera

rth of US 101

in each direc

nd would be

major compo

are:

ruction of Exp

equipment

Access Ramp

corporation o

der of Magnit

- Highway oposed an ele

co Blvd. The

cost estimate

ruction of an

Access Ramp

corporation o

der of Magnit

- Tolled Higuld construct

ighway traffic

th two lanes o

o lanes in eac

similar to the

either end o

er of magnitu

e diameter bo

and approac

nd high range

ces the tunne

el. The Roug

Table 3.1.4.

anning Study

Freeway Mnstruct mana

05 in the south

al purpose (G

and south of

ction. The ma

accomplished

onents of the

press Lanes w

ps and select

of the BRT im

tude Capital C

Viaduct Maevated highw

major compo

e are:

elevated guid

ps and select

of the BRT im

tude Capital C

ghway Tuna bored tunn

c in each dire

on an upper l

ch bore. For t

e Alaskan Way

f the tunnel.

ude cost estim

ore tunnel

hes on either

e estimate is p

eling cost by 2

h Order of M

y

Managed Laged lanes in t

h. Between U

GP) lanes and

f Santa Monic

anaged lanes

d through the

e concept use

which would in

locations for

provements

Cost Estimate

anaged Lanway viaduct in

onents of the

deway betwe

locations for

provements

Cost Estimate

nel nel under the

ction. The tu

evel and two

the purpose o

y Tunnel was

The major co

mate are:

r end of the t

presented for

20% represen

Magnitude Cap

anes the median o

US 101 and Sa

two manage

ca Boulevard,

would be con

e Sepulveda P

ed to develop

nclude restrip

transit and h

from Concep

e for Concept

nes n the median

e concept use

een Burbank A

transit and h

from Concep

e for Concept

Santa Monic

unnel cross se

o lanes on a lo

of the costs e

assumed. P

omponents o

unnel

r the tunnel a

nt economies

pital Cost Esti

of I‐405 from t

anta Monica

d (HOT or HO

there would

nstructed wit

Pass by restrip

the rough or

ping, physical

highway use

pt #1

#2 is present

of the I‐405 b

ed to develop

Ave and Pico

highway use

pt #1

#3 is present

ca Mountains

ection would

ower level, or

stimate, a lar

ortals and ap

of the concept

alternatives. T

of scale asso

mate for Con

P

the interchan

Boulevard, I‐

OV) lanes in e

only be one

thin the existi

ping the exist

rder of magni

l barriers, and

ted in Table 3

between Burb

the rough or

Blvd

ted in Table 3

that would c

consist of eit

r two separat

rge bore

pproaches wo

t used to dev

The low rang

ociated with t

ncept #4 is

Page 8

nge

405

ach

ing

ting

tude

d

3.1.2.

bank

rder

3.1.3.

carry

her a

e

ould

velop

e

the

SepulvedaPrelimina

Table 3.1.Rough Or

It Constructi Express L

Orange Li Access Ra

US 101 D Ramps

Le Grange Access Ra

Sepulveda Access Ra

At-Grade Improvem

Assumpt1. Assume for the 2. Existing3. Two Ex existing4. Metro s 20% fo program5. Direct A6. Concep7. A 30% the stud8. High Ra


.2 rder of Magni

tem ion of

Lanes1,2,3,4

ne Direct amps

irect Access

e Direct amps

a Direct amps

BRT ments6

tions: es the constrentire length g HOV lane isxpress Lanes g ROW (restristandard cost r economies mmatic costs.Access Ramppt 1 At-Gradecontingency dy. ange Vehicle

or Systems Plrt

itude Capital

At-GradUnit

Miles $

Each $15

Each $30

Each $15

Each $15

Each $ 6

uction of one of the project

s converted tothrough the S

iping of exitinof $12M per of scale and . ps include con Sepulveda Bis applied to t

Cost Estimat

anning Study

Cost Estimat

Concept #de Freeway Ma

Cost Q

14,400,000

50,000,000

00,000,000

50,000,000

50,000,000

64,725,000

Su

30% Conte

Vehicle

Express Lant. o Express LanSepulveda Pag GP lanes). mile for HOTincreased by

nstruction andBRT Improvemthe sub-total d

te from Table

y

te – Concept

#2anaged LanesQuantity

29.0

1 $ 1

1

1 $ 1

1

1 $

$

ub Total $ 3

ngency7 $ 1

e Costs8 $

Total $ 5

e in each dire

ne throughouass from Vent

T lanes constr50% to cove

d potential ROments. due to the co

e 2.3.1.

2

sTransit

$

150,000,000

$

150,000,000

$

64,725,000

-

364,725,000 $

109,417,500 $

78,400,000

552,542,500 $

ection within t

ut the project.tura Blvd to I-

ruction has ber managemen

OW costs.

nceptual natu

Highway

$ 417,600,000

$ 300,000,000

$ 150,000,000

$ 867,600,000

$ 260,280,000

$ 1,127,880,0

the existing R

-10 within the

een reduced bnt and

ure of

P

0

0

0

Tota0 $ 1,232,3

0 $ 369,6

$ 78,4

00 $ 1,680,4

ROW

e

by

Page 9

al 325,000

697,500

400,000

422,500

SepulvedaPrelimina

Table 3.1.Rough Or

It Elevated Guideway Direct Acc

US 101 D Access Ra

At-Grade Improvem

Sepulveda Access Ra

Assumpt1. Cost ba2. Cost pe costs. 3. Direct A4. Concep5. A 30% the stud6. High Ra


.3 rder of Magni

tem

y1,2 cess Ramp3

irect amp

BRT ments4

a Direct amps

tions: ased on a struer mile has be

Access Ramppt 1 At-Gradecontingency dy. ange Vehicle

or Systems Plrt

itude Capital

HighwaUnit

Miles $ 111

Each $ 150

Each $ 150

Each $ 43

Each $ 150

ucture 70' wideen increased

ps include con Sepulveda Bhas been app

Cost Estimat

anning Study

Cost Estimat

Concept #ay Viaduct Ma

Cost Q

,000,000

0,000,000

0,000,000

3,150,000

0,000,000

S

30% Conte

Vehicl

de at $200 ped by 50% to c

nstruction andBRT Improvemplied to the su

te from Table

y

te – Concept

#3naged LanesQuantity

9.8

2

1

1 $ 4

1

$

Sub Total $ 4

engency5 $

e Costs6 $ 7

Total $ 13

er square footcover manage

d potential ROments. ub-total due to

e 2.3.1.

3

Transit

$

$

$

43,150,000

$

- $

43,150,000 $

12,945,000 $

78,400,000

34,495,000 $

t. ement and pro

OW costs and

o the concept

Highway

$1,087,800,000

$ 300,000,000

$ 150,000,000

$ 150,000,000

$ -

$1,687,800,000

$ 506,340,000

$2,194,140,000

ogrammatic

d either end.

tual nature of

Pa

0 0

0

0

Total

0 $1,730,950

0 $ 519,285

0 $2,328,635

f

age 10

0,000

5,000

5,000

SP

T

R

Sepulveda Pass CPreliminary Cost

Table 3.1.4

Rough Order of M

Item

58' Diameter Tunnel1

58' Diameter Port & Approaches2

Assumptions: 1. Cost based on takes into acc2. Portal & Appro3. A 30% conting4. High Range V

Corridor Systems Report

Magnitude Capita

Unit

Miles $1,04

tal Each $ 150

Total

n Alaskan Way Vcount a 20% reduoaches include cogency has been a

Vehicle Cost Estim

Planning Study

al Cost Estimate

Cost Quant

44,000,000 9.2

0,000,000 2

Sub Tot

30% Contengenc

Vehicle Cost

Viaduct at $1.044Bction of the tunneonstruction and papplied to the submate from Table 2

– Concept 4

Tolle

ity Transit

$ -

tal $ -

cy3 $ -

ts4 $78,400,000

$78,400,000

B per mile. The Hel costs to reflect potential ROW cob total due to the 2.3.1.

Concept #4d Highway Tunne

Low RangeHighway

$ 7,683,840,000

$ 300,000,000

$ -

$ 7,983,840,000

$ 2,395,152,000

$ 10,378,992,000

High Range reflececonomies of sca

osts. conceptual natur

el

Total

$ 7,983,840,000

$ 2,395,152,000

$ 78,400,000

$10,457,392,000

cts $1.044B per male.

re of the study.

Transit

$ 9

$

$ - $

$ - $ 9

$ - $ 2

$78,400,000

$78,400,000 $12

mile while the low

High RangeHighway

9,604,800,000

300,000,000

-

9,904,800,000 $ 9

2,971,440,000 $ 2

$

2,876,240,000 $12

w range

Page 11

Total

,904,800,000

,971,440,000

78,400,000

,954,640,000

SepulvedaPrelimina

3.1.5 C

C

A

o

M

o

th

th

e

ab

m

Th

th

Pa

Lo

es

le

p


Concept #5

oncept #5 pro

ngeles and LA

ption. The lin

Metrolink stat

ption, the sys

he Santa Mon

he Century/A

ntire alignme

bout 2 miles a

magnitude cos

At‐gra

At‐gra

Dual b

A main

Under

he cost estim

he length of t

ass, and the W

ow range and

stimate reduc

ength of tunn

resented in T

or Systems Plrt

- Fixed-Gu

oposes a rail

AX. Cost estim

ne would stre

ion in the nor

stem would b

nica Mountain

viation statio

ent would be

apart. The m

st estimate ar

de light rail

de transit sta

bore tunnels

ntenance faci

ground trans

mate for this a

he concept.

Westside.

d high range e

ces the tunne

el. The Roug

Table 3.1.5.

anning Study

ideway Lig

transit line co

mates have b

etch approxim

rth to the Cen

be constructe

ns to a portal

on on the sout

constructed i

major compon

re:

ations

lity

sit stations

lternative ha

The geograph

estimates are

eling cost by 2

h Order of M

y

ht Rail Tran

onnecting the

been develope

mately 27 mile

ntury/Aviatio

d at‐grade fro

south of San

th end of the

in a tunnel. T

nents of the co

s been broke

hical regions

presented fo

20% represen

Magnitude Cap

nsit Tunnel

e San Fernand

ed for a light

es and conne

on station to t

om Sylmar to

nta Monica Bl

project. For

The line woul

oncept used t

en down into g

are the San F

or the tunnel

nt economies

pital Cost Esti

do Valley with

rail option an

ect the Sylmar

the south. Fo

o Venice Blvd,

vd, and then

r the heavy ra

d include 14

to develop th

geographical

Fernando Vall

alternatives.

of scale asso

mate for Con

Pa

h West Los

nd a heavy ra

r/San Fernand

or the light ra

, tunneled thr

run at‐grade

ail option, the

stations spac

he rough orde

regions due

ley, the Sepul

The low ran

ociated with t

ncept #5 is

age 12

ail

do

il

rough

to

e

ced

er of

to

lveda

ge

the

SP

TR


Table 3.1.5 Rough Order of M

Segment 1 San Fernando

Valley

At-

At- Sta

Tw

Un Sta

Ma

Segment 2 Sepulveda

Pass

Tw

20'

Un Sta


Magnitude capita

Item

-Grade Light Rail1

-Grade Transit ation2

wo 20' Tunnels3

nderground Transit ation4

aintenance Facility6

wo 20' Tunnels

' Diameter Portal

nderground Transit ation

Planning Study

al Cost Estimate –

Unit

Miles $ 8

Each $

Miles $ 50

Each $ 10

6 Each $ 10

30% Con

Miles $50

Each $ 5

Each $10

30% Con

– Concept 5

Fixed-Guidewa

Cost Quant

85,000,000 11.6

5,000,000 5

04,000,000

00,000,000

00,000,000 1

Sub Total

ntengency7

Total

04,000,000 7.5

50,000,000 4

00,000,000 2

Sub Total

ntengency7

Total

Concept #5 ay Light Rail Trans

5A - At-GradLow Range

tity Total

6 $ 986,000,0

$ (40,000,0

$ 100,000,0

$ 1,046,000,0

$ 313,800,0

$ 1,359,800,0

5 $ 3,024,000,0

$ 200,000,0

$ (500,000,0

$ 2,724,000,0

$ 817,200,0

$ 3,541,200,0

sit Tunnel de Transit e5 High Rang

Total

000 $ 986,000,0

000) $ (40,000,0

000 $ 100,000,0

000 $ 1,046,000,0

000 $ 313,800,0

000 $ 1,359,800,0

000 $ 3,780,000,0

000 $ 200,000,0

000) $ (500,000,0

000 $ 3,480,000,0

000 $ 1,044,000,0

000 $ 4,524,000,0

5B -ge L

Quantity

000

000)

11.6 $ 4

5 $ (8

000 1 $

000 $ 3

000 $ 1

000 $ 5

000 7.5 $ 3

000 4 $

000) 2 $ (5

000 $ 2

000 $

000 $ 3

Underground Traow Range5 H

Total

,677,120,000 $ 5,

800,000,000) $ (8

100,000,000 $

,977,120,000 $ 5,

,193,136,000 $ 1,

,170,256,000 $ 6,

,024,000,000 $ 3,

200,000,000 $

500,000,000) $ (5

,724,000,000 $ 3,

817,200,000 $ 1,

,541,200,000 $ 4,

Page 13

nsit igh Range

Total

846,400,000

800,000,000)

100,000,000

146,400,000

543,920,000

690,320,000

780,000,000

200,000,000

500,000,000)

480,000,000

044,000,000

524,000,000

SP

TR


Table 3.1.5 (contRough Order of M

Segment 3 Westside

At- Ra At- Sta

Tw

Un Tra

Assumptions: 1. Cost is based o intersections. 2. Assume frequen3. Tunnel cost is b4. Assume frequen station. 5. Tunnel cost hav6. Assume that a m7. A 30% continge


inued) Magnitude capita

Item U

-Grade Light ail1 M

-Grade Transit ation2 E

wo 20' Tunnels3 M

nderground ansit Station4 E

n average per mile

ncy of one station pbased on Metro Wency of one station p

ve been reduced bymaintenance facilityency has been appl

Planning Study

al Cost Estimate –

Unit Cost

Miles $ 85,000,0

Each $ 5,000,0

Miles $ 504,000,0

Each $ 100,000,0

Sub Tot

30% Contengency

Tot

30%

e cost for Metro Ligh

per mile. Adjustmeestside Subway Extper mile. Adjustme

y 20% on the Low Ry will be located in ied to the sub total

– Concept 5

Fixed-Guidewa

Quantity

000 8.7 $

000 5 $

000 1.9 $

000 2 $

tal $

y7 $

tal $

Sub Total $

% Contengency7 $

Total $

ht Rail Projects and

ent is made for numension.

ent is made for num

Range alternative tothe San Fernando due to the concept

Concept #5ay Light Rail Tran5A - At-Grade Tra

Low Range5

Total

$ 739,500,000

$ 25,000,000

$ 957,600,000

$ 200,000,000

$ 1,922,100,000

$ 576,630,000

$ 2,498,730,000

$ 5,692,100,000

$ 1,707,630,000

$ 7,399,730,000

d assumes at-grade

mber of stations ass

mber of stations ass

o reflect economiesValley. Cost assumtual nature of the s

sit Tunnel ansit

High RangeTotal

$ 739,500,000

$ 20,000,000

$ 957,600,000

$ 200,000,000

$ 1,922,100,000

$ 576,630,000

$ 2,498,730,000

$ 6,448,100,000

$ 1,934,430,000

$ 8,382,530,000

e running section a

uming an at-grade

uming an undergro

s of scale. mes facility and ROtudy.

5B - ULow

Quantity

10.6 $ 4,2

7 $ (50

$ 3,7

$ 1,1

$ 4,9

$ 10,4

$ 3,1

$ 13,6

and grade separatio

station cost of $5M

ound station cost of

OW costs.

Underground Transw Range5 HiTotal

73,920,000 $ 5,3

00,000,000) $ (5

73,920,000 $ 4,8

32,176,000 $ 1,4

06,096,000 $ 6,2

75,040,000 $13,4

42,512,000 $ 4,0

17,552,000 $17,5

ons at major

M per station.

f $100M per

Page 14

sitigh Range

Total

342,400,000

500,000,000)

842,400,000

452,720,000

295,120,000

468,800,000

040,640,000

509,440,000

SepulvedaPrelimina

3.1.6 C

C

th

se

th

n

C

m

Th

th

Pa

al

sc

fo


Concept #6

oncept #6 is v

hrough the Sa

ervice. Howe

he northern p

ear Century B

oncept #5. T

magnitude cos

A 45’ t

A 58’ d

Portals

Dual b

Under

A main

he cost estim

he length of t

ass, and the W

lternatives. T

cale associate

or Concept #6

or Systems Plrt

- Highway/

very similar to

anta Monica M

ever, the high

portal at appr

Boulevard. T

The major com

st estimate ar

tunnel from t

diameter high

s and approa

bore tunnels f

ground trans

ntenance faci

mate for this a

he concept.

Westside. Lo

The low range

ed with the le

6 is presented

anning Study

/Private Shu

o Concepts #4

Mountains an

way tunnel w

roximately Ro

The private sh

mponents of

re:

he northern h

hway tunnel f

ches for the t

for the transit

sit station

lity

lternative ha

The geograph

w range and

e estimate red

ength of tunne

d in Table 3.1

y

uttle Tunne

4 and #5, as i

nd also includ

would be long

oscoe Bouleva

huttle tunnel

the concept u

highway port

from US‐101 t

tunnels

t component

s been broke

hical regions

high range es

duces the tun

el. The Roug

.6.

els

it consists of a

des a second t

ger than that

ard and the so

involves long

used to deve

tal to US 101

to LAX

en down into g

are the San F

stimates are

nneling cost b

h Order of M

a bored highw

tunnel for a p

proposed for

outhern port

ger tunnels fo

lop the rough

geographical

Fernando Vall

presented fo

by 20% repres

Magnitude Cap

Pa

way tunnel

private shuttle

r Concept #4,

al in the LAX

or transit than

h order of

regions due

ley, the Sepul

r the tunnel

sent econom

pital Cost Esti

age 15

e

, with

area,

n in

to

lveda

ies of

mate

SP

T

R

S


Table 3.1.6

Rough Order of M

It

Segment 1 San Fernando

Valley

One 45 Tunnel1

Two 20 Tunnels

45' Diam Portal & Approa

20' Diam Portal3

Underg Transit

Mainten Facility5

Segment 2 Sepulveda

Pass

58' Diam Tunnel6

Two 20 Tunnels

58' Diam Portal & Approa

Underg Transit


Magnitude Capita

tem Unit

' 1 Miles $

' s2 Miles $

meter & ches3

Each $

meter Each $

round Station4 Each $

nance 5 Each $

30% C

meter 6 Miles $1

' s2 Miles $

meter & ches3

Each $

round Station4 Each $

30% C

Planning Study

al Cost Estimate

Cost Quan

629,000,000 4.0

504,000,000 4.5

150,000,000 1

50,000,000 1

100,000,000 1

100,000,000 1

Sub Total Contengency8

Total

,044,000,000 9.2

504,000,000 5.6

150,000,000 2

100,000,000 1

Sub Total

Contengency8

Total

– Concept 6

CHighway/Pri

ntityTransit

0

5 $1,814,400,000

$ 50,000,000

$ (400,000,000)

$ 100,000,000

$ 1,564,400,000 $ 469,320,000 $ 2,033,720,000

2

6 $ 2,257,920,000

$ (800,000,000)

$ 1,457,920,000 $ 437,376,000 $ 1,895,296,000

Concept #6 ivate Shuttle Tunn

Low Range7

Highway

$ 2,012,800,000

$ 150,000,000

$ 2,162,800,000 $ 648,840,000 $ 2,811,640,000

$ 7,683,840,000

$ 300,000,000

$ 7,983,840,000 $ 2,395,152,000 $10,378,992,000

nels

Total

$2

$

$(

$

$ 3,727,200,000 $2 $ 1,118,160,000 $ $ 4,845,360,000 $2

$2

$(

$ 9,441,760,000 $2 $ 2,832,528,000 $ $12,274,288,000 $2

H

Transit

$ 2,5

2,268,000,000

$ 1

50,000,000

(400,000,000)

100,000,000

2,018,000,000 $ 2,6 605,400,000 $ 7

2,623,400,000 $ 3,4

$ 9,6

2,822,400,000

$ 3

(800,000,000)

2,022,400,000 $ 9,9 606,720,000 $ 2,9

2,629,120,000 $12,8

High Range

Highway

516,000,000

150,000,000

666,000,000 $ 4,68799,800,000 $ 1,40465,800,000 $ 6,08

604,800,000

300,000,000

904,800,000 $11,92971,440,000 $ 3,57876,240,000 $15,50

Page 16

Total

84,000,000 05,200,000 89,200,000

27,200,000 78,160,000 05,360,000

SP

TR

A123456 78


Table 3.1.6 (contRough Order Ma

Ite

Segment 3 Westside

58' Dia Tunnel Two 20 Tunnel 58' Dia Portal & Approa Underg Transit Station

Assumptions: 1. Cost is based on2. Tunnel cost is ba3. Portal & Approac4. Assume frequenc5. Assume that a m6. Cost based on A reduction of the t

7. Tunnel cost have8. A 30% contingen


inued) gnitude Capital C

em Unit

ameter 6 Miles $1

0' s2 Miles $

ameter & aches3

Each $

ground t n4

Each $

30% Co

average per mile cased on Metro Wesches include constrcy of one station pe

maintenance facility Alaskan Way Viaductunnel costs to reflee been reduced by ncy has been applie

Planning Study

Cost Estimate – C

Cost Quan

,044,000,000 7.

504,000,000 10

150,000,000 2

100,000,000 2

Sub Total

ntengency8

Total

Sub Tot

30% Contengenc

Tot

cost for Metro Wesstside Subway Exteruction and potentiaer mile. Adjustmenwill be located in th

ct at $1.044B per mect economies of sc20% on the Low Raed to the sub total d

Concept 6

Highway/P

ntity Transit

8

.6 $ 4,273,920,000

2

2 $ (600,000,000)

$ 3,673,920,000

$ 1,102,176,000

$ 4,776,096,000

tal $ 6,696,240,000

cy8 $ 2,008,872,000

tal $ 8,705,112,000

tside Subway Exteension. al ROW costs. nt is made for numbhe San Fernando V

mile. The High Rancale. ange alternative to due to the conceptu

Concept #6Private Shuttle Tun

Low Range7 Highway

$ 6,514,560,000

0

$ 300,000,000

)

0 $ 6,814,560,000

0 $ 2,044,368,000

0 $ 8,858,928,000

0 $16,961,200,000

0 $ 5,088,360,000

0 $ 22,049,560,000

nsion alternative T

ber of stations assuValley. Cost assumge reflects $1.044B

reflect economies ual nature of the stu

nnels

Total

0

0

0 $10,488,480,000

0 $3,146,544,000

0 $13,635,024,000

0 $23,657,440,000

0 $7,097,232,000

0 $30,754,672,000

unneling Method S

ming an undergroumes facility and ROWB per mile while the

of scale. udy.

Transit

$

$5,342,400,000

$

$(600,000,000)

$4,742,400,000 $

$1,422,720,000 $

$6,165,120,000 $

$8,782,800,000 $

$2,634,840,000 $

$11,417,640,000 $

Study.

und station cost of $W costs. e low range takes in

High Range Highway

$8,143,200,000

$ 300,000,000

$ 8,443,200,000 $13

$ 2,532,960,000 $ 3

$10,976,160,000 $17

$21,014,000,000 $29

$ 6,304,200,000 $ 8

$27,318,200,000 $38

$100M per station.

nto account a 20%

Page 17

Total

3,185,600,000

3,955,680,000

7,141,280,000

9,796,800,000

8,939,040,000

8,735,840,000

SepulvedaPrelimina

4 ROU

Tab

Con

#1

the

Rou

The

pre

lev

refi


UGH ORDE

ble 3.2.1 prov

ncept #6. The

through Conc

e project. In a

ugh Order of

e Rough Orde

esented in thi

el metric to c

ined as the co

or Systems Plrt

ER OF MAG

vides a summ

e capital cost

cept #6 and a

addition, valu

Magnitude co

er of Magnitu

s report refle

compare the a

oncepts are fu

anning Study

GNITUDE C

ary of the cap

estimate is o

adding the ass

ues have been

ost for the co

de (ROM) cap

ect the concep

alternatives a

urther develo

y

CAPITAL C

pital and vehi

obtained by ta

sociated vehi

n given to refl

oncepts that i

pital cost esti

ptual nature o

against one an

oped and add

COST SUM

icle cost estim

aking the con

cle cost estim

lect a Low Ra

nclude a tunn

mates for ea

of the study a

nother. The c

ditional studie

MMARY

mates for Con

nstruction cos

mate to the tr

nge and a Hig

nel compone

ch systems p

and should be

cost estimate

es are undert

Pa

ncept #1 thro

st from Conce

ransit portion

gh Range of t

nt.

lanning conce

e used as a hi

e will need to

aken.

age 18

ugh

ept

n of

the

ept

igh

be

SepulvedaPrelimina

Table 3.2.Rough Or

Concept 1

Concept 2

Concept 3

Concept 4

Concept 4

Concept 5

Concept 5

Concept 5

Concept 5

Concept 6

Concept 6

Assump1. Capita


.1 rder Magnitu

1 At-GradeSepulve

2 At-GradeManage

3 HighwayManage

4 Tolled H(Low Ra

4 Tolled H(High Ra

5A Fixed-GGrade L(Low Ra

5A Fixed-GGrade L(High Ra

5B Fixed-GRail Tun

5B Fixed-GRail TunRange)

6 HighwayTunnels

6 HighwayTunnels

ptions: al Cost Estima

or Systems Plrt

de Cost Estim

Table 3.

e da BRT

e Freeway d Lanes

y Viaduct d Lanes

Highway Tunneange)

Highway Tunneange)

uideway At-ight Rail Trans

ange)

uideway At-ight Rail Transange)

uideway Heavynnel (Low Ranguideway Heavy

nnel (High

y/Private Shuttl(Low Range)

y/Private Shuttl(High Range)

ates include c

anning Study

mates

2.1 Summary

T

$ 162,5

$ 524,4

$ 134,4

l $ 78,4

l $ 78,4

sit $ 7,399,7

sit $ 8,382,5

y ge) $13,617,

y $17,509,

e $ 8,705,

e $11,417,

construction a

y

y of ROM Capi

Capital Cos

Transit

542,500

495,000

495,000

400,000

400,000

730,000

530,000

552,000

440,000

112,000

640,000

and vehicle co

ital Cost Estim

st Estimate1

Highw

$ -

$ 1,127,8

$ 2,194,1

$ 10,378,9

$ 12,876,240

$

$

$

$

$ 22,049,560

$ 27,318,200

ost estimates

mates

way

$

880,000 $ 1

40,000 $ 2

992,000 $10

0,000 $12

- $ 7

- $ 8

- $13

- $17

0,000 $30

0,000 $38

.

Pa

Total

162,542,500

,680,422,500

2,328,635,000

0,457,392,000

2,954,640,000

7,399,730,000

8,382,530,000

3,617,552,000

7,509,440,000

0,754,672,000

8,735,840,000

age 19

SepulvedaPrelimina

4.1 Op

O

co

fr

ea

Operating

Average Weekday Passenge

Operatingper PasseMile

Average Weekday Operating

Average AOperating

Ty

ef

co

th

w

o

co

w

Fu

al

fr

tr

an

gr


perating an

Operating and

osts from the

rom the Dema

ach Concept

g Costs CoVaSe

er Miles 4

g Cost enger

g Costs $

Annual g Cost $96

ypically, the n

ffort that wou

orridor and th

his Study, a ve

was modeled.

perating plan

orridor such a

will be importa

urther studie

lternatives an

reeway altern

ransit services

nd station spa

rade alternat

or Systems Plrt

nd Mainten

Maintenance

e Metro Propo

and Modeling

are presented

Table 4.1.

oncept 1: an Nuys / epulveda

BRT

CBG

482,715

$0.63

304,110

6,433,424 $1

next step in th

uld screen alt

hen develop c

ery robust tra

Future studie

ns in a manne

as the Sepulv

ant to equilib

s would also

nd would esta

natives. Based

s could be est

acing on antic

ives.

anning Study

nance Cost

e cost estima

osed Budget F

g Task Order.

d below in Ta

1: Projected OConcept 2: BRT in At-Grade Fwy Managed

Lanes

690,820

$0.63

$435,217

138,007,184

he planning p

ternatives bas

conceptual en

ansit service p

es will need t

er that reduce

eda Pass, wh

brate transit h

establish alig

ablish lane co

d on the conc

tablished tha

cipated opera

y

t Estimate

ates were dev

Fiscal Year 20

The projecte

able 4.1.1.

Operating andConcept 4: BRT with

Tolled Highway Tunnel

636,954

$0.63

$401,281

$127,246,211

process would

sed on establ

ngineering pl

plan with a ve

o explore wa

es operating c

ich appears t

headways to t

gnments and s

onfigurations,

eptual engine

t would take

ating speeds,

veloped using

013 July 1, 20

ed operating

d Maintenance

Concept 5AFixed

GuidewayLRT

797,708

$0.56

$446,716

$141,653,79

d be an Altern

lished perform

ans for a sma

ery high frequ

ys to refine t

costs while m

to have a larg

transit deman

station locati

ramp, and d

eering plans,

into account

as well as gr

g operating an

12 – June 30,

and mainten

e Costs

A:

y

Concept Fixed

GuidewHeavy R

1,056,68

$0.56

$591,74

96 $188,173

natives Analy

mance measu

aller set of alt

uency of serv

ransit service

maintaining hig

e, untapped t

nd.

ons for the d

irect connect

conceptual o

t the effects o

ade‐crossing

Pa

nd maintenan

, 2013 and re

nance costs fo

5B: d way Rail

ConceHighw

PrivShuTun

81 586,5

6 $0.5

41 $328

,752 $104,15

ysis or similar

ures for the

ternatives. Fo

ice over the P

e routes and

gh ridership.

transit dema

ifferent trans

tor locations f

operating plan

of grades, cur

delay for any

age 20

nce

sults

or

ept 6: way / vate ttle nel

549

56

,467

57,025

or

Pass

In a

nd, it

sit

for

ns for

ves,

y at‐

SepulvedaPrelimina

Append


dix 1 –

or Systems Plrt

Draft Gu

Sepulved

anning Study

ideway Te

da Pass Sys

y

echnology

stems Plan

Alternativ

nning Corr

ves for Cha

ridor Study

arette One

y

e

Draft Guideway Technology Alternatives for Charette One Sepulveda Pass Systems Planning Corridor Study

Project ROM Cost per Route Mile1 2 3 4 4/13/2012

All Surface Alternatives

Tunnel Alternatives

All Transit Tunnel All Highway Tunnels Transit and Highway NOTES

1No Build (HOV Lane):

-$ 2 2 Express Lanes

(Widening of Existing Freeway) Metro HOT Lane average bids

(mid point of construction = 2012)12,000,000$ 3 4 Express Lanes

(Widening of Existing Freeway)

Prorated from Metro HOT Lane average bids for 4 lanes (mpoc =

2012)20,000,000$ 4 21 Foot Diameter (Dual

Bore)Metro Westside Subway

Extension Project FTA SCC Funding Schedule (2012)504,000,000$

5 46 Foot Diameter (Single Bore)

Metro Westside Subway Extension Alternative Tunneling

Method Study (escl 2012) 629,000,000$ 6 43 Foot Diameter (Dual Bore) Forty Foot Diameter Port of Miami Tunnel project

estimate (mpoc = 2012)1,333,000,000$ No less than Highway Tunnel $7 Fifty Foot Diameter Fifty Foot Diameter

Approximate proration.1,000,000,000$ No less than Highway Tunnel $8 57 Foot Diameter (Single Bore

Stacked) 60 Foot Diameter Alaskan Way Seattle Project

average bids (mpoc = 2012)1,044,000,000$ No less than Highway Tunnel $57 Foot Diameter (Dual Bore

Stacked) InfraConsult study for Metro' SR710 North-2 TBMs (escl 2012)860,000,000$ No less than Highway Tunnel $

SepulvedaPrelimina

Append


dix 2 –

or Systems Plrt

Concept

anning Study

#5 Aerial V

y

Viaduct Prreliminaryy Cost

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Systems Planning Concepts and Engineering Issues Report

1 FOR INFORMATION ONLY

Memo To: Roger Martin, AICP Transportation Planning Manager LACMTA From: Nathan Burgess, PE Senior Project Manager HNTB Corporation Date: 11/7/2012 Re: Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study – Concept #5 Aerial Viaduct

The Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study identified six planning concepts that were advanced and developed as part of the study’s planning process. Concept #5 was a rail alternative that was initially conceived as a light rail alternative. The concept was conceptualized to run at‐grade from the northern terminus at Sylmar to approximately Ventura Boulevard. In the vicinity of Ventura Boulevard, it would enter a tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass to south of Santa Monica Boulevard, and then return to an at‐grade configuration south of Santa Monica Boulevard to Los Angeles International Airport. After receiveing input at the Planning Charrette #2, a heavy rail alternative was also added to address carrying capacity concerns. The heavy rail alternative would be similar to the Red Line in configuration and would operate in a tunnel the entire length from Sylmar to Los Angeles International Airport. The at‐grade running light rail and the underground running heavy rail were the two options carried forward for the remainder of the planning study. Upon completion of the study, a question was raised regarding the feasibility of an aerial heavy rail option for the northern and southern portions of the study corridor. The Civil and Transportation Engineering team compiled the following cost information to help inform the project team and that can be further developed and refined in future phases of study. The costs presented below should be used for informational purposes only and do not take into account environmental impacts or constructability issues.



Average Construction Cost for Aerial Guideway

Average of projects without stations ‐ $50,000,000/mile

BART SFO Aerial Guideway without stations o $8,500/ft. x 5280 ft./mile = $44,880,000 o Adjusted for inflation (2003 – 2012) = $56,443,190 o Use $60M/mile w/o stations

Aerial Stations ‐ $20,000,000/Station

Recommended Construction Value to use for Sepulveda Pass o $60M +$40M/2 (end stations) = $80,000,000/mile

Average Professional Service (Project Management, Construction Management, etc…)

50% of construction costs Recommended Aerial Guideway Programmatic Cost

$80,000,000 x 1.5 = $120,000,000/mile

Using the same format presented in the Preliminary Cost Report, the aerial heavy rail viaduct option would result in the following approximate, rough‐order‐of‐magnitude costs shown in the table on the following page.



Concept #5

Fixed-Guideway Light Rail Aerial Viaduct (Not Studied)

Item Unit Cost

5C - Aerial Guideway

Low Range5 High Range

Quantity Total Total

Segment 1 San

Fernando Valley

At-Grade Light Rail1 Miles $ 85,000,000

Aerial Guideway Miles $120,000,000 11.6 $ 1,392,000,000 $ 1,392,000,000

At-Grade Transit Station2 Each $ 5,000,000

Two 20' Tunnels3 Miles $504,000,000 Underground Transit Station4 Each $100,000,000

Maintenance Facility6 Each $100,000,000 1 100,000,000 $ 100,000,000

Sub Total $ 1,492,000,000 $ 1,492,000,000

30% Contengency7 $ 447,600,000 $ 447,600,000

Total $ 1,939,600,000 $ 1,939,600,000

Segment 2 Sepulveda

Pass

Two 20' Tunnels Miles $504,000,000 7.5 $ 3,024,000,000 $ 3,780,000,000

20' Diameter Portal Each $ 50,000,000 4 $ 200,000,000 $ 200,000,000 Underground Transit Station Each $100,000,000 2 $ (500,000,000) $ (500,000,000)

Sub Total $ 2,724,000,000 $ 3,480,000,000

30% Contengency7 $ 817,200,000 $ 1,044,000,000

Total $ 3,541,200,000 $ 4,524,000,000

Segment 3 Westside

At-Grade Light Rail1 Miles $ 85,000,000 $ -

Aerial Guideway Miles $120,000,000 8.7 $ 1,044,000,000 $ 1,044,000,000

At-Grade Transit Station2 Each $ 5,000,000 $ - $ -

Two 20' Tunnels3 Miles $504,000,000 1.9 $ 957,600,000 $ 957,600,000 Underground Transit Station4 Each $100,000,000 2 $ 200,000,000 $ 200,000,000

Sub Total $ 2,201,600,000 $ 2,201,600,000

30% Contengency7 $ 660,480,000 $ 660,480,000

Total $ 2,862,080,000 $ 2,862,080,000

Sub Total $ 6,417,600,000 $ 7,173,600,000

30% Contengency7 $ 1,925,280,000 $ 2,152,080,000

Total $ 8,342,880,000 $ 9,325,680,000 Assumptions:

1. Cost is based on average per mile cost for Metro Light Rail Projects and assumes at-grade running section and grade separations at major intersections.

2. Assume frequency of one station per mile. Adjustment is made for number of stations assuming an at-grade station cost of $5M per station.

3. Tunnel cost is based on Metro Westside Subway Extension.

4. Assume frequency of one station per mile. Adjustment is made for number of stations assuming an underground station cost of $100M per station.

5. Tunnel cost have been reduced by 20% on the Low Range alternative to reflect economies of scale.

6. Assume that a maintenance facility will be located in the San Fernando Valley. Cost assumes facility and ROW costs.

7. A 30% contingency has been applied to the sub total due to the conceptual nature of the study.

SepulvedaPrelimina

Append


dix 3 –

or Systems Plrt

Initial Op

anning Study

perating Se

y

egment

The Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study identified six planning concepts to alleviate congestion and increase transit mode share along an approximately 30-mile corridor, extending from the Sylmar Metrolink Station and the I-5/I-405 Interchange in Sylmar to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in the southern Los Angeles Basin. While the Preliminary Cost Report includes capital costs for all full-length concepts, Metro Planning staff explored the potential for shorter, and less expensive, infrastructure improvements in the core/middle section of the Sepulveda Pass Study Area, from approximately the Metro Orange Line and U.S. 101 in the San Fernando Valley to the Metro Expo Line and La Grange Avenue in West Los Angeles. This core/middle segment of the entire 30-mile corridor, which focuses on connecting the housing-rich San Fernando Valley with the jobs-rich Westside region of Los Angeles through the Sepulveda Pass itself, has demonstrated the highest potential for increased ridership and automobile usage (per mile) at much lower costs than the full length concepts examined in the Preliminary Cost Report and other Study reports. While the full 30-mile long Sepulveda Pass Study Area/corridor is in need of transit and/or highway improvements, Metro Planning staff chose to explore a segment of the corridor with the greatest need, based on the segment of the corridor that has demonstrated the highest transit ridership (between the Metro Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley to the Metro Expo Line in West LA) and highest vehicle throughput (between the U.S. 101 in the San Fernando Valley and La Grange Avenue/Santa Monica Blvd in West LA). Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for this initial segment were calculated based on unit costs utilized in the Preliminary Cost Report for the full-length concepts, and were adjusted based on the shorter length of these “Initial Segments.” Concept 1 (Table C-1) – Van Nuys/Sepulveda BRT: The “initial segment” would extend from the Metro Orange Line/Van Nuys Station to the Metro Expo Line Sepulveda Station, a length of approximately 12.5 miles. Concept 1’s initial segment would include 3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations, versus 8 for the full length concept. The initial segment would include roughly 40 priority treatments at intersections and 3 Intersection/Median reconfigurations versus 85 priority treatments and 5 reconfigurations under the full length concept. In addition, the initial segment would

Date November 7, 2012

To Roger Martin, David Mieger

From Alex Moosavi

Subject Initial Segment vs. Full Length Costs

only require approximately 5 Queue Jump Lanes versus 20 for the entire concept. The Initial Segment of Concept 1 would cost approximately $146 million versus $163 million for the full length Concept. Concept 2 (Table C-2) – BRT in At-Grade Freeway Managed Lanes: The “initial segment” would extend from U.S. 101 in the San Fernando Valley to the La Grange Avenue in West LA, a distance of approximately 10.5 miles, versus 29 miles for the entire concept. This reduces the cost of construction of the Express/HOT Lanes to $210 million versus $418 million for the entire corridor/concept. The initial segment would require 2 Direct Access Ramps, versus 3 DARs for the full length concept. The Initial Segment of Concept 2 would cost approximately $1.18 billion versus $1.68 billion for the full length Concept. Concept 3 (Table C-3) – BRT with Aerial Viaduct Managed Lanes: Since Concept 3 is already focused on capital improvements through the Sepulveda Pass itself, the initial segment is almost exactly similar in length and cost. The only difference is that a Direct Access Ramp at Sepulveda/I-405 (near LAX) would not be constructed under the Initial Segment, thereby lowering its cost to about $2.13 million versus $2.33 million for the full length concept. Concept 4 (Table C-4) – BRT with Tolled Highway Tunnel: Since this concept’s major capital improvement includes the construction of a 9.1-mile tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass, between U.S. 101 and La Grange Avenue, the “initial segment” cost is the same. Concept 5A (Table C-5A) – Fixed-Guideway LRT: The “initial segment” would run from the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station to the Metro Expo Line Sepulveda station in West LA, a distance of 10.2- miles. The “initial segment” would include a 9.4-mile twin bore tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass and Westwood Village, as well as the tunnel portals and all 4 underground transit stations included in the full length concept. The at-grade portion of the route would extend for 2.7 miles (2 miles in the San Fernando Valley and 0.7 miles in the Westside/Westwood, versus 20.3 miles of at-grade light rail (11.6 miles in the San Fernando Valley and 8.7 miles from Westside to LAX) under the full length concept. The “initial segment” includes 2 at-grade stations versus 10 at-grade transit stations under the full length concept. The Initial Segment of Concept 5A would cost approximately $5.49 billion versus $7.40 billion for the full length Concept. Concept 5B (Table C-5B) – Fixed Guideway HRT: The “initial segment” would run from the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station to the Metro Expo Line Sepulveda station in West LA, a distance of 10.2 miles. The “initial segment” would include 10.2 miles of twin bore tunnels, including 4 portals and 5 underground transit stations, versus the full length concept, which would include 29.7 miles of twin bore tunnel, 4 portals, and 14 underground transit stations. The Initial Segment of Concept 5B would cost approximately $5.10 billion versus $13.62 billion for the full length Concept.

Concept 6 (Table C-6) – Toll Tunnel and Rail Tunnel: The highway “initial segment” consists of a 58 ft. diameter tunnel from U.S. 101 in the San Fernando Valley to La Grange Avenue in West LA, a distance of 9.2-miles, and will include 2 portals and approaches to the tunnel, versus 4 portals and approaches under the full length concept. The initial segment would not require the 45 ft. diameter tunnel, portals and approaches, since these would be located north of U.S. 101 and south of La Grange Avenue. The transit “initial segment” would include twin bore tunnels from the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station, to the Metro Expo Line Sepulveda station, a distance of 10.2-miles, versus 20.7 miles of twin bore tunnels for the full length concept. The “initial segment” includes 3 underground stations versus 5 underground stations under the full length concept. The Initial Segment of Concept 6 (including the rail and toll tunnel) would cost approximately $16.10 billion versus $30.75 billion for the full length Concept.

Table 3-1: Shoulder Running BRT

Improvement/Item Unit

FULL LENGTH (30 miles)

INITIAL LENGTH (12.5 miles)

Quantity Cost Quantity Cost

Shoulder Improvements Miles 8.4 $21,000,000 8.4 $21,000,000

BRT Stations Each 8 $8,000,000 3 $3,000,000

OG Turnaround Each 1 $1,250,000 1 $1,250,000

Priority Treatments at Intersections Each 85 $3,400,000 40 $1,600,000

Intersection/Median Reconfiguration Each 5 $2,500,000 3 $1,500,000

Queue Jump Lanes Each 20.0 $7,000,000 5.0 $1,750,000

SUBTOTAL $43,150,000 $30,100,000

Programmatic Adjustment $21,575,000 $21,575,000

30% Contingency $19,417,500 $15,502,500

Vehicle Costs $78,400,000 $78,400,000

TOTAL $162,542,500 $145,577,500

Table 3-2: BRT in At-Grade Freeway Managed Lanes


FULL LENGTH (29 miles)



Construction of Express Lanes Miles 29 $417,600,000 10.5 $210,000,000

Direct Access Ramps Each 3 $450,000,000 2 $300,000,000

U.S. 101 Direct Access Ramps Each 1 $300,000,000 1 $300,000,000

At-Grade BRT Improvements Each 1 $64,725,000 1 $51,675,000

SUBTOTAL $1,232,325,000 $861,675,000

30% Contingency $369,697,500 $244,777,500

Vehicle Costs $78,400,000 $78,400,000

TOTAL $1,680,422,500 $1,184,852,500

Table 3-3: Aerial/Viaduct Managed Lanes with BRT


FULL LENGTH (9.8 miles)



Elevated Guideway Miles 9.8 $1,087,800,000 9.8 $1,087,800,000

Direct Access Ramps Each 4 $600,000,000 3 $450,000,000

At-Grade BRT Improvements Each 1 $43,150,000 1 $43,150,000

SUBTOTAL $1,730,950,000 $1,580,950,000

30% Contingency $519,285,000 $474,285,000

Vehicle Costs $78,400,000 $78,400,000

TOTAL $2,328,635,000 $2,133,635,000

Table 3-4: Tolled Highway Tunnel with BRT


FULL LENGTH (9.2 miles)



58 ft. Diameter Tunnel Miles 9.2 $7,683,840,000 9.2 $7,683,840,000

58 ft. Diameter Portal and Approaches Each 2 $300,000,000 2 $300,000,000

SUBTOTAL $7,983,840,000 $7,983,840,000

30% Contingency $2,395,152,000 $2,395,152,000

Vehicle Costs $78,400,000 $78,400,000

TOTAL $10,457,392,000 $10,457,392,000

Table 3-5A: Fixed Guideway LRT

Improvement/Item Unit FULL LENGTH

(27.8 miles) INITIAL LENGTH

(10.2 miles)


Tunnel Segment - Two 20 ft. Tunnels Miles 9.4 $3,981,600,000 9.4 $3,981,600,000

20 ft. Diameter Portal Each 4 $200,000,000 4 $200,000,000

Underground Transit Stations Each 4 -$300,000,000 4 -$300,000,000

At-Grade Light Rail (SF Valley portion) Miles 11.6 $986,000,000 2.0 $170,000,000

At-Grade Light Rail (Westside to LAX portion)

Miles 8.7 $739,500,000 0.7 $59,500,000

At-Grade Transit Stations Each 10 -$15,000,000 2 $10,000,000

Maintenance Facility Each 1 $100,000,000 1 $100,000,000

SUBTOTAL $5,692,100,000 $4,221,100,000

30% Contingency $1,707,630,000 $1,266,330,000

TOTAL $7,399,730,000 $5,487,430,000

Table 3-5B: Fixed Guideway HRT


(29.7 miles) INITIAL LENGTH

(10.2 miles)


Tunnel Segment - Two 20 ft. Tunnels

Miles 29.7 $11,975,040,000 10.2 $4,112,640,000


Underground Transit Stations Each 14 -$1,800,000,000 5 -$500,000,000


SUBTOTAL $10,475,040,000 $3,912,640,000

30% Contingency $3,142,512,000 $1,173,792,000

TOTAL $13,617,552,000 $5,086,432,000

Table 3-6: Toll Tunnel and Rail Tunnel


(21 miles)

INITIAL LENGTH (9.2 - 10.2 miles)


Highway

58 ft. Diameter Tunnel Miles 17 $14,198,400,000 9.2 $7,683,840,000

58 ft. Portal and Approaches Each 4 $600,000,000 2 $300,000,000

45 ft. Tunnel Miles 4 $2,012,800,000 n/a n/a

45 ft. Diameter portal & Approaches Each 1 $150,000,000 n/a n/a

SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY $16,961,200,000 $7,983,840,000

30% Contingency $5,088,360,000 $2,971,440,000

TOTAL $22,049,560,000 $10,955,280,000

Transit


Two 20 ft. Tunnels Miles 20.7 $8,346,240,000 10.2 $4,112,640,000

Underground Stations Each 5 -$1,800,000,000 3 -$800,000,000


SUBTOTAL TRANSIT $6,696,240,000 $3,462,640,000

30% Contingency $2,008,872,000 $1,677,240,000

TOTAL $8,705,112,000 $5,139,880,000

CONCEPT 6 TOTAL $30,754,672,000 $16,095,160,000

Summary Table: Full Length vs. Initial Segment Costs

Concept Initial Segment Cost

(9.2 to 12.5 miles) Full Length Cost (21 to 30 miles)

1 - Shoulder Running BRT $145,577,500 $162,542,500

2 - BRT in At-Grade Freeway Managed Lanes $1,184,852,500 $1,680,422,500

3 - Aerial/Viaduct Managed Lanes with BRT $2,133,635,000 $2,328,635,000

4 - Tolled Highway Tunnel with BRT $10,457,392,000 $10,457,392,000

5A - Fixed Guideway LRT $5,487,430,000 $7,399,730,000

5B - Fixed Guideway HRT Tunnel $5,086,432,000 $13,617,552,000

6 - Toll Tunnel and Rail Tunnel $16,095,160,000 $30,754,672,000

5.0 - preliminary cost reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images...r systems pl rt...

Documents