ATTACHMENT A Basis of Design FINAL DRAFT March 5_ 2010

Document Sample
ATTACHMENT A Basis of Design FINAL DRAFT March 5_ 2010 Powered By Docstoc
					ATTACHMENT A

  Basis of Design




   FINAL DRAFT
    March 5, 2010
revised July 26, 2010
                          This Page Intentionally Blank




July 2010 – Final Draft
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program
      Conceptual Engineering

                 Basis of Design

                            Final Draft

                  Technical Memorandum




                          March 5, 2010
                      revised July 26, 2010



                          Prepared for:

                      The City of Austin



                          Prepared by:

                       URS Corporation




    Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system
   that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region.
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                                                        Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

                                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0   General ............................................................................................................................................ 3
   1.1 Other Ongoing Projects .......................................................................................................................................3
   1.2 Potential Streetcar Operational Constraints – Parade Routes, Street Fairs, etc. ................................................4
   1.3 Urban Rail Vehicle ...............................................................................................................................................4
   1.4 Alignment Geometry ............................................................................................................................................4
   1.5 Design Speeds ....................................................................................................................................................5
2.0         Urban Rail Stops............................................................................................................................. 5
3.0         Civil Engineering Assumptions..................................................................................................... 7
   3.1 Cross Slope and Roadway Reconstruction .........................................................................................................8
   3.2 Lane Width...........................................................................................................................................................8
   3.3 Track Structure/Pavement Reconstruction ..........................................................................................................8
4.0         Traction Power/Overhead System............................................................................................... 10
   4.1 Traction Power Supply System Requirements ..................................................................................................10
   4.2 OCS Infrastructure.............................................................................................................................................11
   4.3 Operational Control............................................................................................................................................12
5.0         Street Lighting .............................................................................................................................. 12
6.0         Utilities........................................................................................................................................... 13
7.0         Traffic ............................................................................................................................................ 14
   7.1 Traffic Operations ..............................................................................................................................................14
   7.2 Traffic Signals ....................................................................................................................................................16
8.0         Structural....................................................................................................................................... 17
   8.1 Existing Structures.............................................................................................................................................17
   8.2 Proposed Structures ..........................................................................................................................................17
9.0         Maintenance and Storage Facility............................................................................................... 18
10.0        Cost Estimate Methodology ........................................................................................................ 19
   10.1 Purpose and Scope .........................................................................................................................................19
   10.2 Estimate Development.....................................................................................................................................19
   10.3 Unit Costs ........................................................................................................................................................19
   10.4 Cost Components ............................................................................................................................................19
   10.5 Year-of-Expenditure Cost Projections..............................................................................................................20
   10.6 Cost Item Assumptions....................................................................................................................................21
Appendix A – General Arrangement of Siemens S70 Ultra Short Vehicle ............................................ 27
Appendix B – Preliminary Design-Build (D/B) Schedule........................................................................ 33




July 2010 – Final Draft                                                         Page 2
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

INTRODUCTION
This report documents the Basis of Design the URS Team used for the Central Austin Transit Study and
Urban Rail Conceptual Engineering. Presented herein are basic design parameters and assumptions used
to evaluate feasibility and estimate project costs.
The URS Team's objective was to deliver a system concept consistent with the needs and parameters
established by the City of Austin. This Basis of Design was developed based upon information received
from the City and the URS Team’s extensive experience with urban rail-type projects in urbanized
environments similar to Austin. The criteria herein are presented in an abbreviated form for high-level
decision-making as part of the Central Austin Transit Study. Upon entering Preliminary Engineering (PE)
and/or Final Design (FD), the criteria identified below should be detailed further and reevaluated to ensure
continued consistency with the City’s desires and project goals.

1.0 General
   1.1 Other Ongoing Projects
        There are several planned future projects that overlap with the study area for the Urban Rail
        Program. It is important to consider these projects in evaluating the alternatives being considered
        as it could impact the feasibility and/or cost of this project. URS has collected information on all of
        the projects listed below, and evaluated and summarized them in a separate Technical
        Memorandum, submitted previously.

                 City of Austin Arts in Public Places
                 City of Austin Bicycle Master Plan
                 City of Austin Downtown Austin Plan Phases One and Two
                 City of Austin East Riverside Corridor Master Plan
                 City of Austin Great Streets Master Plan
                 City of Austin Green Water Treatment Plant (GWTP) Redevelopment
                 City of Austin Lower Shoal Creek and New Central Library Task Force
                 City of Austin New Central Library
                 City of Austin Seaholm District Redevelopment
                 City of Austin Sidewalk Master Plan
                 Capital Metro MetroRail Red Line
                 Capital Metro MetroRail Green Line
                 Capital Metro MetroRapid North Lamar/South Congress Line
                 Capital Metro MetroRapid Burnet/South Lamar Line
                 Capital Metro ServicePlan2020
                 Downtown Austin Alliance (DAA) Congress Avenue WOW

          This is a composite list of all of the ongoing projects URS is aware of in the vicinity of the
          Urban Rail Program. Coordination with these projects will be required in future phases
          of project development.




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 3
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

   1.2 Potential Streetcar Operational Constraints – Parade Routes, Street Fairs, etc.
        There are several activities that occur in downtown Austin that could have an impact on the normal
        operations of Urban Rail. If parades with floats or other elevated displays are anticipated on any of
        the proposed Urban Rail routes, it could conflict with the Overhead Contact System (OCS) and
        needs to be included in the evaluation, design and cost estimating.

        Also, street fairs or areas with potential complete or partial street closures should be identified at
        this stage in design. If the Urban Rail is to remain in operation during these activities, Urban Rail
        operations will have to be evaluated and an appropriate allowance for “event” maneuvers will have
        to be included in the assumptions and capital cost estimate. These could include crossovers
        (combination switches) and special event-only signaling that has the potential to add cost.

            URS did not evaluate parade routes. All potential or existing parade routes should be
            considered in the next phase of design.


   1.3 Urban Rail Vehicle
        The exact vehicle type has not yet been determined for Urban Rail. For the purposes of evaluating
        feasibility (loading, geometry, etc.) and vehicle costs, the Siemens S70 Ultra Short vehicle has
        been assumed. The Vehicle General Arrangement can be found in Appendix A. The key design
        characteristics of the vehicle are identified below:

             Minimum Curve Radii: 20 Meters (65.6 feet)
             Structural Loading:
             Vehicle Weight empty: 42,184 kg
             AW4 (structure load) capacity: 60 seated, 209 standing @ 79 kg/Passenger = 16,511 kg
             Fully loaded vehicle: 58,695 kg (129,400 lbs)
        Please note: More information on Urban Rail vehicles can be found in Chapter 4 of the Central
        Austin Transit Study. The report provides additional background on considerations in selecting a
        vehicle and current rolling stock applicable to the Urban Rail Program that are being supplied in the
        U.S. market.

   1.4 Alignment Geometry
        Alignments illustrated in the Conceptual Engineering Plans are schematic in nature, but illustrate
        the general position of the track within the roadway. For the purpose of this study and to avoid
        precluding any current light rail or streetcar vehicle technologies, all curve radii in the schematic
        alignment will be 25 meters (82 feet) or greater.

        Some general geometric values to illustrate typical urban rail limitations are discussed below:

             Horizontal curves:
             Desirable minimum horizontal radius: 82 feet (a smaller horizontal radius may be achievable
              depending upon vehicle capabilities)




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 4
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                   Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

             To achieve 25 mph: minimum curve radius is 600 feet +/- (with spirals)
             Vertical curves (@ 25 mph design speed K value (K=L/A):
             Crest: minimum K crest = 25 +/-
             Sag: minimum K sag = 15 +/-
             Grades:
             Maximum desirable grade 5% (steeper grades may exist on Riverside Dr., Guadalupe St.,
              Lavaca St., 9th St., and 10th St. and should be evaluated during the next design phase).
             Absolute maximum grade is vehicle dependent (typically 7-9%).

   1.5 Design Speeds
        Generally, the Urban Rail schematic alignment was developed to allow system operations at the
        posted speed of the roadway. By industry standards, all routes where Urban Rail operates within
        the existing roadway and is only controlled by traffic signals (i.e., no crossing gates), the design
        speed shall not exceed 35 mph. Some areas where slower speeds should be expected are shown
        below:

             90 Degree turns: Where the urban rail turns from one street to another, the speeds will be
              limited to approximately 5 mph.
             Lane changes: Where the urban rail shifts from one lane to another at an intersection where it
              is performing a transit-only maneuver, slower speeds (~15 mph) should be expected.
             Urban Rail stops: At all Urban Rail stops, the alignment may have to shift slightly closer to the
              curb for level boarding. In addition, the vehicle will stop and briefly dwell (potentially in mixed
              traffic).
             Turnouts: Most turnouts (switches) for an Urban Rail-type system in an urban environment will
              be very tight and limited to speeds of around 5 mph.

2.0 Urban Rail Stops
        The type of stops considered can have a dramatic effect on the cost and urban design elements of
        the rail system. Stops can make architectural statements with unique canopies and artwork or be
        as simple as providing a boarding area and small shelter. For example, the recently constructed
        Phoenix LRT system includes elaborate canopies and art features with total station costs between
        $2 million and $3 million (note, each stop is long enough for 3 car trains). On the other end of the
        spectrum, the Portland Streetcar utilizes a minimalist approach, avoiding canopies and other costly
        features, and uses streetcar unique shelter (similar to a standard bus shelter). The Portland stops
        generally cost between $60,000 and $100,000 each (note, each stop accommodates only one
        streetcar vehicle).

            URS has assumed basic stops similar to the Portland Streetcar (sized for the S70 Ultra
            Short vehicle). Based on this minimalist approach, the typical stop design parameters
            and assumed amenities for each stop are shown below:




July 2010 – Final Draft                              Page 5
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                    Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

            Track Grade through Platform: should be tangent and less than 2% grade (under constrained
             circumstances, steeper grades may be justified as allowed by ADA guidelines).
            Stop Length: Station stops will be approximately 90 feet long with 60 feet of level platform for
             level boarding at all four doors of the S70 Ultra Short.
            Track Alignment: The alignment should be tangent for approximately 40 feet on either side of
             the level boarding areas. Curves can be allowed as long as all level boarding requirements
             are met (typically when no bridge plates are used, ADA can be met with curves greater than
             3000 feet +/-).
            Width of Stop: 8 feet for side stops and 12 feet for center stops +/- (note: in constrained areas,
             portions of the side stop can be shared with the sidewalk, similar to a bus stop).
            Platform Height: Typical curb height at platform edge is 14 inches +/- for level boarding. It is
             assumed that level boarding will be provided and no bridge plate will be used. Evaluation of
             station stop and vehicle interface will be required in final design to address level boarding.
             Platform height may change depending upon final vehicle selection.
            ADA Access/Grades must be considered at all platform locations (to be evaluated and
             coordinated with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) during Final
             Design).
            Automated Next Train Display (indicated time to next train) is to be assumed at all stations.
            Stations will have a shelter, trash receptacle, railings, etc., as needed.
            See photos below for examples of different platform configurations.




                                           Mid-Block Center Platform




July 2010 – Final Draft                              Page 6
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




                   Nearside Side Platform separate from sidewalk (occupying parking lane)




                    Nearside Side Platform with shared sidewalk (occupying parking lane)


3.0 Civil Engineering Assumptions
        Significant project savings can be realized by minimizing unnecessary reconstruction and civil
        engineering improvements. It is assumed that a simple cost effective approach will be the City’s
        approach to Urban Rail. The following sections describe some of the common features that have
        been used to deliver similar types of street-running transit systems around the country. These
        assumptions are part of the Basis of Design.




July 2010 – Final Draft                           Page 7
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

   3.1 Cross Slope and Roadway Reconstruction
        It is assumed that the limits of reconstruction will be confined to only what is necessary to install
        the track structure and appurtenances. This assumes that no additional overlay or reconstruction
        beyond what is absolutely necessary to construct Urban Rail will be included in the project scope
        or cost.

        Generally, detailed grading is not accomplished until final design. However, for the purpose of
        approximating the amount of pavement reconstruction required, URS assumed the cost effective
        approach mentioned above will be acceptable to the City. The approach is further outlined in the
        figure below.




                                   Proposed Roadway Design Parameters


   3.2 Lane Width
            Shared Auto/Urban Rail Lanes: 11 feet desirable minimum (in tangent) and 10 feet absolute
             minimum (with prior approval).
            Bike Lanes: 6 feet desirable minimum and 5 feet absolute minimum. Distance is measured
             from the face of the curb to the lane line.

   3.3 Track Structure/Pavement Reconstruction
       Many different track structure designs have been implemented in streetcar/LRT systems around
       the country. The most common track structure for Urban Rail-type systems in shared-use traffic
       lanes is embedded girder rail in a concrete track slab. A typical track slab is approximately 8 feet
       wide by 12 inches thick, but the design will vary depending upon local soil conditions, pavement
       design life expectations, need for potential utility spanning, etc. The track slab is placed over a
       compacted base course on an approved subgrade, and the base course thickness will vary
       depending upon the pavement design life and bearing capacity of the subgrade. The photo below
       illustrates the installation of an embedded track girder rail section similar to what could be expected
       in Austin. The reinforcing is not required for proposed Urban Rail vehicle loads and should be
       considered optional.




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 8
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design


        Also note in the photo that reconstruction can be limited to 1-3 feet on either side of the track slab
        depending upon the existing cross slope and profile of the roadway. Additional reconstruction or
        grind/overlay may be required depending on the Urban Rail alignment and profile, station locations,
        and other special considerations.




                          Reinforced Embedded Track Slab Sawcut into Existing Roadway




                                     Concrete Pour of Reinforced Track Slab




July 2010 – Final Draft                             Page 9
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




                   Typical Unreinforced Urban Rail/Streetcar Track Structure: Designs Vary




                     Typical Reinforced Urban Rail/Streetcar Track Structure: Designs Vary


4.0 Traction Power/Overhead System
        General systems requirements typical of an Urban Rail-type system similar to the one proposed for
        Austin are listed below. The systems elements that will be required and discussed are:
            Traction Power Supply System (TPSS) Requirements
            Overhead Contact System (OCS) Infrastructure
            Operational Control

   4.1 Traction Power Supply System Requirements
        The assumptions for the TPSS requirements based on similar types of projects are listed below.
        The final size and spacing of the sub-stations for Urban Rail will require a detailed analysis based
        on the selected vehicle, frequency of service and headways, and the speed and load cycle over
        specific time intervals. This information will determine the actual transformer/rectifier (system
        appurtenances that transform AC supply power to DC) ratings and will confirm utility power
        demands.




July 2010 – Final Draft                          Page 10
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

        The assumed traction power system is a single trolley wire operating at a nominal system voltage
        of 700 VDC with RI-52 insulated girder rail. The trolley wire size is based on the amperage and the
        ability to meet the minimum voltage requirements for a vehicle farthest away from any substation
        and drawing maximum starting current.

        With a trolley wire approach, and to avoid costly duct banks, typical loading requirements require
        the use of a 480/240 VAC, 600 amp (typical peak demand of 300 amp) service with 500 kW
        substations spaced at approximately ½ mile intervals. Final determination will be based on the
        supply analysis study. The substations can be located in several locations along the alignment
        including parking structures, at-grade in adjacent parcels, in the maintenance yard/shop area, and
        even in underground vaults. Consideration should be made to evenly space the substation sites
        along and near the alignment (within 1 or 2 blocks) in order to minimize costly duct banks and
        feeder lines.

        Several types and sizes of substations are available for use. The most cost effective substations
        are prefabricated traction power units. If required, these units can be dressed with architecturally
        designed external finishes. In addition to space and location, other factors to be considered
        include security and accessibility, ease of replacement/installation of equipment, proximity to utility
        feeders and to the street feeder pole locations, as determined by the load study analysis.

        The use of underground vaults as an alternative has the obvious advantage of being unobtrusive
        and also provides greater flexibility in meeting the spacing requirements. However, these are
        usually less convenient with regard to access and equipment maintenance/installation, and have
        additional fire safety and drainage issues to be resolved. The power control equipment layout
        would likely require a unique, site specific design, which would be more costly and require
        additional installation, site testing and commissioning work tasks.

          For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that all substations will be above ground,
          prefabricated units with no architectural treatment.

        Note that there is a desire to potentially operate a portion of the system on battery powered
        onboard the vehicle. This will require further evaluation in future stages of design.

  4.1.1 Substation Housing Size and Other Requirements
        The typical size of a 500 kW prefabricated unit will occupy approximately 20’ x 12’, housing the AC
        and DC switchgear, rectifier transformer and rectifier units along with auxiliary transformer, AC and
        DC control panels, batteries and battery charger unit, cabling etc. The approximate weight of the
        prefabricated unit would be 32,000 lbs. The substations will include provisions for electrical
        grounding.

   4.2 OCS Infrastructure
        The Overhead Contact System (OCS) will be of an unobtrusive design consisting of a simple trolley
        wire supported by poles and cantilever brackets designed to be architecturally compatible with the
        streetscape. A single grooved trolley wire will provide power to the vehicle pantograph. The OCS
        will be segmented and overlapped to provide individual wire runs between feeding locations.
        Electrical sectioning and pole-mounted switching will be provided, as required, at or between feed




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 11
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

        points. A separate wire run will cover the maintenance yard lead track, switches, and over the yard
        and shop tracks.

        Supporting poles will be spaced approximately 80’-120’ along tangent sections and less at
        connections and curves. Curved sections at the end loops will require bridle and spider (span) wire
        support systems. Poles can be of decorative design, painted, and with attachments for street
        lighting and possibly traffic signals to reduce costs and avoid “clutter” caused by too many poles.
        For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that non-architectural standard OCS poles with
        cantilever supports will be used.

        In order to meet the National Electric Safety Code (NESC), the trolley wire must be at least 18 feet
        above the pavement for shared lanes. Typically, the wire is set at 19 feet to account for wire sag.
        If there are any cases where the 18 feet minimum clearance cannot be obtained, the urban rail
        should be in an exclusive lane or, in some cases, a substandard wire height could be considered if
        supported by a detailed evaluation of truck traffic and other tall vehicles.

   4.3 Operational Control
        A Book of Rules for Urban Rail would establish maximum allowable speeds for Urban Rail
        vehicles. Speed limits for Urban Rail are recommended to conform to the posted roadway speeds.
        It is proposed that Urban Rail operators proceed by line of sight, and obey existing street traffic
        signaling at intersections, as required. In areas where a special transit-only maneuver is required,
        the vehicle will be controlled by a two-aspect train signal and a separate Urban Rail-only signal
        phase programmed into the traffic signal controller. A two-aspect Urban Rail train signal is typically
        an LED vertical bar for “green” and a horizontal LED bar for “red”. Intersections requiring a transit-
        only phase will be identified on the Conceptual Engineering Plans and included in the cost
        estimate.

5.0 Street Lighting
        The predominant type of street lighting along the proposed alignment is the cobra head style
        fixtures mounted on either a traffic signal pole or a separate light pole. The length of the light mast
        arm varies, which places the light over the parking lane, or in some cases, the first auto lane. In
        future stages of design, a detailed inventory of the horizontal and vertical position of each fixture
        will be needed to evaluate the position of the fixture relative to the proposed trolley wire. The main
        concern is providing safe maintenance access to change bulbs in proximity to the high voltage
        overhead trolley wire. There are OSHA-regulated clearance requirements that apply and will vary
        depending upon whether the maintenance crew is OSHA-qualified.

        For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that OSHA-qualified crews will be maintaining the
        lights, which require a minimum clearance of 3 feet, 8 inches from the trolley wire to the luminaires
        on the pole mast arms. If non-qualified personnel are maintaining the lights, a minimum clearance
        of 10 feet is required. Further discussion with maintenance crews and the City will be required to
        establish actual guidelines acceptable to all parties. An allowance for some street light
        relocations/adjustments is included in the cost estimate to anticipate some of the conflicts that are
        likely to be identified in future stages in design.




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 12
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                  Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




                                 Typical streetlights along the Urban Rail alignment

6.0 Utilities
        The approach to utility relocation is an extremely important design element to establish guidelines
        as early as possible during the project development phase. Utilities can be as much as 20-30% of
        the capital budget and are an area where every city has unique guidelines based on the subjective
        determination of a particular utility owner or agency.

        As a general rule, transit systems will relocate any existing parallel utilities that are underneath the
        proposed track slab. The area of frequent debate revolves around the minimum additional
        clearance from the edge of the track slab within which the parallel utility would be relocated. Two
        of the main issues include stray current concerns and maintenance access.

        The purpose of this memo is not to establish utility conflict guidelines for this project but to
        document the approach used for estimating utility impacts along the Urban Rail alignment and
        providing an appropriate utility allowance.

        For the purpose of estimating potential utility impacts, URS assumed that any parallel utility within
        5 feet horizontally of the track slab (or 9 feet from the centerline of the track) will be relocated. It
        should be recognized that these are typical limits and actual allowable clearances may be more or
        less depending upon specific utility agreements. The clearances herein are strictly for estimating a
        reasonable allowance for potential utility relocations in order to establish a project budget.

        It is also recognized that some private utilities, depending on franchise agreements, may be
        required to relocate at their own cost. However, for the purpose of this estimate, it was assumed




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 13
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                    Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

        that ALL utilities are a project cost regardless of owner and/or agreement. In some cases, even
        though a private utility may have to relocate at their own expense, project costs can be realized as
        reluctant utility owners can delay relocation and can have the potential to delay the contractor and
        can add cost to the project.

        A more detailed subsurface utility investigation should be performed during preliminary
        engineering, in addition to discussions with utility owners, to start the process for establishing
        clearance/conflict guidelines.

7.0 Traffic
        Both traffic operations and traffic signals will have to be evaluated and adjusted to accommodate a
        potential street-running Urban Rail system. There are many factors that have to be considered at
        various stages in design. A brief discussion of typical traffic-related design issues that should be
        considered for this type of project are described further in the following sections.

   7.1 Traffic Operations
        Traffic operations are an integral part of any urban rail system. The proposed system for Austin
        includes a significant portion of shared running operations between the Urban Rail and autos. As
        the project moves further into design, it will be particularly important for a detailed traffic analysis to
        be conducted to identify areas of specific operational constraints, effects on adjacent traffic, Urban
        Rail runtimes and other parameters that can be evaluated and addressed through design.

        In general, a street-running Urban Rail-type operation is flexible and typically operates similar to
        other vehicles in shared lanes. Operations are by line of sight, without additional traffic controls,
        unless operating exclusively or accomplishing a special maneuver requiring a transit-only phase.
        The following photo is an example of a streetcar departing exclusive right-of-way into a shared auto
        lane. A separate signal phase is needed to accomplish this type of traffic movement and a part-
        time warning sign (flashing “Train” in this photo) is advisable. A transit-only phase may also be
        needed when a train changes lanes.




                             Streetcar Entering Shared Lane from Exclusive ROW




July 2010 – Final Draft                             Page 14
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design


  7.1.1 Transit Priority
        Similar to buses and emergency vehicles, Urban Rail vehicles may also pre-empt traffic signals or
        introduce Transit Signal Priority (TSP) through detection (i.e., opticom/V-tag). In cases where
        vehicular traffic congestion is expected, exclusive lanes and transit-only phases at traffic signals
        can minimize the effects on rail transit operations.

        Due to the upgraded nature of the existing Austin traffic signal system, adding TSP will be relatively
        simple. The simplest form of TSP is Priority Progression. Each of the traffic signals along the
        route is timed to provide favorable progression for the vehicle. The existing traffic signals along the
        route all have 2070-type controllers; though some of the older traffic signal cabinets will need an
        upgraded input rack to provide TSP. For the purposes of this study, half of the traffic signals are
        assumed to require this upgrade. All of the traffic signals have communications back to the Traffic
        Operations Center, where timing can be updated as needed. By changing the timing in these
        controllers, this type of TSP can be controlled from the Traffic Operations Center.

        The next level of TSP, and the most common, is called Partially Priority. This type of TSP provides
        early green or green extension for the train phase. Early green is when the priority phase is started
        before it would normally start. Green extension is when the green is extended to allow the train to
        pass through the signal. The details, including phase lengths and which other phases can be
        shortened or skipped will be addressed during final design. This type of priority requires
        communication between the rail vehicle and the traffic signal.

        The City has Opticom-type sensors on traffic signals along the route. The City is planning to an
        upgrade of its Opticom equipment (separate from Urban Rail) in the future in conjunction with other
        City departments and the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro). There is a
        potential for a Global Positioning System (GPS) based system in coordination with fire, police and
        other emergency vehicle operations. Another option is to use the existing fiber optic
        communications to pass the priority information as the vehicle passes through selected
        checkpoints. The Urban Rail Program will need to equip Urban Rail vehicles with the appropriate
        transmitters.

          For the purposes of this study, an allowance for some additional Opticom units is
          included in the cost estimate for accommodation of TSP.

        The Opticom sensors detect transmitting vehicles and can be programmed to give a higher priority
        to emergency vehicles, for instance. The detection is communicated directly to the traffic signal
        controller and an early green or green extension is provided. With some additional timing
        modifications, this type of TSP can be achieved. The highest level TSP, Full Priority, is closer to
        traffic signal preemption; however, this type of sensor is not commonly used when the Urban
        Rail/streetcar vehicles are in mixed-flow traffic.




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 15
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                  Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design



   7.2 Traffic Signals
        Generally, the existing traffic signals are on pole-mounted mast arms over the travel lanes.
        Depending on the location of Urban Rail within the roadway, various modifications to the existing
        traffic signals will be needed. Typically, all traffic signal heads over the Urban Rail lane will be
        removed to provide adequate clearance from the overhead trolley wire. Either shortening the mast
        arm or removing the traffic signal head over the Urban Rail lane will satisfy NESC and OSHA
        safety requirements.
  7.2.1 Traffic Signal Equipment
            Controller: The existing controllers are all 2070-type controllers. All controllers on the project
             alignment have the hardware and software capacity to accommodate advanced rail transit
             operations. The only infrastructure that appears to be required is upgrades of the input racks
             for approximately half of the cabinets and provisions for transit-only phases here required.
             Loop detection will be recommended on the side streets where early green and green
             extension may require skipped phases.
            Traffic Signal Pole and Foundation: As it is often desirable to minimize the number of poles
             within the ROW, a common practice is to deploy joint-use OCS and traffic signal poles. For the
             purpose of the conceptual engineering cost estimate, it will be assumed that the OCS system
             will not use joint-use poles (see photo below for example).




                                    Joint-Use Traffic Signal and OCS Pole




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 16
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design


8.0 Structural
        The Urban Rail conceptual system plan traverses several existing roadway bridges, as well as
        some potentially new structures. Existing bridges affected within the detailed study area include the
        South First Street Bridge or the Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge over Lady Bird Lake,
        the Riverside Drive at I-35 overpass, and the East Riverside Drive “viaducts” between Congress
        Avenue and I-35. Possible new structures include an alternative crossing of Lady Bird Lake
        between South First and Trinity Streets, a new bridge on Third Street over Shoal Creek into the
        Seaholm Redevelopment, and an elevated guideway over US 183 at the east end of East
        Riverside Drive.

        The most significant structural consideration is a potential new crossing of Lady Bird Lake to
        connect to the East Riverside Drive corridor, Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA), and
        other destinations on the south side of the lake, including a possible maintenance facility site at the
        City's One Texas Center property. Three different alignment options for crossing Lady Bird Lake
        were considered in this study, including the two existing structures and a possible new structure
        listed.

   8.1 Existing Structures
        The City of Austin will conduct a separate evaluation of the existing Ann W. Richards Congress
        Avenue and South First Street bridges for the capacity to accommodate an Urban Rail system.
        URS is not involved in this analysis. This study was not completed at the time of this writing.

        Also affected are the East Riverside Drive viaducts, the East Riverside Drive overpass at I-35, and
        possibly any other culverts or crossings not identified in this study. Analysis of these existing
        structures was not complete or available for inclusion in this study; this should be accomplished in
        later phases of design and may impact the feasibility and cost estimates. For these bridges, URS
        has applied an appropriate allowance to cover the costs to add Urban Rail track and
        appurtenances, not including any bridge improvements that may be required to support the added
        dead and live loads.

   8.2 Proposed Structures
        Proposed structures within the detailed study area include the possible new crossing of Lady Bird
        Lake (discussed below) and the extension of Third Street over Shoal Creek into the Seaholm
        Redevelopment. On the system extension to ABIA, new structures are anticipated at the planned
        TxDOT interchanges at US 290 (E. Ben White Boulevard) and East Riverside Drive, and at US 183
        and East Riverside Drive. For the Third Street at Shoal Creek Bridge and the new interchange at
        US 290 and East Riverside Drive, cost estimation was performed similarly to the existing crossings
        described above, using only the cost of the track and appurtenances. A significant allowance was
        added to the ABIA extension to account for all costs associated with the elevated guideway at US
        183.

        Additionally, the detailed study area includes the potential for a new structure over Lady Bird Lake.
        For quantity and cost estimation purposes only, the structure was assumed to be in line with
        Brazos Street, as shown in the Conceptual Engineering Plans. The bridge can be designed to
        accommodate different types of transit, including Urban Rail, buses, bikes and pedestrians,




July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 17
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

        depending upon the budget and the desires of the City, etc. For the purpose of this study, it is
        assumed that the proposed bridge is designed to accommodate all modes. See the Conceptual
        Engineering Plans for possible typical sections for the proposed bridge. A separate study was
        performed to develop an approximate cost for this bridge and is included in Attachment D. The
        following assumptions were used for the bridge's cost estimate:
            Span Length: It is assumed that the same pier spacing and span lengths as the nearby Ann
             W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge will be maintained. That bridge has a pier spacing of
             approximately 120 feet over Lady Bird Lake.
            Bridge Height: It is assumed that there is no restriction or minimum clearance over the water
             for the bridge structure that needs to be accounted for. The proposed structure would be at a
             similar elevation to the Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge.
            Architectural Treatment: The type of structure is not yet determined or is a part of the scope of
             this study, but it will be assumed that the proposed bridge will be aesthetically pleasing. An
             allowance will be included in the cost estimate to provide some architectural upgrades over a
             standard bridge.
            Environmental Mitigation or Restrictions: It is assumed that only minor environmental
             mitigation will be needed as a part of the normal environmental permitting process. If a
             significant impact is discovered as a part of future design and environmental evaluation, the
             estimate of the bridge should be adjusted to reflect the additional costs.

9.0 Maintenance and Storage Facility
        A maintenance and storage facility will be needed for the proposed Urban Rail system. There are
        many factors in determining the requirements of such a facility, such as the initial fleet size,
        activities to be accomplished off-site, and system expansion plans.

        A separate study is being conducted that is evaluating potential maintenance and storage facility
        sites along the proposed alignments and is included in Attachment E. This study includes a
        detailed matrix evaluating various aspects of potential sites, including access, zoning, costs, fleet
        capacity, etc. In general, the intent is to find a site that has the capacity for approximately ten
        Siemens S70 Ultra Short vehicles.

        Typical requirements for an Urban Rail/streetcar maintenance and storage facility are as follows:
            Train storage and layover;
            Train operator reporting;
            Train operations supervision and administration;
            Vehicle maintenance supervision and administration;
            Train operator and vehicle maintenance employee restroom, locker, and lunch facilities;
            Vehicle interior and exterior cleaning;
            Daily, monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual vehicle inspections and preventive
             maintenance;
            Unscheduled and failure vehicle repairs;




July 2010 – Final Draft                                Page 18
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                  Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

            Component removal and replacement;
            Small components and parts repair;
            Parts and material storage (including shipping and receiving);
            Employee parking; and
            Security, fire protection, and environmental systems.

        Some maintenance requirements, such as wheel truing, require expensive machinery and are
        assumed to be deferred to future extensions and expansion of the fleet. These activities are
        assumed to be accomplished off-site through contracts with other agencies or local machine
        shops.

10.0 Cost Estimate Methodology
   10.1 Purpose and Scope
        This section describes the methodology used to develop capital cost estimates for Urban Rail.
        Cost estimates were developed using a simplified format that can be ordered and summarized into
        the Standard Cost Categories required by FTA New Starts criteria, if required.

   10.2 Estimate Development
        Estimates of project capital costs were developed in four general steps. First, the alignment
        segments from the Central Austin Transit Study were further defined in the Conceptual Engineering
        Plans for cost estimating purposes. Second, project components and unit costs, at the conceptual
        level of definition, were identified. Third, quantities were estimated and grouped according to the
        major cost items defined below. Finally, additional factors such as contingencies, engineering &
        administration (E&A), and year-of-expenditure escalation were applied to complete the cost
        estimate.

   10.3 Unit Costs
        Unit costs for this conceptual level of alignment definition were developed from selected historical
        data, including final engineering estimates for other projects, completed projects, standard
        estimating manuals, and standard estimating practices. Unit costs also include allowances for the
        contractor’s margins and insurance costs.

   10.4 Cost Components
        The capital cost estimate is comprised of specific items that can be quantified or captured by an
        allowance based on a track foot basis. These items were used to summarize the project
        component costs into a comprehensive total estimate for each segment. The major cost items are
        listed below and include fixed facilities, system-wide elements, professional services, right-of-way,
        contingencies, and contractor mark-up for delivery method.

        Fixed facility categories encompass site-specific project component costs. Capital costs for these
        categories were typically estimated according to measured quantities and per unit costs.




July 2010 – Final Draft                           Page 19
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                   Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

        System-wide costs were estimated for overall segment lengths and not from measured quantities.
        A per track-foot unit cost for each component was developed from historical data and applied
        accordingly.

        Professional services were identified by type and have specific percentages associated and are
        applied to the subtotals for each cost category.

        Due to the conceptual nature of this estimate, two types of contingencies (i.e., accountings for risk)
        were employed: allocated and unallocated. An allocated contingency was identified for each item in
        order to reflect the risks associated with that particular item. The allocated contingency is intended
        to address the uncertainty of the quantity and the cost (or volatility of the cost) for each cost
        category. In addition, an unallocated contingency was added to the overall subtotal in order to
        account for other items not yet identified or even quantifiable at this level of design. The allocated
        and unallocated contingencies form the total project contingency. Listed below are examples of
        items covered with the unallocated contingency.

                  Customer Relations            Project Organization          Final alignment/ geometry
                  Geotechnical data             Design criteria               Design review/ approval
                  Design defects                Project financing             Interim financing
                  Right-of-way limits           Purchase of right of way      Elements: earthquake, flood,
                                                                                 rain, hurricane, etc
                  Civil acts                    Cultural/Biological           Government rules
                  Utility relocation            Railroad relocation           Environmental/Cultural
                  Labor supply                  Procurement                   Estimate
                  Schedule                      Project completion            Quality/Safety
                  Increase in costs             Contractual changes

        The contractor mark-up is composed of two parts, overhead and profit. The amount of overhead,
        or indirect expenses, can be estimated based on the type of contract and an assumed schedule.
        Profit is the amount that the contractor expects to receive above and beyond the labor and
        expenses incurred and are typically proportional to the amount of risk held by the contractor.
        Typical of infrastructure projects, overhead and profit are negotiated following contract award. The
        overall mark-up can vary significantly from contract to contract, but must be accounted for since it
        quantifies the risk inherent in any large construction project. For the purposes of this estimate the
        risk is assigned to the contractor, making it an explicit cost and easier to account for since the
        owner will have to pay directly for it. The alternative is for the owner to assume more of the risk,
        resulting in a lower explicit cost, but potentially masking costs the owner may not have budgeted
        for. Whether the contractor or the owner holds the risk, an acceptable level of contingency must be
        carried throughout the project development so that these potentially hidden costs are accounted
        for. There are methods, such as design-build (D/B), that transfer risk from the contractor to the
        owner, which can result in a lower mark-up. URS understands that there is a desire to expedite
        this project and assumed a design-build delivery method for this estimate.

   10.5 Year-of-Expenditure Cost Projections
        To develop a capital cost estimate in year-of-expenditure dollars, a proposed construction schedule
        – consistent with a design-build delivery method assumed above – was developed based upon a
        2011 project kickoff and is included in Appendix B of this attachment. A straight-line projection of
        cost was used based upon a calculated mid-point year of construction. An inflation rate of 5.25




July 2010 – Final Draft                           Page 20
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                    Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

        percent was used for escalation, to reflect the uncertainty related to inflation. The capital costs are
        provided in both current (2010 Q1) and year-of-expenditure dollars.

   10.6 Cost Item Assumptions
  10.6.1 Embedded Trackwork - Furnish Girder Rail
        The assumed rail section for this project will be Ri-51N or Ri-53N, per European Standards. This
        bid item includes all costs in procuring the rail, including any shipping costs to deliver the rail to
        Austin.
  10.6.2 Embedded Trackwork - Construct Track Slab
        The assumed embedded track section is a shallow girder rail installed into a 12-inch by 8-foot wide
        reinforced concrete track slab. This bid item includes all materials and labor costs associated with
        constructing the track slab, including track slab excavation and base rock in addition to the slab. A
        potential Value Engineering (VE) consideration that could be explored during the final design is use
        of an unreinforced track slab.
  10.6.3 Semi-Exclusive - Double Track
        This item assumes all construction necessary to construct a median-running, semi-exclusive
        guideway. It includes all costs for curb, paving, track slab, rail, etc., or basically all of the civil and
        track improvements to form the raised track median are included in this cost element.
  10.6.4 Special Trackwork-Turnout/Diamond Crossing
        Given the street-running nature of the proposed Urban Rail, it is assumed (and recommended) that
        the City will install European-style in-street girder rail turnouts. For estimation purposes, the cost
        difference between embedded turnouts and diamond crossings are relatively similar and both are
        included in this bid item. This bid item includes all material, labor and delivery costs for procuring
        and installing girder rail special trackwork.
  10.6.5 TPSS (Traction Power Supply System) – OCS - Single Track
        The Traction Power Supply System (TPSS) is the propulsion system that powers the vehicles. It
        will be assumed that Urban Rail will employ a proven system similar to other modern streetcar and
        light rail systems operating in urban environments. This system will be a single trolley wire
        supported by standard OCS poles. No allowance is included for architecturally treating the OCS
        poles, adding street lighting, etc. This bid item is an allowance that will include all costs associated
        with procuring and installing a complete TPSS system, but excluding only the TPSS – Substations
        (see 10.6.7 below).
  10.6.6 TPSS (Traction Power Supply System) – OCS - Double Track
        For median-running double track, it will be assumed that Urban Rail would use a center-pole
        system with a dual-wire catenary similar to other median-running LRT systems in operation. No
        allowance is included for architecturally treating the OCS poles, adding street lighting, etc. This bid
        item is an allowance that will include all costs associated with procuring and installing a complete
        TPSS system, but excluding only the TPSS – Substations (see 10.6.7 below).
  10.6.7 TPSS - Substation
        It will be assumed that all TPSS – Substations are prepackaged units placed above ground or in
        adequately spaced parking structures. Also, this will assume smaller substations spaced more
        frequently at approximately one substation every half-mile on the system. This also assumes no
        underground duct bank will be needed. This bid item includes all costs associated with procuring
        and installing a complete substation.




July 2010 – Final Draft                             Page 21
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                   Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

  10.6.8 Traffic Signal - New (or Complete Rebuild)
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all costs included with procuring and installing
        a new traffic signal. In some circumstances, it could also potentially include an existing traffic
        signal where the entire intersection and traffic signal layout is being reconstructed.
  10.6.9 Traffic Signal Modification - High
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all costs included with modifying an existing
        traffic signal, including procuring and installing any new equipment. This item assumes at least two
        or more traffic signal poles/mast arms are impacted and will need to be relocated or reconstructed
  10.6.10 Traffic Signal Modification - Medium
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all costs included with modifying an existing
        traffic signal, including procuring and installing any new equipment. This item assumes that no
        more than two traffic signal poles or mast arms will need to be relocated or reconstructed.
  10.6.11 Traffic Signal Modification - Low
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all costs included with modifying an existing
        traffic signal, including procuring and installing any new equipment. This item assumes only minor
        modifications to the existing traffic signal will be required. Modifications could include shortening
        mast arms, adjusting or moving traffic signal heads, or other relatively lower cost modifications that
        did not require additional poles or that existing poles need to be relocated.
  10.6.12 Single Track Signaling System
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover the costs associated with furnishing a
        signaling system and its appurtenances for single track sections of the alignment with bi-directional
        streetcar traffic that cannot be operated by line-of-sight.
  10.6.13 Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Equipment Upgrade Allowance
        Per discussions with the City’s Transportation Department, there may need to be additional
        Opticom units installed to facilitate TSP along the proposed alignment. In addition, about half of
        the traffic signal controllers will need to have some minor upgrades. Exact quantities are unknown,
        and so an approximate allowance will be applied per track-foot in order to provide a budget to
        accomplish the required upgrades.
  10.6.14 Civil - Roadway Pavement (Allowance)
        At this stage of design, actual roadway reconstruction limits are not defined. The assumed
        approach is to limit roadway work to only that needed to incorporate the track slab into the existing
        roadway. URS will use historic averages from previous streetcar projects to approximate the
        amount of roadway work and apply this to the alignment alternatives as an allowance distributed on
        a track-foot basis. This will cover all areas with full depth reconstruction, including all excavation,
        base material, etc. This method also covers any overlay areas where full depth reconstruction is
        not required.
  10.6.15 Civil – Roadway Reconstruction (Semi-Exclusive)
        This item is for the semi-exclusive median-running segments. It is an allowance that assumes
        approximately half the roadway will be reconstructed (~40 feet of pavement) as well as some
        widening to shift the existing curb and sidewalk outward. This item includes all roadway costs
        associated with the pavement, curb, sidewalk and excavation needed to shift the auto traffic and to
        widen the roadway.
  10.6.16 Civil – Retaining Wall
        This item is for any places, such as bridge abutments, that will likely require a retaining wall. It is
        not specific to any type of wall, but is a reasonable allowance to provide for a standard retaining
        wall to be constructed.



July 2010 – Final Draft                               Page 22
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                  Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

  10.6.17 Civil - Urban Improvement Allowance (Sidewalks, Driveways, etc.)
        This item is an allowance to account for some minor reconstruction that will be required in order to
        accommodate Urban Rail. It will be used primarily to cover adjustments to driveways and adjacent
        sidewalks where Urban Rail is unable to exactly match the existing grades.
  10.6.18 Civil - Curb Ramp/ADA Upgrade Allowance (Per Intersection)
        As a part of two recent streetcar projects URS has been working on in both Tucson and Portland, a
        part of the scope of the project was to evaluate all of the existing curb ramps for compliance with
        ADA regulations and to improve any deficiencies. In both projects, it was a part of a recent ruling
        which has led both cities to adjust their policy to accomplish ADA upgrades on all projects. Also, in
        both cases, URS found that approximately 70-80% of the existing ramps and even ones that were
        recently constructed, did not meet the grades, or had ramp landings or obstructions that put them
        out of compliance with ADA guidelines. Based on visual inspection of the existing ramps in
        downtown Austin, it appears that a similar number of ramps may need to be replaced. For this
        reason, URS will provide an allowance to upgrade the ADA ramps along the proposed alignment.
        It will be assumed that at least three of the four corners, or 75% of the ramps, will need to be
        reconstructed as a part of Urban Rail. This cost does not include any required utility/pole
        relocations.
  10.6.19 Civil - Parking Modification/Conversion Allowance
        There is head-in angled parking along Congress and a few other streets. If the Urban Rail is to
        operate in the lane adjacent to the parking, it is STRONGLY advisable that this be converted to
        either parallel parking or angled back-in parking. This bid item is to provide an allowance to
        convert the head-in angled parking to parallel parking. It will include sidewalk extensions where
        appropriate, to take up the additional space created by converting the parking.
  10.6.20 Existing Structure Crossing – South 1st Street Bridge
        This item is to cover all of the anticipated costs with crossing the South 1st Street Bridge. No
        structural upgrades are included in this item. It is assumed that rail will be placed in a shallow track
        slab over the existing deck. Asphaltic-concrete (AC) pavement will be used to feather the height of
        the track slab back to the existing grade.
  10.6.21 Existing Structure Crossing – Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge
        This item is to cover all of the anticipated costs with crossing the Ann W. Richards Congress
        Avenue Bridge. No structural upgrades are included in this item. It is assumed that rail will be
        placed in a shallow track slab over the existing deck. AC pavement will be used to feather the
        height of the track slab back to the existing grade.
  10.6.22 Proposed Structure Crossing – 3rd Street Bridge at Shoal Creek:
        This item is to cover all of the anticipated costs with the proposed 3rd Street bridge at Shoal Creek.
        It assumes that Urban Rail track and appurtenances will be integrated into the new structure.
  10.6.23 Existing Structure Crossing – Riverside Drive Viaducts
        This item is to cover all of the anticipated costs with the installation of Urban Rail on the East
        Riverside Drive (Riverside West Segment) viaducts between Congress Avenue and I-35. No
        structural analysis of these structures was conducted – this is strictly an allowance for adding
        Urban Rail to an existing structure.
  10.6.24 Existing Structure Crossing – Riverside Drive at I-35
        This item is to cover all of the anticipated costs with the crossing of Riverside Drive over I-35 on the
        Riverside West Segment. No structural analysis of this structure was conducted. It is assumed
        that the existing structure has the capacity to accommodate the Urban Rail and is strictly an
        allowance for for adding Urban Rail to an existing structure.



July 2010 – Final Draft                              Page 23
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                  Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

  10.6.25 New Structure - Structure and Track – Lady Bird Lake Crossing
        This bid item is to cover all of the anticipated costs (material and labor) associated with
        constructing a new transit, bike, and pedestrian structure over Lady Bird Lake. The structural type
        is not determined but a separate study, included in Attachment D, used general historic cost data
        of similar structures to develop a square foot cost for assessing the cost of this structure. A Brazos
        alignment was considered for quantity and cost estimating purposes only.
  10.6.26 New Structure - Architectural Treatment – Lady Bird Lake Crossing
        This item is to provide an allowance for upgrading the Lady Bird Lake structure with architectural
        treatments. No specific treatment is assumed at this point. This is only a budgetary allowance.
  10.6.27 New Structure – Structure and Track – E. Riverside at US 183 Elevated Guideway
        This bid item is to cover all of the anticipated costs (material and labor) associated with
        constructing a new structure over US 183 at the end of E. Riverside Drive. The structural type has
        not been determined; therefore, general historic data from similar structures was used to develop a
        linear foot cost for assessing the cost of this structure.
  10.6.28 Utilities - High Allowance
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all of the costs associated with relocating
        underground utilities. The High Allowance assumes significant utility conflicts of two or more
        significant underground utilities (i.e., a water main AND sewer line). Note: This is for cost
        estimating purposes only. Actual impacts could vary significantly from the assumed
        allowances.
  10.6.29 Utilities - Medium Allowance
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all of the costs associated with relocating
        underground utilities. The Medium Allowance assumes moderate utility conflicts which will typically
        consist of at least one significant underground utility, such as a water or sewer line. Note: This is
        for cost estimating purposes only. Actual impacts could vary significantly from the
        assumed allowances.
  10.6.30 Utilities - Low Allowance
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all of the costs associated with relocating
        underground utilities. The Low Allowance assumes very little known utility conflicts. This item is
        mostly to account for casings that may be required at crossings, lateral conflicts and any smaller
        unknown conflicts that are not identified in any of the base mapping. Note: This is for cost
        estimating purposes only. Actual impacts could vary significantly from the assumed
        allowances.
  10.6.31 Stormwater Drainage Allowance
        This bid item is intended to be an allowance to cover all of the modifications that will be needed to
        accommodate Urban Rail. It includes all of the costs associated with providing track drains (piping,
        connection to existing stormwater structures, track drains, etc.) as well as modifications to the
        existing stormwater system. Given the number of curb ramp and civil improvements expected at
        intersections, as well as possible stormwater relocations due to conflicts with the track, this
        allowance will also accommodate adjustments to the existing stormwater system. It includes any
        new or relocated inlets, pipes, etc. that may be needed.
  10.6.32 Street Lighting Modification Allowance
        This item is to provide an allowance for addressing direct impacts between the OCS and the
        existing street lights. It is not intended to upgrade the existing street lighting system, only to
        address relocations that are required in order to comply with conflicts between the trolley wire and
        the location of the luminaires as they relate to OSHA and maintenance requirements. No



July 2010 – Final Draft                            Page 24
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                     Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

        quantification of actual conflicts has been accomplished, so an allowance has been applied by the
        track-foot for budgetary purposes.
  10.6.33 Stop Platforms - Standard
        This bid item is a lump sum item to cover all of the costs associated with providing a standard
        Urban Rail stop. It includes any shelter or other appurtenances, as well as all civil elements
        needed. The standard stop is assumed in most cases.
  10.6.34 Stop Platforms – Semi-Exclusive Median
        This bid item is a lump sum item to cover all of the costs associated with providing a median station
        for the semi-exclusive portion of the alignment (i.e., East Riverside Drive, east of I-35). It is
        assumed that these stops will be more in line with traditional light rail stations, including canopies
        and additional amenities. The cost of these platforms is significantly more costly than the simplified
        standard downtown stop.
  10.6.35 Right-of-Way - Alignment (Urban Areas)
        Though it is difficult to establish actual right-of-way needs at this conceptual level of design, it is
        anticipated that some right-of-way will be needed in some locations. Areas where this is
        anticipated are typically where the Urban Rail alignment makes sharp turns. Right-of-way or
        easements will likely also be needed for small parcels necessary to place the TPSS substations
        along the alignment. This item is to account for these anticipated project costs.
  10.6.36 Right-of-Way – Alignment (Seaholm Redevelopment Area)
        This right-of-way is owned by the City. However, per direction of City staff, an allowance is
        included for the right-of-way displaced by the Urban Rail terminal station.
  10.6.37 Right of Way – Alignment (Lady Bird Lake Crossing Area)
        This is an allowance for the right-of-way required for the Lady Bird Lake Crossing's landing on the
        south side of Lady Bird Lake.
  10.6.38 Vehicles (Assume One Vehicle per Track-Mile)
        In order to run at least 10-minute headways, it is anticipated that approximately one car per track-
        mile will need to be purchased. This accounts for typical maintenance activities and assumes that
        only 80% of the fleet is in operation at any one time.
  10.6.39 Maintenance Facility Allowance (Includes Non-Revenue Track)
        This item is an allowance for constructing and outfitting an Urban Rail Maintenance Facility capable
        of maintaining the Urban Rail fleet of an estimated ten to twelve vehicles sufficient for the Detailed
        Study Area. This item will cover all site costs as well as all building costs. This item also includes
        a short section of non-revenue track for access to the facility.
        10.6.39.1 Maintenance Facility Expansion Allowance (For Future Extensions)
                 This allowance is to cover the costs of either expanding the Maintenance Facility or building an
                 additional facility to handle the additional vehicles that will be required to operate the future
                 extensions (Mueller and Airport Extensions) while maintaining headways.
        10.6.39.2 Right-of-Way - Maintenance Facility (MF) Allowance
                 The Maintenance Facility will require approximately three to five acres. Based on the preliminary
                 feasibility of the City's One Texas Center site, no allowance will be included for purchasing right-
                 of-way/property for the Maintenance Facility.
  10.6.40 Airport Extension
        This item is an all inclusive cost for a future extension beyond the Detailed Study Area to Austin-
        Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA). It is based on the route mile cost for the Riverside West
        Segment (East Riverside Drive between Parker Lane and Pleasant Valley Road) of similar semi-
        exclusive operation.



July 2010 – Final Draft                              Page 25
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                                   Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design

  10.6.41 Mueller Extension
        This item is an all inclusive cost for a future extension beyond the Detailed Study Area to the
        Mueller Redevelopment. It is based on the route mile cost of the Guadalupe-Lavaca Segment.
  10.6.42 Maintenance of Traffic Allowance
        This category includes the costs associated with traffic control during construction, quantified as
        4% of all direct costs associated with the project or segment.
  10.6.43 Contractor Indirects
        This category includes the overhead costs associated with contracting the project, quantified as
        10% of all direct costs associated with the project or segment.
  10.6.44 Professional Services (Engineering and Administration)
        This category includes the costs associated with engineering, administration and construction
        management services. Costs for these services are be based on a percentage of the total cost of
        all direct capital cost elements. Cost items for this category are as follows:
            Grantee Administration: Cost of administration, management, design oversight, control,
             support, implementation, and start-up of the project.
            Design Services: Cost of professional service consultants for preliminary and final design.
             Includes civil facilities design, systems facilities design, surveying, geo-technical investigations
             and design services during construction.
            Project Control Services: Cost of professional service consultants for project control and
             construction management. Includes development and maintenance of procedures, schedule,
             budget, cost estimating and cost tracking, inspection and testing services.
            Other Services: Costs of professional service consultants for legal assistance, financial advice,
             audits, permitting, safety/quality assurance assistance, public and community relations,
             training, and insurance brokerage services. Interim financing to offset annual funding
             allocation shortfalls is included in this item.
            Intergovernmental Agreements: Costs for permits and agreed local jurisdiction involvement in
             design and construction in accordance with any formal interagency agreements.

        The total percentage to be applied to all capital cost categories except contingencies and vehicles
        is 31 percent.




July 2010 – Final Draft                             Page 26
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                 Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




         Appendix A – General Arrangement of Siemens S70 Ultra Short Vehicle




July 2010 – Final Draft                Page 27
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program             Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




July 2010 – Final Draft               Page 28
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program             Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




July 2010 – Final Draft               Page 29
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program             Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




July 2010 – Final Draft               Page 30
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program             Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




July 2010 – Final Draft               Page 31
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                              Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




                                      This Page Intentionally Blank




July 2010 – Final Draft                         Page 32
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program                     Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




                    Appendix B – Preliminary Design-Build (D/B) Schedule




July 2010 – Final Draft                    Page 33
City of Austin – Urban Rail Program             Conceptual Engineering Basis of Design




July 2010 – Final Draft               Page 34

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:2/14/2012
language:
pages:36