READINESS REVIEW ENTRY INTO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. Columbia Pike Streetcar Arlington County, Virginia FTA Region 3

Transcription

1 READINESS REVIEW ENTRY INTO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Columbia Pike Streetcar Arlington County, Virginia FTA Region 3 December 19, 2012 Final PMOC Contract Number: DTFT Task Order Number: 007, Work Order Number: 15, Project Number: DC OPs Referenced: 01, 21, 32B-C, 33, 40 modified (draft) Hill International, Inc. One Penn Square West 30 South 15 th Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA PMOC Lead: Vincent D. Gallagher, P.E., (215) , vincegallagher@hillintl.com Length of Time PMOC Firm Assigned to Project: 3 months Third Party Disclaimer This Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) deliverables and all subsidiary reports are prepared solely for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This risk-informed evaluation and assessment should not be relied upon by any party, except FTA or the project sponsor, in accordance with the purposes of the evaluation and assessment as described below. For projects funded through FTA s Major Capital Investment (New Starts) program, FTA and its PMOCs use a risk-informed assessment process to review and validate a project sponsor s budget and schedule. This risk-informed evaluation and assessment process is a tool for analyzing project development and management. Moreover, this process is iterative in nature; any results of an FTA or PMOC risk-informed evaluation and assessment represent a snapshot in time for a particular project under the conditions known at that same point in time. The status of any evaluation or assessment may be altered at any time by new information, changes in circumstances, or further developments in the project, including any specific measures a sponsor may take to mitigate the risks to project costs, budget and schedule, or the strategy a sponsor may develop for project execution.

2 Executive Summary Purpose The Grantee and lead agency for the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project is Arlington County in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Arlington County, in cooperation with Fairfax County, serves as the Project Sponsor, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Grantee, and lead partner for the Columbia Pike Streetcar project. In September 2012, the FTA received an application from Arlington County seeking to advance the Columbia Pike Streetcar (CPS) project into Small Starts Project Development (PD). FTA subsequently assigned Hill International, Inc. in its capacity as a Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) to review the scope, cost, schedule, and risk related to the project and to evaluate Arlington County s project management capacity and capability to successfully complete the project. Project Description The Columbia Pike Streetcar project is an approximately 4.93 mile electrically powered modern streetcar system that originates in the Pentagon City area of Arlington County, Virginia and runs along the length of Columbia Pike from Joyce Street to S. Jefferson Street in Fairfax County, Virginia where it terminates in the Skyline area near Bailey s Crossroads. Streetcars will operate in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes along Jefferson Street and through Pentagon City, and within an exclusive right-of-way on short segments near the western and eastern termini. The project includes 18 station stops in each direction. Station stops would consist of a boarding area 90 feet to 120 feet in length with a low platform to accommodate near-level boarding. Curbside stops would be able to accommodate both streetcars and buses. The initial service proposes to operate a fleet of 13 modern streetcar vehicles that will have at least 50% low-level floors and multi-door boarding and alighting. Supporting facilities include a new maintenance facility with an operations control center on a 1.7-acre site in Pentagon City at 12 th Street South and South Eads Street. Four traction power substations (TPSS) would be located along the alignment plus one TPSS for the maintenance facility. A new bus transfer center would be developed on South Jefferson Street in the Bailey s Crossroads Shopping Center. The facility would include 200 parking spaces for transit users and bus bays for connecting buses. Results and Recommendations The PMOC s review of this project acknowledges the early stage of project development, recognizing that critical requirements risks that have an adverse impact on the project budget and schedule need to be resolved in the Project Development phase. The Project Team has a Risk Register that is being used to mitigate project risk. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project i

3 A major effort at this time is assembly of the project management team that will guide the project through the Project Development stage and into Engineering and construction. To maintain adequate control over the project, Arlington County should either hire or retain the services of individuals that will directly represent Arlington County for the CPS project. Among the positions that should be filled by Arlington County staff, or seconded staff, are the Streetcar Manager of Operations and the Quality Assurance Manager. The PMOC recommends that Arlington County retain the services of a program management consultant to support CPS s completion of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) efforts and management of the design and construction contractors. Arlington County should complete their Project Management Plan (PMP) and obtain FTA approval as soon as possible as a means of specifying the needed services from the program management consultant. Recommendations for issues to be addressed in the PMP are: Arlington County needs to develop a CPS staffing plan. The Project Management Team (PMT) should include the Director of Environmental Services, who should serve as the chair of this group. Revise the organization plan to include hiring of staff experienced with FTA funded rail transit projects of similar or greater complexity as the CPS in the areas of operations, maintenance, and engineering. Revise the organizational plan to include as key staff a Streetcar Manager of Operations whose responsibility includes planning for revenue operations and maintenance. Designate and fill a full-time position for a Quality Assurance Manager reporting at least one level above the Project Manager. Designate and fill a full-time position for a Safety and Security Manager with significant experience managing a safety and security program for FTA funded rail transit projects who should also report at least one level above the Project Manager. Establish a position for Manager of Project Controls including cost and schedule, risk management, and possibly document control. Assign specific responsibility for coordination with other projects that will affect the Streetcar Project such as Super Stops, utility relocation work, and the Jefferson Avenue multi-modal facility. Two key decisions need to be made early in the Project Development phase of the project: A determination as to the project delivery method to be used for construction with consideration for the fact that Arlington County may not have adequate experience with Design-Build and other alternative contracting methods. A determination as to who will operate and/or maintain the system since this decision will affect the configuration of budgets, contracts, and project management. During the Project Development period, Arlington County needs to negotiate and finalize agreements and identify cost-sharing measures with a variety of stakeholders. These include the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the US Department of the Interior, the US Department of Defense, Fairfax County, other departments within Arlington County, and the proposed developers of 12th Street South. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project ii

4 The PMOC reviewed project documentation, visited the proposed CPS alignment, and has met with the CPS Project team. In this report, the PMOC has documented its findings with regard to scope, schedule, and cost issues. The PMOC recommends that Arlington County take action on the following issues during the Project Development process to address the risks identified during this review: Develop a Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP) identifying all parcels and complying with the Uniform Relocation Act. Perform an updated traction power simulation study, including contingency analysis, to determine if the TPSS design is adequate and the substations are properly located. Consider the installation of passing sidings or pull-offs for emergency use and power operation of switches to improve operating reliability. Investigate the opportunity to modify the road and streetcar alignment along Columbia Pike near the Air Force Memorial in conjunction with Arlington National Cemetery. Develop a fleet management plan that describes how the number of vehicles was determined and how they will be maintained. Develop design criteria that can accommodate the procurement of a wider variety of streetcar designs. Investigate the Vornado proposal for the Skyline terminus. Further study the capacity of the existing pier foundations and piers of the Four Mile Run Bridge to support the load requirements of the streetcar system. Conduct a detailed evaluation of the cost and constructability of building track using block rail versus standard 115 RE rail; develop a fully detailed embedded track section indicating components and method of construction. Quantify the capacity and the construction, and the operating costs of a shop and yard on the proposed Pentagon City site. Investigate an alternate location for the maintenance shop that will have adequate space for the shop and yard facilities. The current CPS project budget is $245.9 million. The PMOC review of the project scope and budget identified some areas where, in the PMOC s opinion, additional cost may occur for the project as currently configured and identified cost estimate adjustments totaling approximately $27 million in Base Year cost. When escalated for inflation, the adjustments total about $30.5 million in Year of Expenditure (YOE) budget costs. The PMOC analyzed the project cost using the Modified Cost Range Analysis method. This effort indicated that the final cost of the project including appropriate contingencies could range from a low-end project cost of $255.9 million to a high-end of $402.4 million with a most likely cost of $310.1 million. At this stage of development, even though the cost range analysis predicted a cost higher than that originally budgeted, the PMOC is of the opinion that there are still numerous opportunities that Arlington County can pursue to reduce the likely cost of the project. In summary, the PMOC is of the opinion that Arlington County has a high likelihood of meeting the stated project purposes and goals if the recommendations outlined in this report are adopted. Arlington County needs to further develop its capabilities to manage a project of this type, size, and complexity. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project iii

5 Arlington County has adequately defined the CPS project scope for Project Development. Having achieved an approved LPA, this scope is adequate for the project to progress toward NEPA approvals. Arlington County needs to make a decision early in Project Development concerning project delivery method that is consistent with their capacity to administer the project. The PMOC recommends that FTA consider this project as a New Starts project and consider approval of this Grantee into Project Development. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project iv

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i Purpose... i Project Description... i Results and Recommendations... i Project Background...1 Project Description...1 Project Alignment...2 Master Planning for the Corridor...3 Project Development...4 Methodology...4 Review of Project Development...6 Grantee Project Management Approach...6 Technical Capacity and Capability...6 Organizational Strategy and Structure...6 Staffing...7 Project Management Plan...10 Administrative and Support Services Organization...11 Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan...12 Rail Operations and Maintenance Plan...13 Risk and Contingency Management Plan...13 Project Scope Review...14 Scope Review Issues...14 Adequacy of Vehicle Fleet...14 NEPA and Design Document Comparison...14 Proposed Project Delivery Method...14 Third Party Agreements...16 Design Development...17 Project Alignment...17 Vehicle Design Criteria...18 Geotechnical Issues Aerial Structure and Retaining Walls...18 Utility Relocation...19 Environmental and Hazardous Material Studies...19 SCC Estimate Risk Assessment...20 SCC 10 Guideway and Track Elements...20 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way (SCC 10.01)...21 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic (SCC 10.03)...21 Guideway: Aerial Structure (SCC 10.04)...22 Track: Embedded (SCC 10.10)...23 Track: Ballasted Track (SCC 10.11)...24 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) (SCC 10.12)...24 Track: Vibration and noise dampening (SCC 10.13)...24 SCC 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal Facilities...25 Columbia Pike Street Car Project v Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Final

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) At-Grade Station, Stop, Shelter, Mall, Terminal, Platform (SCC 20.01)...25 SCC 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops and Administration Buildings...27 Light Maintenance Facility (SCC 30.02)...27 Yard and Yard Track (SCC 30.05)...28 SCC 40 Sitework and Special Conditions...29 Demolition, Clearing and Earthwork (SCC 40.01)...29 Utilities (SCC 40.02)...29 Hazardous Material, Contaminated Soil Removal / Mitigation, Ground Water Treatment (SCC 40.03)...30 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historical/archeological, parks (SCC 40.04)...31 Site Structures including Retaining Walls, Sound Walls (SCC 40.05)...31 Determine if retaining walls are required at other locations along the corridor.... Error! Bookmark not defined. edestrian Access and Accommodation, Landscaping (SCC 40.06)...32 Automobile, Bus, Van Accessways including Road and Parking Lots (SCC 40.07)...32 Temporary Facilities and other indirect cost during Construction (SCC 40.08)...32 SCC 50 Systems Elements...33 Train Control and Signals (SCC 50.01)...33 Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection (SCC 50.02)...33 Traction Power Supply: Catenary and Third Rail (SCC 50.04)...35 Communications (SCC 50.05)...36 Fare Collection Systems and Equipment (SCC 50.06)...36 Central Control (SCC 50.07)...37 Review of Procurement Items...38 SCC 60 ROW, Land and Existing Improvements...38 SCC 70 Vehicles...39 Light Rail Vehicles (SCC 70.01)...39 Other vehicles (SCC 70.06)...40 Spare Parts (SCC 70.07)...41 Other Project Costs...41 SCC 80 Professional Services...41 SCC Professional Services...41 SCC Start-Up / Agency Force Account Work...43 Project Cost Review...44 Review and Analysis of Project Cost...44 Review and Analysis of Project Cost Estimate...44 Accuracy of Cost Estimates...45 Grantee Baseline Cost Estimate...46 Recommended Cost Adjustments...46 Escalation...47 Project Risk Identification...48 Risk Register...48 Columbia Pike Streetcar Project vi

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Risk and Contingency Assessment...48 Cost Risk Assessment Methodology...48 Project Cost Risk Assessment...49 Adjusted Cost Estimate...49 Development Level of the Cost Estimate...50 Project Development Level...51 Recommended Contingency and Conditioned Estimate...51 Potential Project Cost Range...52 Distribution of the Potential Project Cost Range...53 Secondary Cost Mitigation Recommendation...54 Cost Model Comparison...54 Risk Mitigation Strategy...55 Risk and Contingency Management Plan...55 Primary Mitigation...55 Mitigation Deliverables...55 Top 10 Risks...56 Conclusions and Recommendations...58 Appendices...61 Appendix A List of Acronyms...61 Appendix B Risk Register...62 Appendix C Project Baseline Cost Estimate...74 Appendix D Modified Cost Range Analysis Worksheet...75 Appendix E Interview Questionnaires...76 Mary Shavalier, Streetcar Project Manager, Arlington County...76 Leonard Wolfenstein, Chief, Transportation Planning Section, Fairfax County...80 Matthew Huston, Senior Transit Engineer, Arlington County...85 Bee Buergler, Transit Capital Program Manager, Arlington County...89 Appendix F Grantee Data...94 Appendix G PMOC Evaluation Team...96 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Map... 3 Figure 2 CPS Project Implementation Organization... 8 Figure 3 SCC Relative Cost Estimate Figure 4 Risk Rating Chart Figure 5 Generic Cost Estimate Classification Matrix Columbia Pike Streetcar Project vii

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLE OF TABLES Table 1 PMP Sections and Elements to Be Completed Table 2 Summary of Grantee s Project Cost Estimate Table 3 Identification of PMOC Adjustments Table 4 Calculation of Adjusted Estimate Table 5 Project Development Level Table 6 Recommended Contingency and Range Factor by Development Level Table 7 Calculation of Conditioned Estimate Table 8 Calculation of Project Cost Range Table 9 Calculation of Limits of Cost Range Table 10 Comparison of FTA Cost Models Table 11 Mitigation Deliverables Table 12 Top 10 Project Risks Columbia Pike Streetcar Project viii

10 Project Background Arlington County and Fairfax County, in Northern Virginia, have been actively engaged in promoting improved transportation within their jurisdictions as a means of strengthening communities and encouraging a mix of land uses and development of new housing and amenities. Their approach has been a concentration on several commercial and transportation corridors. One of these corridors is Columbia Pike, which runs generally from the Pentagon in Arlington County to Bailey s Crossroads in Fairfax County. Planning in this corridor has been underway since 2002 with ongoing collaboration among project stakeholders and investigation of several key technical issues. In 2010, Arlington County and Fairfax County, in coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), initiated an Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Assessment (AA-EA) to further evaluate alternatives and determine the environmental impacts of the proposed solutions. The work effort was undertaken in compliance with federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines and FTA New Starts/Small Starts requirements. In July 2012, the Boards of each County adopted the Streetcar Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Arlington County approved the LPA on July 24, 2012 and Fairfax County approved the LPA on July 31, In September 2012, Arlington County submitted an application for entry into the Project Development (PD) phase of FTA s Small Starts program. FTA has assigned Hill International, Inc., a Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC), to review the scope, cost, schedule, and risk related to the project and to evaluate whether Arlington County has the project management capacity and capability to complete the project successfully. This report is the presentation of the PMOC s review. Project Description The Columbia Pike Streetcar project is an approximately 4.93 mile electrically powered modern streetcar system that originates in the Pentagon City area of Arlington County, Virginia and runs along the length of Columbia Pike from Joyce Street to South Jefferson Street in Fairfax County, Virginia where it terminates in the Skyline area near Bailey s Crossroads. Streetcars will operate in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes along Jefferson Street and through Pentagon City, and within an exclusive right-of-way on short segments near the western and eastern termini. The project includes 18 station stops in each direction. Station stops would consist of a 90-foot to 120-foot boarding area with a low platform to accommodate near-level boarding. Some curbside stops would be able to accommodate a streetcar vehicle and 40-foot bus simultaneously. The stops would provide passengers with real-time information and other amenities. Off-vehicle fare collection would be used to increase operating efficiency. The project would provide a fleet of 13 modern streetcar vehicles that will have at least 50% low-level floors and multi-door boarding and alighting. Supporting facilities include a new maintenance facility with an operations control center. The proposed site for this facility is a Columbia Pike Street Car Project 1 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Final

11 1.7-acre site in Pentagon City at 12th Street South and South Eads Street. Four traction power substations (TPSS) would be located along the alignment and one additional TPSS located inside the vehicle maintenance facility. A construction staging site would be located near the existing Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) garage and yard. A new bus transfer center would be developed on South Jefferson Street in the Baileys Crossroad Shopping Center. The facility would include 200 parking spaces for transit users and bus bays for connecting buses. Project Alignment The CPS project will construct a modern streetcar system between Pentagon City in Arlington County and the Skyline area of Fairfax County as shown in Figure 1. The project alignment begins on 12 th Street South at South Eads Street in Pentagon City. The alignment passes the Pentagon City Metrorail station providing connections to the Blue and Yellow Lines and serving the Pentagon City Mall. The alignment follows South Hayes Street, Army-Navy Drive, and South Joyce Street passing under Interstate Route I-395 and turning onto Columbia Pike. The alignment then follows Columbia Pike for 3.3 miles passing over Four Mile Run on the existing bridge. The alignment leaves Columbia Pike onto South Jefferson Street, runs about one-half mile to a multimodal terminal near Leesburg Pike, and finally crosses Leesburg Pike to a terminus on the southwest side of Leesburg Pike. Streetcar vehicles would operate mostly in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes throughout Pentagon City and along Jefferson Street. The only areas where streetcar vehicles would operate in exclusive right-of-way would be on short segments near the western and eastern termini. The current concept for the maintenance facility is located on Eads Street between Army-Navy Drive and 12 th Street South in Pentagon City. The proposed operation would provide weekday service from 5:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Saturday service beginning at 6:30 a.m. and ending at 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday service beginning at 6:00 a.m. and ending at 11:30 p.m. On a typical weekday, the streetcar service will begin at 5:30 a.m. and operate at 6-minute headways throughout the day along the 4.93-mile corridor. Late night and evening streetcar service will operate at 12-minute headways. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 2

12 Master Planning for the Corridor Figure 1 Project Map Arlington County and Fairfax County have been actively engaged in efforts to strengthen communities, increase the amount of housing and amenities, and encourage a mix of land uses at key locations along the project corridor. In 2002, the Arlington County Board approved the Columbia Pike Initiative: A Revitalization Plan for the corridor. Part visioning exercise and part implementation plan, the Board developed a vision for transportation and community development along Columbia Pike and identified steps towards achievement. For its part, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has developed a vision for the greater Bailey s Crossroads area, reflected most recently in a 2010 Comprehensive Plan update that allows for greater land use densities and increased activity levels. Both Boards plans rely on implementation of a highcapacity, long-term transit system. Regionally, multiple transit corridors, including the project corridor, were identified to provide increased mobility and accessibility, and potentially interface in the future. Implementing transit improvements along this corridor is part of achieving the regional transit vision for greater mobility and accessibility. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 3

13 The effort to analyze transportation alternatives to serve the existing and future land use plans in the corridor has been ongoing for several years. Between spring 2004 and summer 2005, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) conducted an Alternatives Analysis in coordination with Arlington and Fairfax Counties, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), and VDOT, with input from FTA staff. Building from previous public planning activities in the Columbia Pike corridor, the Alternatives Analysis was supported by intensive public involvement. Three different sets of public meetings and workshops were conducted during the period of analysis. In spring 2006, both the Arlington County Board and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved the recommended Modified Streetcar Alternative as the preferred alternative to be advanced into the next stage of project development. During the intervening period, WMATA, Arlington County, and Fairfax County continued progress through ongoing collaboration with project stakeholders and investigation of several key technical issues. Project Development In 2010, Arlington County and Fairfax County, in coordination with Federal Transit Administration, initiated an AA-EA to further evaluate the need for enhanced transit service, evaluate alternatives and determine the environmental impacts of the proposed solution. The work effort was undertaken in compliance with federal NEPA and FTA New Starts/Small Starts requirements. Following extensive technical analysis, and agency and community coordination, the Boards of both counties adopted a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in July Arlington County approved the LPA on July 24, 2012 and Fairfax County approved the LPA on July 31, The Streetcar Alternative emerged as the LPA based on its ability to provide sufficient capacity to cope with projected growth; attract travelers to transit and increase transit mode share; and support and encourage economic development. The streetcar project would operate along a 4.93-mile corridor, extending mainly along Columbia Pike between the Pentagon City area of Arlington County to the Skyline area in Fairfax County, Virginia. In September 2012, Arlington County submitted an application seeking Entry into Project Development as one of the requirements for funding through the FTA Small Starts Program. The project is in the region s Cost Constrained Long Range Plan. Methodology This report is based on a review of materials, interviews, and meetings with staff and consultants. It includes the PMOC s assessment of the reasonableness of the methodology employed by the County and of the total project cost, expressed in 2012 base year dollars, and projected year-ofexpenditure (YOE) dollars. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 4

14 Arlington County has applied for entry into Project Development for the CPS project. This review report is one of the supporting documents that FTA will use to inform their decision whether to advance this project into Project Development. The overarching requirement for evaluation of the CPS project in this context is contained in the FTA Work Order authorizing this Readiness Review. Specific requests for review are contained in the PMOC s scope of work and include evaluating: The likelihood of the project meeting the stated project purposes and goals. The level to which the project documents reflect NEPA findings, recommendations, and mitigation. Whether the Grantee has developed a rational plan for project delivery and to characterize any contractually allocated risks. The Grantee s definition of the project scope, cost estimate, and schedule for adequacy and completeness for Entry into Project Development. The reliability of the Grantee s project scope, cost estimate, and schedule with special focus on the elements of uncertainty associated with the effectiveness and efficiency of the Grantee s project implementation. The Grantee s ability to execute design (i.e., technical capacity and capability to proceed to the next phase of the project) and whether the Grantee has adopted a risk-based management approach to project implementation that incorporates findings of a project risk assessment; The adequacy of the Grantee s project controls, management policies, and procedures to execute the project, especially for those relating to the acquisition of required rights-ofway. The PMOC met with Arlington County for an initial meeting on the risk assessment effort on October 18, The documentation to be reviewed for this assessment was transmitted by County and furnished to the review team. In addition, various publicly available support documents were consulted in arriving at the opinions expressed in this report. A listing of the source documents used for this review is shown in Appendix F Grantee Data. The workshop, which included a site tour of the proposed alignment, was held on November 8-9, This process provided the PMOC with an understanding of the rationale for the planning decisions that determined the alignment, station configuration, and the approach to project engineering, construction, and budget preparation. The review of the cost estimate was made from two perspectives. The proposed project scope, as described in the LPA documents and the related cost estimate elements, was assessed as to its completeness with respect to the project. The estimate was also reviewed technically to determine if it was complete, mechanically correct, and sufficiently detailed to be appropriate and useable at this stage of project development. As Technical Specialists in each discipline area reviewed the project, the cost elements were also reviewed for accuracy and applicability to the project. Where a concern was raised by the Technical Specialists relative to risks related to the project scope, project schedule, estimated Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 5

15 cost or a cost risk associated with the difficulty of the work, the risks are identified and characterized as requirements, design, market or construction risks. After review of the project scope, the cost estimate, and other supporting data, several areas were identified which were deemed by the PMOC to warrant further discussion or clarification. Analysis was performed to support the identification of risks relating to escalation factors, contingency factors, and the application of other cost estimating relationships. The presentation in this report provides commentary on the estimate for the relevant Standard Cost Category (SCC) items. Separate sections cover analysis of cost escalation factors, contingency allowances, general conditions, and correlation of project quantities. The Grantee updated its cost estimate and schedule during the course of this review and this report reflects the most recent schedule and cost estimate. Review of Project Development Grantee Project Management Approach The Grantee and lead agency for the Columbia Pike Streetcar project is Arlington County in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Arlington County, in cooperation with Fairfax County, will serve as the Project Sponsor, FTA grantee, and lead partner for the Columbia Pike Streetcar project. Arlington County will provide a Streetcar Project Manager, to lead the project development phase of the project. Fairfax County will provide a Deputy Project Manager. Both counties will contribute to the cost of project development and delivery, and will provide staff and resources to assist with all aspects of project management during design, construction and implementation of the project. Arlington County and Fairfax County have executed a Coordination Agreement that governed its partnership in the planning phase of the project. The counties are now developing and will execute a new Coordination Agreement, which will establish the roles of each county in their continuing partnership in the CPS project. Technical Capacity and Capability This section addresses the key elements of the Grantee s technical capacity and capability as outlined in OPs 01 and 21. Organizational Strategy and Structure The Grantee has adopted an organizational strategy that will address three areas: decisionmaking and coordination, project implementation, and approach to staffing. The strategy reinforces Arlington County s role as the responsible agency for management and implementation of the project, while at the same time including a significant management and implementation role for its partner, Fairfax County. Importantly, this strategy assures the involvement of senior executives from both Counties in policymaking and oversight roles. The strategy makes both Counties responsible for coordination and defines those responsibilities. It Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 6

16 also sets up three committees with representatives from federal, state, and local agencies that have an interest in the project: Policy Committee approves changes to scope and schedule, and reviews draft documents prior to presentation to County Boards. Technical Advisory Committee has members from Arlington and Fairfax Counties, the Project Manager (PM) and Deputy PM of the CPS project, VDOT, VDRPT, the FTA, and WMATA. Citizens Coordination Committee consists of members of County committees and commissions and will inform citizens advisory groups and community organizations. The strategy for implementation includes procurement of engineering consultant services to develop the preliminary design documents. The Grantee has reserved the preliminary engineering phase for determination of project delivery approach design/bid/build or design/build. Similarly, there is no decision yet on the delivery of construction management services. Finally, the strategy for staffing is to assign existing staff members from both Counties as well as to hire qualified staff to fill other key positions. To fill out the staff requirements, the Grantee will engage a project management consultant to bring special technical skills to the project. From its organizational and implementation strategies, the Grantee has developed an organization structured to address three areas: strategic direction and policymaking through the Policy Committee; management and staffing through the Project Management Team; and stakeholder and public coordination through the Citizens Coordination Committee, and the Technical Advisory Committee. This structure is depicted in Figure 2. The PMOC is of the opinion that the Grantee s organizational and implementation strategies as described in Section 6 of its Project Management Plan (PMP) are appropriate, will enable and promote effective project management after some structural adjustments discussed below, and will meet the FTA requirement for entry into Project Development. Staffing The PMP describes an organizational structure consisting of three elements: the Project Management Team (PMT), the Project Team Working Groups (PTWG), and a Project Management Consultant (PMC) that will supplement staff from the Counties with specialized skills. The PMP indicates that procurement of the PMC will take place in late The PMP does not yet indicate the specific skills that the Project expects the PMC to provide. The PMT consists of Transit Bureau Chiefs from the Counties, the Project Manager and Deputy Project Manager, and the leads of the six working groups depicted in Figure 2. The Project Manager, with a master s degree in urban and regional planning has over 30 years relevant experience planning, managing the development of, and operating transit facilities and systems. The current Deputy Project Manager also has a master s degree in urban and regional planning, which was appropriate in the Planning Phase; however, when the Project enters the project development phase, the current Deputy Project Manager will be replaced with an individual from Fairfax County who has engineering management experience. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 7

17 Figure 2 CPS Project Implementation Organization Columbia Pike Street Car Project 8 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Draft

18 The PMP states that the Project Team s responsibility is to carry out the design and construction effort for the project. Resumes were provided for seven members of the Design Oversight Working Group. Three of the members are licensed Professional Engineers in Virginia and two are currently supervising engineers; two members are planners with master s degrees, and one member is a Landscape Architect. Three resumes were provided for members of the Project Administration Working Group: the budget and accounting specialist has a bachelor s degree in accounting and a Masters of Business Administration; the procurement specialist has a bachelor s degree in Civil Engineering and relevant experience with procurement, negotiation, and contract management; and the grants specialist has experience in finance and grants management. The PMOC is of the opinion that the staffing plan to the extent it has been developed is suitable for entrance into the project development phase, but needs additional staff and structural adjustments to appropriately manage the project through construction, and commissioning. The current staffing plan contains risks in that it limits the technical capacity and capability of the Grantee and the configuration of the organization has the potential to compromise project goals. These risks are discussed below. Risks: There was no staffing plan to show how and when the CPS project plans to add qualified staff to timely support the project s progress and finance that staff. Quality could be compromised because the Grantee lacks its own employee(s) with FTA related quality management experience and because the person responsible for quality does not report to a level above the Project Manager. Safety and Security could be compromised because the safety and security working group leader (the senior position shown responsible for safety and security) reports to the Deputy Project Manager. Cost and schedule management may not get adequate emphasis because the PMP does not clearly define responsibility for these two vital project control functions. Design related decisions on operational and maintenance concepts of the CPS project would likely be compromised because the operations manager position is planned to be filled sometime during the design process rather than before that process begins. Permanent staffing may be inadequate in the engineering and finance areas under the current matrix organization plan, which may affect cost and schedule. Recommendations: Establish the position of Project Director, which could be staffed by Stephen Del Giudice. The Grantee should develop a staffing plan to show the positions envisioned for the project, when they will be filled, and from where the staff will come. This plan is essential to assure that appropriately skilled staff is on board to timely support the Project Development Phase schedule and that resources are programmed to support the staff. Revise the organization plan to include hiring of staff experienced with FTA funded rail transit projects of similar or greater complexity as the CPS project, in the areas of operations, maintenance, and engineering. Establish a position for Manager of Project Controls, which could be a new hire or a seconded person. Project Controls should Columbia Pike Street Car Project 9 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Final

19 include cost and schedule, risk management, and may include document control. Project controls should be separate and distinct from project administration. Designate and fill a full-time position for a Quality Manager. Require the person filling that position to have significant experience managing a quality program for FTA funded rail transit projects. Organize so that the Quality Manager reports at least one level above the Project Manager. Revise the organizational plan to include as key staff a Manager of Operations Management, which will include Operations, and Maintenance. The revised organizational plan is to include a Manager of Project Controls. Revise reporting relationships in Figure 7 Project Team Detail of the PMP so that some of the Working Group s leaders report to the Project Manager and some report directly to the Deputy Project Manager. Designate and fill a full-time position for a Safety and Security Manager to support the design and all follow-on phases of the Project. Require the person filling that position to have significant experience managing a safety and security program for FTA funded rail transit projects. Organize so that the Safety and Security Manager reports at least one level above the Project Manager. The Project Management Team (PMT) should include the Director of Environmental Services, who should serve as the chair of this group. The PMOC is concerned that the Grantee s matrix type organization will not function adequately when conflicting resource priorities arise. Project Management Plan A Project Management Plan (PMP) is an essential management tool for a Small Starts Project moving into the Project Development Phase. The purpose of the PMP is stated in the FTA s Oversight Procedure 20: The PMP is the Grantee s overarching project implementation plan that spans the entire project period. It should be a guide for action. It should describe a Grantee s approved policies, practices, and procedures related to the management, design and construction of the major capital transit project. The PMP elements should be tailored to set forth the Grantee s specific action plan for implementing the project, and managing the cost, schedule, and associated risks. Arlington County submitted draft revision 2 of the Columbia Pike Streetcar project s PMP, dated October 2012, to the PMOC for review. The table of contents of this PMP contains all of the requisite elements identified in 49 CFR Parts 611 and 633, FTA Circulars F, D, and , and the FTA Master Agreement. The PMP adequately describes the project. It also describes how the project will be organized and staffed, the budget, schedule milestones, and environmental studies and documents completed to date. Résumés were provided for three persons on the Project Management Team and the lead of the Design Oversight Working group. The draft is well written; however, it is incomplete as many of the PMP sections have yet to be initiated. The PMOC recommends that the sections and elements listed in Table 1 be completed and submitted for PMOC review within 60 days of approval to enter Project Development. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 10

20 Table 1 PMP Sections and Elements to Be Completed SECTION DESCRIPTION 5.0 Project Schedule (5.2 through 5.6) 6.0 Project Organization and Staffing Agency organizational chart showing project interfaces Staff qualifications and experience chart Description of project decision-making authority from top down 6.3 Interfaces among key project team members 6.4 Administrative and Support Services Organization 6.5 Design Organization 9.0 Procurement (9.1 through 9.5.3) 10.0 Contract Administration 11.0 Financial Management & Cost Control 12.0 Risk Management and Control (12.1 through 12.4) 13.0 Project Documentation and Reporting 14.0 Quality Assurance / Control (Including A Project Quality Plan) 16.0 Design and Engineering Management 18.0 Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan 28.0 Fleet Management Plan 30.0 Safety and Security Management Plan Appendix Project Quality Plan Risks: The PMP does not provide sufficient details on technical capacity and capability. Figure 7 Project Team Detail in the PMP shows the quality and safety functions are under the direction of the Project Manager. This configuration runs the risk of compromising on quality and safety to meet the other project requirements of cost and schedule. Because Arlington County s Manager of Capital Projects has the dual roles of Project Administration Lead, Quality Assurance/Control Lead, and has project management responsibilities for other ongoing County projects, there is a risk of insufficient attention to each CPS project role. The PMP does not address governance of the CPS project, and the planned Crystal City Streetcar project a condition that may affect the schedule for design and construction. The Counties are developing and plan to execute a new Coordination Agreement, which will establish each County s role in their continuing partnership in the CPS project; however, the Project may stall due to an inability of the political leaders of both Arlington and Fairfax counties to align their priorities. There is a risk of delay and cost growth if the challenges of coordinating with other stakeholders and the completion of adjacent work are not appropriately managed. There is a risk that project schedule development and management may not get adequate emphasis. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 11

21 Recommendations: Remove Part V (PMP Sections 30 through 40): Safety and Security Management Plan from the PMP and make it a stand-alone document. Be sure the PMP references the SSMP. Complete the sections and elements of the PMP listed in Table 1 and submit for FTA review and approval within 60 days of entry into Project Development. Reconfigure the organization chart to show the quality and safety functions reporting to the same person to whom the Project Manager reports. Show on the Project Organization Chart (Figure 7 of the PMP) Stephen Del Giudice or his position title, the person to whom the Project Manager reports. Also, show the reporting relationship of Mr. Del Giudice and others to the County Board. Elevate the project controls function to its own Working Group and assign a Lead. Change the title of Section 5.0 in the PMP from Project Schedule to Project Controls and draft that Section accordingly. Eliminate the multiple responsibilities currently assigned to the Arlington County Manager of Capital Projects. Reassign the quality management function to an appropriately experienced person. Address the governance issue. Most importantly, address what entity will operate and maintain the CPS system. Clearly define the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Project Manager. Complete and execute the amended inter-county Coordination Agreement. Elaborate on the management structure of the Columbia Pike Working Group and its decision authority for actions identified by the group. Include a chart in the PMP that shows Arlington and Fairfax County Departments that will interface with and support the project. The chart should show lines of communication between the Departments and various project staff sections. Include a discussion of decision-making authority in Part 1 - Project Organization of the PMP. This should address decision authority withheld and delegated, by the Arlington and Fairfax County Boards as well as by the PMT. The PMT should include the Director of Environmental Services who should serve as the chair of this group. Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan The PMP has indicated Chapter 18 will address the real estate acquisition management aspects of this project. A preliminary inventory of required parcels has been developed. However a separate Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan (RAMP) has not yet been developed. The Capital Cost estimate Memorandum dated March 26, 2012 does provide some details regarding real estate. The project will acquire parcels for the traction power substations; in addition, the project has identified three parcels required for the maintenance facility two owned by Vornado and the other by Verizon. Arlington County intends a land swap with Vornado at no cost as part of a development agreement. Real estate acquisition is required for the bus transfer center in the Bailey s Crossroads Shopping Center. This parcel is owned by Payne Brothers, the shopping center landowners; Levin Management Corporation owns the development rights. At the western terminus, Vornado owns the property for the tail tracks. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 12

22 Risks: The cost estimate provides insufficient detail and cannot be effectively reviewed for content or methodology used. Acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) properties may cost more and take longer than expected. Without a clear real estate cost estimate methodology, it is possible that some real estate acquisition costs such as appraisal costs, overhead costs, relocation assistance services, or Settlement Factor estimates are included in the estimate. Insufficient information regarding activity durations for tasks such as appraisal, appraisal review, acquisition, relocation, closing, condemnation, etc. ROW properties associated with the TPSSs may have unique zoning, ordinance requirements, or special permit requirements. Recommendation: Arlington County should develop a RAMP at least 90 days prior to submitting an application to enter the Engineering Phase, and include the identification of all parcels for the maintenance facility, TPSS locations, the new bus transfer center in the Bailey s Crossroad Shopping Center (referred to as Jefferson Street Transit Center), and the western terminus. The RAMP should comply with the Uniform Relocation Act. Rail Operations and Maintenance Plan The streetcar project will operate along a 4.93-mile corridor, extending mainly along Columbia Pike between the Pentagon City area of Arlington County and the Skyline area in Fairfax County, Virginia. The project includes 18 station stops in each direction and would provide weekday service from 5:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Saturday service beginning at 6:30 a.m. and ending at 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday service beginning at 6:00 a.m. and ending at 11:30 p.m. Streetcar service will operate at 6-minute headways throughout the day. Late night and evening streetcar service will operate at 12-minute headways. Streetcar vehicles would operate in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes along Jefferson Street and throughout Pentagon City. As a result, they will be subject to delays resulting from traffic congestion, accidents, etc. Because the streetcar is tied to a fixed route and lane, the streetcar will not be able to be re-routed in the event of a roadway closure. There is currently only one crossover between the two tracks on Columbia Pike. These factors may affect service and it may make it difficult to maintain project headways. Risk and Contingency Management Plan Chapter 12 of the PMP discusses Risk and Contingency Management. It is recommended that a stand-alone Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP) be developed 90 days after approval into Project Development. The use and usefulness of an RCMP is discussed in later sections of this report. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 13

23 Project Scope Review Scope Review Issues As a part of the scope review, FTA asked that the PMOC report specifically on several general issues related to the overall scope review. In particular, these items are the adequacy of the vehicle fleet, the conformance of the current design documents with the NEPA documents, and the Grantee s proposed project delivery method. Adequacy of Vehicle Fleet Streetcar service will operate at 6-minute headways throughout the day. Late night and evening streetcar service will operate at 12-minute headways. The project scope includes 13 streetcars to support the CPS system: 11 revenue vehicles and 2 spares. At the workshop, the rationale provided by Arlington County was that the running time, estimated with the assistance of the traffic simulation program VISSIM, was approximately 60 minutes. Operating single car trains, a restriction resulting from platform length, the required revenue fleet was determined to be 11 vehicles to support a 6-minute headway service. Arlington County has not yet developed a Fleet Management Plan and the provision of only two spare vehicles for a small captive fleet may result in the inability to reliably provide 11 vehicles for service on a daily basis. The concern is that the combination of new vehicle retrofit needs, the potential for collision damage from street running, and inspection and repair requirements, may result in more than two vehicles being out-of-service during the peak period. The PMOC has recommended that a vehicle fleet plan be developed that indicates how the revenue vehicle requirement can be adequately met. Risk There is a risk that the number of vehicles is inadequate to provide reliable service. Recommendation Develop a fleet management plan that justifies the number of vehicles required. NEPA and Design Document Comparison At this review, the CPS project has received approval of the LPA but has not completed the NEPA process. All design information is at a conceptual level and was completed enough to conduct a combined NEPA process and Alternatives Analysis. The documentation presented for review for Entry into Project Development is consistent with the approved LPA. Proposed Project Delivery Method According to the PMP, the Grantee has decided to engage an engineering consultant to develop the design during the Project Development Phase. The project schedule (Appendix B of the PMP) shows Project Development Phase engineering beginning in April of To advance the project beyond completion of preliminary design, the Grantee is considering two options: Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 14

24 Design-Bid-Build (DBB) or Design-Build (DB). It has made no decision yet on managing construction. According to PMP Subsection Project Implementation: A decision on the project delivery method for construction will be made during the Preliminary Engineering phase. Options under consideration include traditional DBB as well as DB. The Arlington County Board is considering revisions to the Procurement Ordinance that would enable the County to create Public-Private Partnerships for development of transportation facilities. The Preliminary Engineering scope will include options to address both scenarios: o Preparing specifications for the procurement of the DB contract o Undertaking final design work if the DBB effort is selected A decision on the procurement method for Construction Management services has not yet been made. If the delivery method is to be DB, then the Grantee must have someone on staff who understands the coordination and scope definition issues inherent with Design-Build at the outset of design. Likewise, it is essential to have an experienced constructor on staff to comment on the preliminary design. A date or milestone must be set as part of the staffing plan to have a constructor engaged in project development at or near the beginning of preliminary design. Risks: There is a significant risk of cost and schedule growth using the Design-Build approach because no one in a project management role in the Grantee s proposed staffing has Design-Build experience and only one member of the Design Oversight Working Group has this experience. Engagement of a management consultant with that expertise may not be sufficient to overcome this risk. Likewise, there is a risk of delay, disputes, and claims if qualified and experienced construction staff is not on board during the preliminary design phase to offer cost, schedule, and constructability review comments on the design. Recommendations: Before embarking on preliminary design, the Grantee should engage an experienced person/firm to assist the PMT in exploring the pros and cons of DB and DBB, and then choose the option best suited to the nature of the project and experience of the PMT. Engage a construction professional who is, or could become, invested in the completion of the project to provide constructability review comments. Set a milestone early in the Project Development phase for the construction management decision. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 15

25 Third Party Agreements Agreements are required with third parties for access to property, easements, or services to be provided both for construction and afterwards during revenue operation. There are potential risks associated with the lack of agreements with these parties. The PMOC is of the opinion that the lack of agreements exposes the project to undetermined cost and schedule risks and recommends that the County finalize third party agreements during the Project Development phase. A preliminary list of third party agreements includes: Utilities o Dominion Virginia Power o Verizon o Washington Gas o Comcast Government Agencies o United States Department of Defense (DOD) o United States Department of the Interior (DOI) o Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) o Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) o Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) o Virginia Department of Historic Resources o Virginia Department of General Services (DGS) o Fairfax County o Arlington County Developers o The project is dependent on two developers to complete 12 th construction prior to installing the streetcar system on the alignment. Street South Risks: All third party agreements have not been identified which may affect project cost and schedule. Obtaining agreements with government agencies, such as DOD, may affect the schedule. Delays by the developers in completing the 12th Street South construction could affect the project s scope, cost, and schedule. Recommendations: Develop a comprehensive list of all potential third party agreements with private and government entities within six months of approval into Project Development. Include the list in the PMP and articulate actions to coordinate finalization of agreements and the execution of work by these third parties. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 16

26 Design Development Project Alignment The initial alignment was approved by the Arlington County and Fairfax County Boards. While the basic alignment from Pentagon City to Skyline is not changed, there are several final decisions that need to be made concerning certain sections of the alignment, including the following: Median or curbside alignments in Pentagon City South Joyce Street to Columbia Pike at the Air Force Memorial Skyline Terminus Location of Emergency Crossovers Location of the Maintenance Shop In the Pentagon City area, the alignment changes direction several times. At the proposed station locations, the engineering to accommodate both the high volume of highway traffic and the streetcar platform, must address as soon as possible which will be center platforms in the median and which will be curbside platforms. The current alignment of Columbia Pike turns to meet South Joyce Street in an intersection common with the Southgate Road of Arlington Cemetery. It is proposed that Columbia Pike be realigned to intersect more directly with South Joyce Street using property owned by DOD for parking at the soon to be demolished Navy Annex. A revised alignment would eliminate some length of line and eliminate the U-turn in the alignment through the existing intersection. As a secondary benefit, it could permit a redevelopment of the federally owned lands and the allocation of part of the remaining site to Arlington County for a streetcar storage yard and maintenance shop. The Skyline terminus included in the LPA is known as the S2 option. This option crosses Leesburg Pike at South Jefferson Street and then runs a short distance on the southwest side of Leesburg Pike. There is an alternate proposal under consideration that would cross Leesburg Pike and proceed directly into the Skyline development (crossing a current underground parking garage entrance) and terminating in a plaza area. The drawbacks of this alignment are that the structural uncertainties resulting from reconstruction of the underground garage and the location of the terminal relative to any future line extensions. If the alternate site is to be considered, the Skyline developer must agree to contribute the difference in cost between the LPA terminus and the alternate terminus. For this alternate to be considered viable, the necessary engineering studies will need to be done to determine the cost and technical feasibility of the alternate Skyline terminus. If feasible, an agreement will need to be reached between the Skyline developer, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the choice of alignment finalized on a timely basis for the overall project engineering to continue without disruption. Additional crossovers, passing sidings, or pull-offs along Columbia Pike should be addressed in the design criteria. In the AA-EA design, there are only the crossovers at the end terminals for use in regular operation. There is no ability in the current track layout for any intermediate Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 17

27 tracks that would facilitate recovery of the system from disruptions due to equipment failure or highway accident. The currently proposed location for the maintenance shop and storage yard is in the Pentagon City / Crystal City area of Arlington. Land developed in the area are for high-rise hotel, office, and residential buildings making property expensive. The result is that the footprint of the shop and yard is small and irregular. The cost of designing, constructing, and operating such a facility under these constraints increases cost and schedule and requires precise detail in the design of the facility for operations. If an alternative site could be found, most probably along Columbia Pike between South Joyce Street and Washington Boulevard near the Air Force Memorial, most of these concerns can be mitigated. Arlington County should make the search for an alternate location a high priority. Recommendations: Median or curbside alignments in Pentagon City should be resolved as soon as practical. Pursue the realignment of Columbia Pike to the intersection of South Joyce Street near the Air Force Memorial to improve the streetcar alignment and potential for an alternate site for the streetcar storage yard and maintenance shop. Work with the Skyline developer to determine the feasibility of the alternate Skyline terminus and to make a final choice of alignment within. Consider crossovers or other emergency-use trackage along Columbia Pike to facilitate recovery from an interruption of service. As a high priority, investigate alternate locations for the maintenance and yard facility. Vehicle Design Criteria At the workshop, the capacity of the proposed vehicle was discussed as compared with capacity requirements along Columbia Pike. It was noted that the existing designs could be used to provide additional capacity if the vehicles were lengthened to 24 meters (about 80 feet) in length. However, an increase in length affects horizontal and vertical curve design, the height of the low floor, and the length of the terminal tracks and shop tracks. The PMOC recommended that the design criteria be reviewed so that it would be able to accommodate a longer vehicle. Including some additional accommodation in the design criteria may also increase the number of manufacturers willing and able to provide streetcars capable of operating on the system. Recommendations: Develop the design criteria so that the horizontal and vertical alignments can accommodate a reasonable selection of available streetcar designs. The PMOC suggests that the criteria accommodate streetcars up to 24 meters in length. Geotechnical Issues Aerial Structure and Retaining Walls Neither geotechnical reports nor geotechnical information was provided for review. Geotechnical information should be developed for the track slab sections, any proposed retaining walls along the alignment; and the proposed terminal and maintenance facilities. Retaining walls Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 18

28 are under consideration at several locations (South Jefferson Street to allow re-profiling) along the alignment which may require regrading to reduce grades. Geotechnical information may also be required for the reinforcement of the Four Mile Run Bridge if the existing pier footings need to be modified for the reinforcement of this structure. Additionally, it is conceivable that deep track slab sections may be required at certain locations due to unsuitable ground conditions. Utility Relocation Utility drawings have not been provided for review. However, the proposed alignment, for the most part, runs in existing streets and roadways in a built up urban area. Therefore, it can be assumed with certainty that utility conflicts will occur between the existing utilities and the proposed streetcar track slab construction and possibly other related construction. The Grantee has indicated that the guideway was to be constructed in accordance with WMATA TRAM/LRT Guideline Design Criteria. The PMOC questions the use of this criterion since WMATA may have no future involvement in this project. The Grantee indicated that design criteria development and utility rules of practice are underway. The proposed project alignment has been broken down into seven (7) sections for utility analysis. Various levels of information are available depending on the section in question. The grantee has investigated the availability of as-built utility information available for each section and conducted a walking site inspection for utilities in each section. No subsurface investigations have been conducted. A tabulation of utilities has been provided identifying the level of impact (major/moderate/minimal), type of impact (transverse/longitudinal) and the utility type by segment (Engineering Report, Table 18.1 Utility Tabulation). Utility agreements were not provided. These agreements should be advanced, executed and drawings developed for impacted utilities to be relocated at the expense of the project. The table referenced above indicates a significant portion of the necessary utility relocation work will be by others. This should be confirmed by agreement(s). Recommendations: Arlington County should complete its own design criteria for the CPS project to guide utility relocation and confirm agreements with regard to utility relocation. Environmental and Hazardous Material Studies A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted and a report prepared by Greenhorne & O Mara in August of Seventy-five (75) hazardous and contaminated material Recognized Environmental Condition sites were identified either within the proposed alignment, the proposed facilities, or immediately adjacent to the corridor. These sites are identified on Exhibit 12-2 of the Environmental Report. However, none of the sites has been determined to be of major concern since the construction of the guideway is shallow, being either at grade, or slightly below grade. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 19

29 SCC Estimate Risk Assessment The review of project scope was conducted in such a way as to identify areas of potential risk to the project from the design chosen for the project and its implementation as shown in the concept drawings and in the specifications, and supporting documents. Refer to Appendix F for the documentation reviewed. Figure 3 provides a preliminary view of the relative importance of each of the top-level SCC codes. SCC 70 Vehicles is the largest Cost Category followed by SCC 10 Guideway and Track construction. Professional Services is the third largest Cost Category and is 30.4% of construction costs, SCC 10 through SCC 50. Figure 3 SCC Relative Cost Estimate The line item cost data shown at the start of each SCC Category is taken from the SCC Workbook dated October 15, 2012 which is also shown in Table 2. SCC 10 Guideway and Track Elements SCC Description 10 Guideway and Track Elements Note: All values in $ thousands Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. $34,762 $2,392 $37,154 $41,293 Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 20

30 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way (SCC 10.01) Scope: The schematic plans reflect only short portions of the guideway in exclusive right-ofway at the terminal stations. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: Costs are included with SCC Risks: There are potential cost and schedule risks due to impacts from other related construction projects along the alignment. 12th Street between Hayes and Fern Streets - street width, ability to have transit-only lanes, on-street parking Recommendations: Finalize agreements with stakeholders such as VDOT and the two developers. Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic (SCC 10.03) Scope: A majority of the proposed alignment is at-grade in mixed traffic from 12 th Street South at the eastern terminus to South Jefferson Street. The corridor requires approximately 4.91 route-miles with two tracks. Numerous cross-sections are proposed for various portions of the alignment as reflected in Plan Sheets TYP 001 through TYP 017. There are several current and proposed projects with the project alignment. They include: The Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvement Project sponsored by Arlington County, which includes improvements to Columbia Pike. This project will proceed in phases, one of which has been completed, one is in construction, and the remainder are in design. The Washington Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Reconstruction Project sponsored by VDOT. This project is currently under construction. The Columbia Pike Super Stops Project sponsored by Arlington County. This project will incorporate combined streetcar and bus stops. This project is also underway. The proposed construction of 12th Street South may be by two developers. If one, or both, of these developments fall through, Arlington County may have to construct half or all of 12th Street South. There is a proposal by the Department of the Interior to modify Army/Navy Drive by adding bicycle lanes on the south side affecting the eastbound travel lane. Columbia Pike may be realigned in the vicinity of South Joyce Street. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 21

31 Cost: Costs were developed on a running foot basis depending on cross-section and track configuration. Risks: There are potential cost and schedule risks associated with each of the projects noted above. If a deeper track slab section (>15 ) is required due to ground conditions, the costs are not presently included. Catenary clearance at Washington Boulevard poses a cost and schedule risk. Trackway alignment on Army-Navy Drive - may change to median running; coordination with cycle track project Construction of 12th Street by two private developers. There is a risk of delay in completing agreement and a risk that one of the adjacent properties may fail to develop due to market conditions. There is a cost risk that the County will need to construct the street. Alignment crossing Leesburg Pike (Route 7) - risk associated with VDOT coordination and approvals. Hayes Stop - Trackway geometry to make turn onto 12th Street. Recommendations: Finalize agreements and identify cost-sharing measures with stakeholders including Arlington County, VDOT, United States Department of the Interior, and the proposed developers of 12th Street South. Guideway: Aerial Structure (SCC 10.04) Scope: The Four Mile Run Bridge is an existing structure carrying Columbia Pike over Four Mile Run Creek. The five span structure was constructed in the early 1940 s and has been widened and rehabilitated several times with the last rehabilitation being done in The structure is approximately 70 feet in length, approximately 67 feet wide with four 12-foot travel lanes, gutters and sidewalks. The structure itself is of composite construction with a concrete substructure, concrete piers, precast concrete beams and an 8-inch concrete deck (HS-20 loadings). The latter is deemed too thin to support the proposed streetcar construction and will require reinforcement to provide the necessary 11-inch thick track slab. If low profile block rail becomes available, it may be possible to make some savings in the slab depth. In addition, the substructure will require evaluation and possible strengthening. Reinforcement of the bridge may require regrading of both bridge approaches to accommodate the increase in deck thickness. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: Backup information supporting the base cost of $4.1 million was provided. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 22

32 Risks: Until further engineering studies are conducted, there are potential cost and schedule risks due to the possibility of unforeseen conditions uncovered at Four Mile Run Bridge. Skyline alignment - potential for structural issues with the construction of the alternate terminal station. Recommendations: Advance additional studies to determine if existing pier foundations and piers of the Four Mile Run Bridge are adequate to support the structural revisions required by the track slab. Track: Embedded (SCC 10.10) Scope: Most of the track length for this project will be embedded type track. As such, the unit cost per track foot is a significant issue for the project. The design of the track must bear in mind both the material cost and the construction ease of the final design of embedded track. Block rail or 115 RE regular rail will meet Buy America requirements. Therefore, the design needs to determine which of these two choices is best. Among the considerations is development and protection of the flangeway if 115 RE rail is used and pre-bending of rail if the block rail is used. The current design criteria is based largely on the use of 115 RE rail, which may not be optimal for the CPS project. There may advantages to the block rail if the structural slab can be made thinner and if the track laying does not have the same level of concrete finishing as needed for 115 RE rail. At this time, CPS is looking closely at block rail for at least the Four Mile Run Bridge reinforcement. Schedule: No schedule is shown. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The estimated cost of embedded track is based on a unit price derived from various projects across the country. PMOC review of other projects, combined with a conceptual estimate of the proposed section finds that the $425 per track-foot is on the low end of the expected price range. Risks: The choice of track construction method could affect cost and schedule. Until design progresses to define the cross section in detail, there are cost and schedule risks. Availability of U.S. made block rail or girder rail. Recommendations: Conduct a detailed evaluation of the cost and constructability of building track using block rail versus standard 115 RE rail. Develop a fully detailed embedded track section indicating components and method of construction. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 23

33 Track: Ballasted Track (SCC 10.11) Scope: There is a small amount of ballasted track near the terminals. The track would be typical railroad construction using 115 RE rail on either wood or concrete crossties. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The current project estimate shows 960 track feet of ballasted track. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Track: Special (switches, turnouts) (SCC 10.12) Scope: The design criteria for special trackwork needs to be defined based on whether the special trackwork is in embedded track or on ballasted track. In either case, the use of rather low radii is suggested for turnouts as is typical for streetcar applications. It is suggested that curved frogs be used to reduce jerk unless the frog is at the start of tangent track. However, in the interest of maintainability, especially for clearing snow and maintaining clean flangeways, the use of ballasted track is recommended in the terminal crossovers in exclusive right-of-way. CPS has been urged to consider one or more passing sidings or pull-offs along Columbia Pike as added scope for operational purposes to clear disabled equipment or turn-back in case of other disruptions on the street. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: The cost of the recommended passing tracks or pull-offs is not included in the project budget. Risks: Number and location of crossovers, turnouts, or passing tracks along Columbia Pike are not determined. Recommendations: A short section of exclusive ballasted track should be considered for the crossovers at the terminal stations. CPS should consider the installation of passing sidings or pull-offs to improve operating reliability. Track: Vibration and noise dampening (SCC 10.13) Scope: Vibration and noise dampening should be included as an integral part of the design of the embedded track or special trackwork design. However, at the intersection of Columbia Pike Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 24

34 and Jefferson Street there is a concern over the curving noise. At this intersection, the turn is over 90 degrees of angle and is at a significant change of grade. A combination of geometry and noise dampening may be required. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: There is no cost included in the project cost estimate for vibration or noise dampening features in the track. Risks: There is a risk that the community near Jefferson Street may request additional noise prevention features in the track. Recommendations: Noise mitigation measures should be investigated as part of the NEPA process. SCC 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal Facilities SCC Description Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. 20 Stations $5,256 $547 $5,803 $6,449 Note: All values in $ thousands At-Grade Station, Stop, Shelter, Mall, Terminal, Platform (SCC 20.01) Scope: Several station stop configurations are included in the project; however, costs for all types are carried elsewhere. The various types of proposed of station stops are: Center Stop 75 x 12 Platform, that will include platform, canopy, benches, fare collection devices, message boards and trash receptacles. There are five (5) center stop platforms included in the project. Side Stop 75 x 12 Platform with the same amenities as the Center Stops. There are two (2) side stop platform included in the project. The Super Stop program will construct all other side stop platforms. Side Stop 120 x 12 Platforms that are noted to be constructed by others as part of the Super Stop program. Side Stop 90 x 12 Platforms that are noted to be constructed by others as part of the Super Stop program. South Jefferson Street Transit Center with an at grade Park-and-Ride lot of 200 spaces, including bus stop, canopy, and benches. Three configurations were contemplated for the Skyline terminus. Two remain under consideration. The Skyline terminus included in the LPA is known as the S2 option. This option crosses Leesburg Pike at South Jefferson Street and then runs a short distance on the southwest side of Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 25

35 Leesburg Pike to a center platform. This alignment is exclusive at-grade right-of-way after crossing Leesburg Pike. There is an alternate proposal under consideration that would cross Leesburg Pike and then proceed directly into the Skyline development. An alignment in this general direction was removed from consideration since it was partially over active retail space, the Target store, making construction costs prohibitive. However, the developer has suggested a slightly different alignment that would cross the entrance to an underground parking garage and still terminate in a plaza area. The drawbacks of this alignment are the structural uncertainties resulting from reconstruction of the underground garage and the location of the terminal relative to any future line extensions. If the alternate site is to be considered, Arlington/Fairfax County expects to reach an agreement with the Skyline developer to contribute the difference in cost between the LPA terminus and the alternate terminus. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: Costs for the Super Stop platforms are not included in the project. Costs for the platforms included in the project were developed on a square foot basis from actual stations costs from two other Arlington County Super Stop projects. The estimated cost is based on the Skyline S2 option. Risks: There is a schedule risk associated with the construction of numerous station stops by others. If the alternate Skyline terminal is chosen, there may be schedule risks related to completion of the engineering design and negotiation of the development agreement. Skyline alignment may be constrained to accommodate planning for potential future extensions. Hayes Stop - coordinate platform length and position with landscape design for the Pentagon City Multimodal Project. Conformance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) laws and ADA reviews may affect cost and schedule. Recommendations: Secure agreements with the other stakeholders constructing station stops. Finalize location and configuration of the Skyline terminus. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 26

36 SCC 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops and Administration Buildings SCC Description 30 Support Facilities Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings Note: All values in $ thousands Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. $13,402 $996 $14,398 $16,003 Light Maintenance Facility (SCC 30.02) Scope: The scope of this section is the light maintenance facility. The shop location shown in the current design documents show the facility between 12 th Street South and 11 th Street South along Eads Street. The sketches show a servicing track, two vehicles in length, which can be used for inspections and light running repairs. There is one track with a single car capacity for heavier maintenance. Although not a part of this evaluation, the facility may also be used to service the proposed Crystal City Streetcar project. One of the key attractions for the site is the potentially low real estate cost, as the parcels are considered difficult to develop for other uses. Overall, the maintenance facility site is very constrained. While there are some sketches showing shop requirements, this facility will need to be designed in sufficient detail early in the project to first, verify that the shop capacity and layout are feasible for efficient operation, and second, to be able to make a reliable cost estimate. The cost estimate includes line items for the shop and support areas. However, some shop concepts also include automobile parking under the shop as part of a potential joint development, which is not included in the estimate. Some parking will be required, at least 40 spaces, and the shop design does not address this requirement. The cost estimate includes a line item for a wheel-truing machine and the shop design description indicates its usefulness. However, there is not apparent space in this shop design for a wheel-truing machine and it is ultimately not included in the cost estimate. The estimated cost of vehicle lifts and other shop machinery is not included in the cost estimate. Overall, the PMOC is concerned that the cost estimate for the shop is understated, especially given the accommodations that will be needed to utilize this constrained site. The design of the shop needs to be progressed sufficiently to be able to estimate the construction cost accurately and this effort needs to be done early in Project Development. Specifically, the building footprint and internal shop layout (vehicle spots, clearances, material handling and access) need to be fully developed and the track layout for the shop and yard need to be fully developed. Both of these design concepts need to be reviewed and approved by the Streetcar Manager of Operations before being accepted and a cost estimate developed. Although this site was included in the LPA proposal as a feasible site for the maintenance facility, there are significant limitations that make an alternate location more desirable for construction, operations, and expandability of the facility. Schedule: No schedule is given. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 27

37 Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The grantee s cost estimate for the Light Maintenance Facility only includes $75,000 for utility relocations. The site visit showed several vaults and manholes throughout the proposed footprint of the facility, including storm, water and Verizon utilities. Utility relocations are likely to cost significantly more. The grantee s cost estimate for the Light Maintenance Facility does not include square footage for the underground parking proposed in one of the design sketches. There are no costs included for wheel truing, vehicle hoists, exterior car washer, and other shop equipment. Risks: The shop as designed may be difficult to operate efficiently due to its location and congestion in the small shop footprint. The shop may need additional track or equipment. The shop as designed may not be able to support service expansion. Failure to achieve a joint development agreement for the maintenance facility could delay or disrupt the project. The underground parking as designed includes parking spaces for the proposed joint development, but the cost does not. There are schedule and cost risks until a joint development agreement is signed and the size of the underground parking is determined. Recommendations: The shop should be taken to a higher level of design early in project development to be able to quantify the construction and operating cost of a shop on the proposed site. It is recommended that an alternate location be investigated for the maintenance shop. Yard and Yard Track (SCC 30.05) Scope: The scope of this section is the layover storage yard for the vehicles. The storage yard shown in one sketch has a capacity of seven vehicles, less than the 13 vehicles proposed for the project. As noted in the discussion of the maintenance shop, the design of the entire facility, including the storage yard, needs to be progressed as soon as possible to a higher level of design early in project development to be able to quantify the capacity and the construction and operating cost of a storage yard on the proposed site. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The cost estimate is for a simple building to enclose and secure the storage area. Some sketches show parking as an overbuild of the storage yard but that is not included in the cost estimate. The yard tracks are shown as all embedded track. Risks: An additional storage yard may be required if sufficient capacity is not available. Coordination of land transfer and joint development on maintenance facility site. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 28

38 Potential of having to find different maintenance facility site poses a Schedule risk. Recommendations: The yard design should be taken to a higher level of detail early in project development to be able to quantify the capacity and the construction and operating costs of a storage yard on the proposed site. It is recommended that an alternate location, if available, be investigated for the maintenance shop that will have adequate space for the storage yard facility. The use of ballasted track in the storage yard may present an opportunity to reduce costs. SCC 40 Sitework and Special Conditions SCC Description 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Note: All values in $ thousands Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. $14,756 $1,900 $16,656 $18,511 Demolition, Clearing and Earthwork (SCC 40.01) Scope: The project will require significant demolition of the existing paving, curbs and sidewalks along the alignment to accommodate the guideway. Clearing and earthwork should be relatively limited due the current built up environment. One exception would be the regrading required along South Jefferson Street to bring the vertical alignment to a maximum of 7.5% grade. Current grades are in the range of 10%. This re-profiling will also require the construction of retaining walls on both side of South Jefferson Street. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: A lump sum figure has been provided for demolitions along South Jefferson Street only. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Utilities (SCC 40.02) Scope: Utility drawings have not been provided for review. However, the proposed alignment, for the most part, runs in existing streets and roadways in a built up urban area. It is assumed with some degree of certainty that utility conflicts will occur between the existing utilities and the proposed streetcar track slab construction, ductbank construction and other related facility construction. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 29

39 The proposed project alignment has been broken down into seven sections for utility analysis. CPS has investigated the availability of as-built utility information available for each section and conducted a walking site inspection for utilities in each section. No subsurface investigations have been conducted. A tabulation of utilities has been provided identifying the level of impact (major/moderate/minimal), type of impact (transverse/longitudinal) and the utility type by segment (Engineering Report, Table 18.1 Utility Tabulation). Utility agreements were not provided. These agreements should be advanced, executed and drawings developed for impacted utilities to be relocated at the expense of the project. The referenced table indicates a significant portion of the necessary utility relocation work will be by others. There is a potential for government (DOD, etc.) communications facilities in the area. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: Costs were developed on a running foot basis depending on assumed disturbance levels (minimal, moderate, major on Columbia Pike). Utility costs on South Jefferson Street are an allowance. Risks: There are schedule and cost risks until the utility agreements are in place. There are schedule and cost risks associated with unknown utility interferences. There are schedule and cost risks associated with utility relocations being performed by others. Unexpected security sensitive utilities may be identified or unearthed during design or construction phases. Verizon duct banks - may be infeasible to relocate in maintenance facility location. Verizon and Dominion duct banks - may be infeasible to relocate and may need protective structure. Hayes Stop - requires modification to WMATA ventilation structure. Washington Boulevard Interchange project - utility adjustment agreement not executed. Recommendations: Provide utility agreements with the involved utilities and/or jurisdictional agencies. Hazardous Material, Contaminated Soil Removal / Mitigation, Ground Water Treatment (SCC 40.03) Scope: No specific scope is identified in the documents Schedule: A detailed construction schedule was not provided. The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: None at this time. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 30

40 Risks: There is a potential risk (slight) to encounter hazardous or contaminated material along the corridor. Recommendations: None at this time. Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historical/archeological, parks (SCC 40.04) Scope: No provision has been made in the documents provided for this category. No work is detailed for the existing footings of the Four Mile Run Bridge; however, should modification of the existing footings or new footings be required to support the necessary structural revisions, environmental mitigation or protection may be required. A historic boundary marker for the District of Columbia is located on South Jefferson Street approximately 600 south of Columbia Pike in the area requiring re-profiling. Although it is reported that this monument has been relocated in the past, the proposed profile and alignment has been designed to eliminate any impact to this monument at its current location. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: Costs were provided on a running foot basis for erosion and sedimentation control. Costs were also provided on a running foot basis for environmental mitigation. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Site Structures including Retaining Walls, Sound Walls (SCC 40.05) Scope: Existing grades along South Jefferson Street are in the range of 10%. Regrading will be required for approximate 500 feet of South Jefferson Street to bring the vertical alignment down to the maximum allowable grade of 7.5%. This re-profiling will also necessitate the construction of retaining walls on both sides of South Jefferson Street. Sound walls are not contemplated for this project. An additional retaining wall may be required near South Dinwiddie Street, which is currently being widened; however, the current design for South Dinwiddie Street does not require a retaining wall. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: Some cost for the retaining walls at South Jefferson Street are in the estimate. Risks: None at this time. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 31

41 Recommendations: Determine if retaining walls are required at other locations along the corridor. Access and Accommodation, Landscaping (SCC 40.06) Scope: Pedestrian access has been addressed in the plans and cost estimate. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: Pedestrian access cost was included under SCC 50. Landscaping is noted as not being included in the project. Risks: There are potential constructability issues related to the Multimodal Project at Columbia Pike near South Dinwiddie Street. Pedestrian access cost to be adjusted from SCC 50 to SCC Recommendations: None at this time. Automobile, Bus, Van Accessways including Road and Parking Lots (SCC 40.07) Scope: There are three alternatives for the Transit Center configuration at Jefferson Street. Two include an at-grade park and ride lot of 200 spaces, the third involves reconfiguring Stop R. The Transit Center will include a platform incorporating a bus stop, canopy, fare machines, message board, and benches. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: A lump sum cost has been provided for the Transit Center. Risks: Jefferson Street regrading - potential drainage and ROW issues. Recommendations: Confirm the final configuration of the South Jefferson Street Station. Temporary Facilities and other indirect cost during Construction (SCC 40.08) Scope: Grantee s capital cost estimate includes allowances for maintenance and protection of traffic, but not other temporary facilities or indirect costs. Maintenance and protection of traffic will require a major effort during construction, particularly if Columbia Pike is to remain open during construction. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 32

42 Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: An allowance is provided for maintenance of traffic. An allowance of approximately 3% of construction cost is included for contractor mobilization. Risks: Construction staging / laydown parcel may become entangled with land transfer deal with federal government. Recommendations: None at this time. SCC 50 Systems Elements SCC Description Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. 50 Systems $26,857 $2,686 $29,543 $32,834 Note: All values in $ thousands Train Control and Signals (SCC 50.01) Scope: Currently, there is no signaling or powered track switches on the line. All switch operation is planned to be hand-throw operation. Hand-throw is a time consuming operation that could result in operating delays. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: There was no cost included for train control or powered switches. The PMOC has made an addition to the cost estimate of $1.4 million. Risk There is a risk that hand-throw switch operation is inadequate and could adversely affect operations. Recommendation: The project should utilize powered track switches operated by an on-board remote control device. Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection (SCC 50.02) Scope: The scope consists of the following: New traffic signals and controllers (8) Add streetcar signal to existing signal (2) Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 33

43 Modify existing controller (2) Modify traffic signals to accommodate catenary system (47) Traffic signs and roadway striping entire route Schedule: Work not specifically identified on schedule. There should be no schedule concerns with this work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: An allowance of $650 per signal is used for modifying the traffic signals to accommodate the catenary system. In our opinion, the cost is too low and a cost of $1,000 per location should be used. Risks: Crossing Leesburg Pike (Route 7) - risk associated with traffic operations issues. Greenbrier Stop - traffic operations analysis required, additional traffic signal may be needed. The cost of modifying existing traffic signal cantilevers may be underestimated. Recommendations: Increase the estimate for modifying the existing traffic signals to accommodate the catenary system. Traction power supply: substations (SCC 50.03) Scope: The streetcar system is planned to be powered by an overhead contact system (OCS) rated 750 volts dc. The plan provides for four TPSSs along the right-of-way, each rated 1 MW (mega-watt), and one substation in the shop rated 0.5MW. The utility company, Dominion Power, will supply high voltage power to each substation site. It is not clear from the documents how the substation sites were chosen. There are a number of locations where the alignment is on severe grades (up to 7%) and this will affect the traction power system. A traction power simulation was performed, but it did not include an analysis of vehicle bunching. An updated power simulation study should be performed that includes an analysis of vehicle bunching and other operational situations to determine the best substation locations. The project team indicated that one or more substations might be located below grade. Water penetration has been a serious problem at below grade stations due to the conduits that run from the substation to the field. The project should locate all substations at grade to save costs and reduce the potential for flooding. The design includes a decorative enclosure for the substation (typically brick façade) to meet the aesthetic needs of the community. Schedule: The project schedule does not show traction power substation work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The unit price for a 1.0 MW TPSS is $2 million, which is at the higher end of the range. This higher cost is appropriate because the substation is planned to be below grade, which adds a significant cost. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 34

44 There is no cost for supplying electrical utility service to the substations. The cost allowance for the 0.5 MW TPSS at the Shop appears to be too low. An allowance of $750,000 should be used. Risks: There is a risk that future power simulation studies could show that additional substations or substation equipment may be required to meet all contingency requirements. There is a risk that a below grade substations could be subject to water penetration. There is a risk that the cost of the Shop substation is too low. Location of traction power substations is not determined which may have ROW, systems design, and zoning/permitting risks. Recommendations: Perform an updated power simulation study, including contingency analysis, to determine if the TPSS design is adequate and the substations are properly located. Build all substations at grade to eliminate the risk of flooding and reduce costs. Add the cost of supplying electrical service to the substation sites to the project estimate. Increase the cost of the Shop substation by $250,000. Traction Power Supply: Catenary and Third Rail (SCC 50.04) Scope: Power will be supplied to the streetcars via a 750 volt dc OCS consisting of poles, foundations, a constant tension single wire system and ancillary equipment including insulators, hangers, and rail cross-bonds. There is approximately 40,000 route feet of single guideway catenary and 6,000 feet of double guideway catenary. Included in this cost category is an underground duct bank with three 4-inch conduits and power feeder and negative return cables. Schedule: The project schedule does not show traction power supply and distribution work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The estimate uses $330 per foot for single guideway design and $440 per foot for double guideway design. The cost includes the cost for an underground ductbank, power and negative return cables. The estimate is at the higher end of the range of costs and is acceptable for this stage of the project. Risks: The OCS design may not be aesthetically acceptable to the community. Recommendations: None Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 35

45 Communications (SCC 50.05) Scope: The project assumes that the system will utilize the Arlington County fiber optic communications network being installed on Columbia Pike and allows for 150-foot extension to the station sites to connect to the fare collection equipment, emergency phones, and the message board, and for an extension into South Jefferson Street. The network will also be used for radio communications between the control center and the vehicles. A total of 3,700 feet of fiber cable is planned. The scope indicates that a message board will be installed at the seven stops not included in the Super Stop project. There is no public address system included in the scope of work. Schedule: The project schedule does not show communications work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: There are no costs in the project estimate for a two-way radio communication system. Add $200,000 to the estimate for base stations, modifying field installations, and for procuring radios for supervisors and maintenance staff. The costs for communications equipment at station locations is in the stations portion of the estimate (SCC 20). That estimate does not have any costs allocated for emergency phone communications. The estimate for procurement and installation of a message board is $7,500 per location. It is our opinion that this cost is too low and that a cost of $25,000 per location is more appropriate. This will add about $100,000 to the estimate for the locations that will need message boards as part of this project. Risks: The costs for the communications could increase significantly if the Arlington County fiber optic network is not available for the project. The communications estimate is too low based on the omission of a radio system, emergency telephones and the low unit cost of the message boards. Recommendations: Update the communications cost estimate to include the cost of a radio system and emergency telephones and increase the unit costs of the message boards. Fare Collection Systems and Equipment (SCC 50.06) Scope: The fare payment system is based on an off-vehicle proof of payment system. The project assumes that two fare machines will be located at each platform and that they will be simple single paper ticket dispenser. In addition, there would be an on-board validator. The design documents do not discuss multi-ride options including weekly, monthly, or other fare options that may be considered. In addition, there is no consideration of transfers to other systems. In our opinion, the current fare collection design is too simplistic; it will most likely require multi-trip fares and transfers to other systems. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 36

46 Schedule: The project schedule does not show fare collection work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The cost of the fare collection is in the station estimate (SCC 20) and should be assigned to this SCC code. The project estimate uses a unit cost of $4,000 for procurement and installation of one ticket vending machine, or $8,000 per platform. Recent proposals for similar ticket vending machines of the type proposed for CPS are roughly $23,000 installed. This has increased the cost for fare collection by $1.2 million. There are no costs in the estimate for on-board validators. There are no costs in the estimate for back-office support equipment. Risks: The cost estimate for fare collection appears to be too low. Recommendations: Revise the cost estimate for fare collection. Central Control (SCC 50.07) Scope: The Maintenance Building includes a control center room with a dispatcher s desk, a computer system, monitors and a radio system for communicating with streetcar operators. There is no control of any track switches, nor is there any monitoring or control of traction power substations. In addition, it is not clear in the design documents if there is a GPS-based vehicle monitoring system in the control center. In the PMOC s opinion, there should be some level of monitoring and control for the traction power substations and a vehicle location monitoring system should be included. Schedule: The project schedule does not show installation of the control center. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The cost of the control center is in the Shop estimate (SCC 30). The project budget has an allowance of $200,000 for the control center. In the PMOC s opinion, this estimate is too low. (Add $800,000 allowance). Risks: The cost estimate for the control center is too low and should include monitoring and control of the traction power substations in the project scope. Recommendations: Add monitoring and control of the traction power substations to the project scope. Include a GPS-based vehicle location monitoring system. Update the estimate for the control center. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 37

47 Review of Procurement Items SCC 60 ROW, Land and Existing Improvements SCC Description 60 Right-of-Way (ROW), Land, Existing Improvements Note: All values in $ thousands Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. $10,797 $1,620 $12,417 $13,177 Scope: The construction of this project will require real estate acquisition of several parcels. The project intends to acquire property for the maintenance facility in Pentagon City area, traction power substation sites along the streetcar corridor and for a bus transfer center in the Bailey s Crossroad Shopping Center along South Jefferson Street. The real estate along the corridor for widening of Columbia Pike and utility relocations is part of another Arlington County project the Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements Project with limits from South Joyce Street to South Jefferson Street. Furthermore, another Arlington County project the Columbia Pike Super Stops Project is upgrading numerous bus stops along the Columbia Pike corridor. The scope of this project will include the real estate acquisition for the 24 Super Stops (12 pairs) that will serve as future streetcar stops. Schedule: The project schedule does not show real estate acquisition activities. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The project has identified three parcels required for the maintenance facility two owned by Vornado and the other by Verizon. Arlington County intends a land swap with Vornado at no cost. The parcel owned by Verizon has an appraised value of $7.417 million (Base Year). The project will acquire parcels for the four traction power substations along the corridor. The recent detailed cost estimate indicates a $4.37 million (Base Year) cost estimate. At the west terminus, real estate acquisition is required but not identified for the bus transfer center in the Bailey s Crossroad Shopping Center. The estimate includes a Base Year cost of $629,050. The contingency utilized for real estate is 15%. Risks: The potential for additional real estate parcels is a cost risk. The coordination with two other major projects that if not advanced or completed can substantially increase the cost and affect the schedule. The contingency for real estate is low. The project does not anticipate any business or residential relocations, but if required this will have a cost and schedule impact. Walter Reed westbound stop: ROW issues for Super Stop. Insufficient information regarding activity durations for tasks such as appraisal, appraisal review, acquisition, relocation, closing, condemnation, etc. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 38

48 ROW properties associated with the TPSSs may have unique zoning or ordinance requirements. The cost estimate provides insufficient detail and cannot be effectively reviewed for content or methodology used. Acquisition of ROW properties may cost more and take longer than expected. Potential for realignment of Columbia Pike between Air Force Memorial and South Joyce Street. Affects streetcar alignment location and length. ROW for shop and yard may become available. County ROW group is not knowledgeable concerning Federal real estate statutes. Real Estate Cost Methodology is not complete. Recommendations: Develop a Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan in accordance with FTA requirements. Provide a matrix of all potential parcels and conduct an appraisal. Include acquisition support costs and contingencies in the cost estimate for real estate acquisition. SCC 70 Vehicles SCC Description Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. 70 Vehicles $49,140 $2,457 $51,597 $58,525 Note: All values in $ thousands Light Rail Vehicles (SCC 70.01) Scope: The vehicle contemplated for use on this line is similar to the vehicle used by the Portland Streetcar and the District of Columbia streetcar. This design was developed by Skoda in the Czech Republic and is licensed to United Streetcar of Portland, Oregon. There are other manufacturers in the streetcar market in the United States. One issue discussed at the workshop was the effect of setting the design criteria both for the vehicle and for civil construction. The impact of specifying vehicle type and size using a 20- meter vehicle such as the design discussed above may limit the current and future options for streetcar operations. Several vehicle designs that might be considered are 24 meters in length. If the design criteria specifies a slightly longer vehicle, the track alignment and shop design will provide adequate clearances for a wider variety of streetcar manufacturers. CPS has estimated the current cost of a streetcar at $3.6 million each. As a comparison, Portland ordered six streetcars in 2009 at a contract value of $20 million 1, a unit price of $3.33 million. The CPS estimate was escalated by 13.4% representing 4.25 years of escalation; however, the procurement will need to be made earlier than that timeframe and so the estimated escalation 1 Joint Media Release-City of Portland/Oregon Iron Works, Inc. /./United Streetcar, LLC., August 14, Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 39

49 would be less. However, until the contract is awarded, there should be additional contingency maintained to protect against market price fluctuations. It is not clear that the CPS project is budgeted for consultant support and inspection for the procurement of these vehicles. An allowance of 2% to 6% of the cost of the vehicles should be added to the base vehicle cost. Schedule: Given the size and capacity of the manufacturers of these vehicle and given the need to have vehicles available for system testing, the delivery of the first vehicles should be scheduled for at least 12 months and preferably 18 months before the targeted start of revenue service. This is suggested to allow for a less aggressive vehicle production rate and to prevent rail vehicle delivery from becoming the project critical path. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The cost for vehicles is supported by recent procurements. However, the cost should be escalated to the award of the contract and not to mid-point of construction. An allowance for engineering and inspection support for vehicle procurement does not appear to have been included. The project estimate includes an allocated contingency of 5% for vehicle procurement, which may be understated until the vehicle procurement contract is awarded. Risks: The procurement cost of the vehicles may exceed the estimate with the currently allocated contingency. Potential for excessive grades along Columbia Pike and Jefferson Street - risks associated with design criteria and vehicle performance. There is a risk that the number of vehicles is inadequate to provide reliable service. Recommendations: Revise the cost estimate to include engineering and inspection support for the vehicle procurement. Until contract award, additional contingency should be maintained for market price fluctuations. Design criteria should accommodate a wider variety of streetcar designs. Other vehicles (SCC 70.06) Scope: This item is used for non-revenue vehicles to support maintenance of the line, such as utility trucks and bucket trucks. If the line will be operated by an outside contractor, then the provision of maintenance vehicles could be included in the operating contract. However, if Arlington County or another government agency will operate and maintain the line, these vehicles will be needed. Schedule: No schedule impact. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 40

50 Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The detailed estimate backup indicated that there was no scope provided for this line item. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Spare Parts (SCC 70.07) Scope: This section covers spare parts for the rail vehicles. Given the small fleet, an allowance of 5% to 10% is reasonable. CPS is estimating this line item at 5% of the fleet value. Schedule: No schedule impact Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: The allowance for vehicle spare parts is 5% with an allocated contingency of 5%. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Other Project Costs SCC 80 Professional Services SCC Description Direct Cost Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Baseline Cost Est. 80 Professional Services $31,821 $0 $31,821 $35,016 Note: All values in $ thousands SCC Professional Services Scope: The current project estimate includes 3% of the current estimate for Preliminary Engineering. With the need to complete NEPA support during Preliminary Engineering, this percentage is likely to be low. The need for an allowance up to 6% of construction cost is more likely needed for Preliminary Engineering, especially so if alternative project delivery methods are used. There needs to be a separate estimate for Project Management and Construction Management. Project Management is estimated from the staffing plans in the PMP. Construction Management for a project of this magnitude will likely be a third party contract. SCC should be reserved for this contract. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 41

51 The estimate for line item SCC indicates 3% for systems testing. This allowance needs to be included under the SCC 50 line items. However, there does need to be an allowance for pre-revenue operational training; an allowance has been added as a PMOC adjustment. Cost: The following percentages of construction (before contingency) were derived from SCC 80 line items: Preliminary Engineering 3% Final Design 8% Project Mgmt. for Design/Construction 13% Construction Admin. & Management Included with Insurance 4% Legal, permits; review fees by others 1% Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 1% Start-Up / Agency Force Account Work 3% Risks: The risks presented in this section include a restatement of the programmatic risks included in prior sections of this report: The Preliminary Engineering percentage is set at 3%. PE costs can sometimes be as high as 6% and this percentage may be more reasonable. There is a risk of delay, disputes, and claims if qualified and experienced construction staff is not on board during the preliminary design phase to offer constructability review comments on the design. Project delivery method Risk associated with the potential need to respond to unsolicited proposals under the Public-Private Transportation Act. Delays in obtaining approvals at key milestones. All third party agreements have not been identified, which may affect project cost and schedule. Obtaining agreements with government agencies, such as DOD, may affect the schedule. The PMP needs to be completed in the area of Design Organization, Procurement, Contract Administration, Cost Control, Project Documentation, Quality Assurance, Design and Engineering Management, and Safety and Security Management. An experienced streetcar operator needs to be retained to provide input to design requirements and concepts as they relate to the operation of the completed system. Because of Capital Program Manager s dual roles on the project (Quality Assurance and Project Administration) and other non-project responsibilities, there is a risk of insufficient attention to each CPS project role. Staffing may be inadequate in the engineering and finance area, which may affect cost and schedule. The decision on governance of the CPS project, and planned Crystal City and Leesburg Pike projects may affect the schedule for design and construction of the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project. The Project may stall due to an inability of the political leaders of both Arlington and Fairfax Counties to align their priorities. There is a risk of compromised decision making with regard to safety and security due to the reporting relationships shown in Figure 7 Project Team Detail in Rev 2 of the PMP. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 42

52 There is a risk that budget may not be adequate for a project that may take longer than currently envisioned. There is a risk that project schedule development and management may not get adequate emphasis. Because the County lacks its own employees with FTA related quality experience, there is a risk of inadequate emphasis, approach, and attention to the details necessary for an effective quality program. There is a risk of delay if timely decisions are not made on whether to use Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build. There is a risk of delay, disputes, and claims if qualified and experienced construction staff is not on board during the preliminary design phase to offer constructability review comments on the design. There is a risk of delay and cost growth if the challenges of coordination with other parties and completing adjacent work are not appropriately managed. Recommendations: The percentage basis for SCC Preliminary Design should be increased in the cost estimate. SCC Start-Up / Agency Force Account Work Scope: There is no description of Start-Up in the project scope. Schedule: No start-up schedule developed at this time. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: There is a 3% allowance for system testing shown in the estimate. These costs should be moved to the SCC 50 section. An allowance of $300,000 should be included for start-up after system acceptance but before revenue operation. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 43

53 Project Cost Review Review and Analysis of Project Cost The PMOC reviewed the cost estimate documentation supplied by the Grantee. Cost estimate provided divides the estimate into three cost centers; Mainline (4.7 route-miles), S2 Skyline Segment (1,035 route-feet) and Pentagon City Segment (125 route-feet). Review and Analysis of Project Cost Estimate The PMOC reviewed the Grantee s estimate of project cost to determine if it is (1) mechanically correct and complete, (2) free of any material inaccuracies or incomplete data, (3) consistent with relevant, identifiable industry or engineering practices, (4) uniformly applied by the Grantee s cost estimators and consistent in its method of calculation and (5) consistent with the project scope adopted in the LPA. The Grantee s estimate format diverges from the official Standard Cost Categories at the secondary summary level. The PMOC reviewed grantee cost data and assessed the degree to which the definition of project scope (inclusive of construction work quantities) in material design deliverables correspond to the quantity data contained or implied in the grantee cost data. The PMOC reviewed the estimate unit costs that the Grantee Estimate Report indicated as having been developed as follows: The majority of composite unit costs used for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative capital cost estimates are developed based on a bottom up approach. In this approach, the cost of major work elements, as generally defined by typical sections, is determined by totaling the cost of their component parts on a per unit basis. Sufficient engineering data is required to define the scope of work and quantities represented by each typical section. Unit prices are developed and combined with the estimated quantities to determine the costs for each major category of work. Bottom up: The advantage of this approach is the ability to adjust costs for minor changes of scope, as well as the higher confidence level inherent in a bottom up estimate. The disadvantage is that at the conceptual level of planning, the level of engineering detail available is typically not sufficient to warrant itemizing each feature to the degree desirable for a complete bottom up estimate. In general, this approach was used here for the following cost categories: guideway, maintenance facilities, systems, and right of way. Top down: In this method, an order-of-magnitude cost is determined, usually derived from data from similar projects, and this cost is used directly, as a percentage of the overall construction project, or converted to some unit of measure (such as route feet) and applied as a unit cost. This method is faster than the bottom up approach; and for conceptual planning purposes, it can be sufficiently accurate. The disadvantage is that site-specific elements of the source project are not identical to elements of the alternative being evaluated. A greater emphasis was placed on the top down approach to estimate costs for the following categories: stations, site work and special conditions, vehicles, and soft costs. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 44

54 Cost estimates prepared for this project included a blend of bottom-up and top-down approaches, making the best use of available unit cost data and data from completed projects. The Grantee did not follow the guidelines with regard to allocating costs to the SCC categories. As a result, the breakdown of costs between categories is not accurate and the PMOC advised the Grantee to revise the format of the project cost estimate. Accuracy of Cost Estimates The estimating methods described above represent professionally accepted standards for preparing capital cost estimates to a level of accuracy that is consistent with the level of project definition. Accuracy is traditionally expressed as a +/- percentage range around the point estimate that has been produced and is greatest in the early stage of project definition and progressively decreases as project definition increases. For example, for typical transportation projects, the expected accuracy range of an estimate prepared from final design documents is approximately +10/-5 percent. For projects at the General Plan stage (15 percent plus design), which is generally accepted to be at the point where the majority of major construction items can be quantified, the accuracy range could be expected to be about +20/-15 percent. The cost estimates summarized as part of this memorandum are based on a level of design detail appropriate to the Alternatives Analysis-Environmental Assessment phase of FTA New Starts/Small Starts project development--prior to Preliminary Engineering. One of the primary techniques used to address uncertainties inherent in the estimating process at this stage is the application of appropriate design allowances or contingencies. As a project progresses through subsequent phases, the level of detail in the design will increase and the design allowances will decrease proportionally. The estimate was provided by the Grantee in the form of an Excel workbook that included the calculation and pricing of the scope as described in the Capital Cost Estimate Memorandum dated March 26, As the project is still in the planning phase, detailed drawings are not yet developed and the cost estimate includes only high-level quantities and pricing. No quantity or pricing calculations are available. The lack of traceability of the cost estimate is a cause of concern, but the major quantities are verifiable. Quality and mathematical checks for accuracy and traceability were performed on the Project Cost Estimate. Individual line items were checked and summed to confirm the title level subtotals. PMOC found some minor errors in calculations that appear to be due to rounding up. This is not uncommon when creating estimates with a spreadsheet. The Grantee s estimate backup tracks the rounding of quantities to the appropriate number of significant figures. The computed subtotals were generally accurate. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 45

55 Grantee Baseline Cost Estimate Table 2 shows the Columbia Pike Streetcar project cost data as presented in the most recent submission. Table 2 Summary of Grantee s Project Cost Estimate SCC Description Direct Cost* Allocated Contingency 2012 Base Year Cost Grantee Baseline Cost Est. Guideway and Track Elements $34,762 $2,392 $37,154 $41, Stations $5,256 $547 $5,803 $6, Support Facilities Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings $13,402 $996 $14,398 $16, Sitework and Special Conditions $14,756 $1,900 $16,656 $18, Systems $26,857 $2,686 $29,543 $32,834 Total Construction Cost $95,033 $8,520 $103,553 $115, ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $10,797 $1,620 $12,417 $13, Vehicles $49,140 $2,457 $51,597 $58, Professional Services $31,821 $0 $31,821 $35,016 Subtotal Project Cost $186,791 $12,597 $199,388 $221, Unallocated Contingency $21,626 $24, Finance Cost $0 $0 Total Project Cost $221,014 $245,949 Note: All values in $ thousands Baseline Cost Estimate in $YOE; Direct Costs and Allocated Contingency in 2012 Base Year costs. * The Grantee did not follow the guidelines with regard to allocating costs to the standard SCC categories. As a result, the breakdown of costs between categories is not accurate and the PMOC advised the Grantee to revise the format of the project cost estimate. Recommended Cost Adjustments Using this cost estimate as a base, the PMOC estimate includes cost additions found during its review but not incorporated into the project cost estimate. These modifications are shown in Table 3. The total amount of PMOC additions recognized at the November 8-9, 2012 workshop was a $27.3 million increase in Base Year Costs. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 46

56 SCC Code Description Table 3 Identification of PMOC Adjustments Cost Addition Comment Guideway: Aerial structure $500 Addition of column reinforcement and bracing - Four Mile Run Track: Embedded $2,500 Increase in cost of track slab construction Light Maintenance Facility $2,500 Building cost estimate Light Maintenance Facility $4,000 Equipment, car wash facility, wheel truing machine Light Maintenance Facility $250 Increase in cost of maintenance shop substation Yard and Yard Track $1,800 Additional track Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $2,000 Relocation of Verizon ducts at Pentagon City Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $1,000 Relocation of utilities along Columbia Pike Train control and signals $1,600 Power control of switches Communications $300 Additional communications equipment Fare collection system and $1,200 Increase in cost of fare collection equipment equipment Central Control $800 Increase in cost of control center Light Rail $2,800 Increment for larger vehicle (i.e. 24 meter length) Light Rail $3,600 One additional vehicle Spare parts $180 Spare parts allowance for additional vehicle Preliminary Engineering $2,000 Additional Preliminary Engineering Start up $300 Start-up costs -- training for operators and central control staff TOTAL $27,330 Note: All values are Base Year Costs in $ thousands Escalation The cost estimate provided for the workshop, Streetcar Project, Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate, dated October 16, 2012, used a constant escalation of 3.0% per year in its worksheet to generate the BCE. This rate of escalation is not adequate although it is consistent with inflationary indices maintained by the Engineering News Record (ENR) magazine. The average rise in ENR s Construction Cost Index and Building Cost Index has been 3.36% and 3.01%, respectively, for the past five years. Owners have experienced a favorable bidding environment during the recent economic downturn. However, as the economy accelerates, market conditions are expected to increase the rate of escalation that has been experienced in the near past. The PMOC recommends increasing the escalation to 4% per year. Risks: Inflation rates may be higher than projected. Bid risks, including cost and schedule delays. Buy-America for materials and equipment may increase project costs. Recommendation: Use a 4% escalation rate to calculate the BCE. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 47

57 Project Risk Identification Risk Register A preliminary Risk Register has been developed for the CPS project and provided to the PMOC. During the PMOC s review of project data, the project s Risk Register was updated and enhanced. For this report, the Risk Register was formatted in the FTA OP-40 recommended format and data from the existing Risk Register was entered into that format. Risks were added by the PMOC team during their review of the project data and after the workshop. After the workshop, the PMOC rated each risk item as to probability of occurrence, cost impact, and schedule impact using the criteria shown in Figure 4 as guidance. Similarly, the Grantee was asked to also rate the risk factors in the same manner. Consensus as to risk factors is recorded in the Risk Register included as Appendix B. Legend Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Very High (4) Significant (5) Probability < 10% 10%><25% 25%><50% 50%><75% >75% Cost < $250K $250K><$1M $1M><$3M $3M><$10M >$10M Schedule < 1 Mths 1><3 Mths 3><6 Mths 6><12 Mths >12 Mths Score <= >=19 Figure 4 Risk Rating Chart Risk and Contingency Assessment Cost Risk Assessment Methodology FTA has directed the use of the Modified Cost Range Analysis (MCRA) for estimation of the probable range of projects costs. This method uses the existing cost estimate as a base for calculation of the cost range for each of the first level SCC codes based on the level of overall development observed in project definition, completeness of project design, and the level of detail in the cost estimate. The analysis generally follows the method described in the AACE International Recommended Practice (RP) 17R-97 - Cost Estimate Classification System 2 and is calibrated to parameters derived from the TCRP G07 3 study. The project estimate is classified according to Figure 5, which is taken from AACE RP 17R-97 Table 1 Generic Cost Estimate Classification Matrix 4. 2 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R-97 Cost Estimate Classification System, revised November 29, Transit Cooperative Research Program Project G-07 Managing Capital Costs of Major Federally Funded Public Transportation, Final Report, November Page 2 of 7, AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R-97, November 29, Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 48

58 ESTIMATE CLASS Primary Characteristic MATURITY LEVEL OF PROJECT DEFINITION DELIVERABLES Expressed as % of complete definition Class 5 0% to 2% Class 4 1% to 15% Class 3 10% to 40% Class 2 30% to 75% Class 1 65% to 100% END USAGE Typical Purpose of estimate Screening or feasibility Concept study or feasibility Budget Authorization or control Control or bid/tender Check estimate or bid/tender Secondary Characteristic METHODOLOGY Typical estimating method Stochastic (factors and/or models) or judgment Primarily stochastic Mixed but primarily stochastic Primarily deterministic EXPECTED ACCURACY RANGE Typical +/- range relative to index of 1 (i.e. Class 1 estimate) 4 to 20 3 to 12 2 to 6 1 to 3 Deterministic 1 Figure 5 Generic Cost Estimate Classification Matrix Calculation of the estimated project cost and the estimated range of project costs using the MCRA Model is conducted in six steps: 1. Develop Adjusted Estimate 2. Assessment of Project Development by SCC 3. Recommended Contingency Levels by SCC 4. Conditioned Estimate 5. Application of Cost Ranges by SCC 6. Summarizing and reporting results of the MCRA Project Cost Risk Assessment Adjusted Cost Estimate An adjusted cost estimate is the initial condition of the estimate. The first step in the process is shown in Table 4. The project cost estimate shown in Table 2 provides the first level SCC code budget cost shown in Column A and expressed in YOE dollars. The budgeted allocated contingencies (at YOE) are shown in Column B. The project cost adjustments identified by the PMOC in Table 3, expressed in YOE, are shown in Column C. The Adjusted Estimated SCC estimate (D) is calculated as the Sponsor Estimate (A) less the Allocated Contingency (B) plus PMOC Adjustments (C). Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 49

59 All costs are in $ thousands. Development Level of the Cost Estimate Table 4 Calculation of Adjusted Estimate (A) (B) (C) (D) (A-B+C) Sponsor PMOC Sponsor YOE Contingency Adjustments Adjusted SCC Category Estimate (YOE) (YOE) Estimate 10 Guideway and Track Elements 41,293 2,658 3,334 41, Stations 6, , Support Facilities Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings 16,003 1,107 9,503 24, Sitework and Special Conditions 18,511 2,112 3,334 19, Systems 32,834 2,985 4,334 34, ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 13,177 1,719 11, Vehicles 58,525 2,787 7,464 63, Professional Services 35,016-2,531 37, Unallocated Contingency 24,140 24,140 Total 245,948 38,116 30, ,332 The second step is to characterize the development level of the cost estimate as provided using the maturity of the project scope definition and the estimate methodology to classify the estimate according to AACE Cost Estimate Classification (Class 5 through Class 1). Table 5 shows the description of the Project Development Level and a comparison to the AACE Cost Estimate Classification. The PMOC is of the opinion that the cost estimate is at Class 5 or Class 4. Table 5 Project Development Level Development Level Level 1 Level 2 Development Milestone Conceptual / early Project Development Mid-stage Project Development Degree of Scope Development 0% to 15% 15% to 30% AACE Estimate Class Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 AACE Estimating Methodology Stochastic or judgment Primarily stochastic Mixed but primarily stochastic AACE Level of Project Definition 0% to 2% 1% to 15% 10% to 40% Level 3 Entry into Engineering ~60% Class 2 Primarily deterministic 30% to 75% Level 4 Ready to Bid ~90% Level 5 Start of Construction ~100% Class 1 Deterministic 65% to 100% Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 50

60 Project Development Level For the CPS project, the PMOC has characterized all of the SCC codes 10 through 60 as being at Level 1, which is Conceptual or Early Project Development with the exception of SCC 20 Stations, which is at Level 2 since the platforms will be the same as the Super Stops program. In the previous sections of this report there were numerous occasions where it was identified that the costs were incorrectly assigned to SCC codes. However, since all of these SCC codes are taken at roughly the same level of development, this does not affect this analysis. Since an existing vehicle design has been identified and since the design criteria for the fixed plant will be set, as a minimum, to accommodate this vehicle, SCC 70 is assigned Level 3. SCC 80 is assigned Level 2 since project management costs are reasonably well known. Recommended Contingency and Conditioned Estimate The Recommended Contingency Percentage based on Development Level shown in Table 5. Table 6 Recommended Contingency and Range Factor by Development Level Development Level Development Milestone Recommended Contingency Level 1 Concept / early Project Development 30+% >0.45 Level 2 Mid-stage Project Development 30% 0.45 Level 3 Entry into Engineering 20% 0.33 Level 4 Ready to Bid 15% 0.25 Level 5 Start of Construction / In Construction Recommended Range Factor 10% 0.18 In Table 7 the Development Level is noted in column (E). For Level 1 the PMOC is of the opinion that a Recommended Contingency of 35% and a Range Factor of 0.54 are appropriate. The Conditioned Estimate is calculated using the Adjusted Estimated SCC estimate (D) multiplied by the Recommended Contingency Percentage (F) to calculate the Factored Contingency (G). The sum of the Factored Contingency values for each SCC is the Recommended Contingency for this project, which is $71.8 million. The Factored Contingency value (G) plus the Adjusted SCC estimate (D) is the Conditioned Estimate (H) for each first level SCC code. The sum of the Conditioned Estimate line items is the project Conditioned Estimate of $310.1 million. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 51

61 Table 7 Calculation of Conditioned Estimate (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (A-B+C) (D*F) (D+G) FTA Adjusted Development Recommended Factored Conditioned SCC Category Estimate Level Contingency % Contingency Estimate 10 Guideway and Track Elements 41, % 14,689 56, Stations 5, % 1,752 7, Support Facilities Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings 24, % 8,540 32, Sitework and Special Conditions 19, % 6,907 26, Systems 34, % 11,964 46, ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 11, % 4,010 15, Vehicles 63, % 12,640 75, Professional Services 37, % 11,264 48, Unallocated Contingency Total 238,332 71, ,099 Reviewing the results leading to the Conditioned Estimate, the original Grantee contingency was $38.1 million, which was 18.3% of the Grantee BCE without contingency, or $207.8 million. The PMOC addition of $30.5 million is 14.7% of the same $207.8 million. The Adjusted Estimate is $207.8 million plus the PMOC addition, a total of $238.3 million. Using this higher basis with the recommended contingencies from Table 6 results in a contingency recommendation of $71.8 million, which is 30.1% of the Adjusted Estimate. Potential Project Cost Range The Recommended Range Factor corresponding to the Development Level of the first level SCC code (see Table 6) is used to calculate the possible range of project costs. As shown in Table 8, the Conditioned Estimate (H) is multiplied by the Recommended Range Factor (I) to determine the estimated possible Cost Range (J) for this first level SCC line item. The Cost Range represents the total estimated range of cost from the low end to the high end of possible costs. The Total Cost Range for this project is $146.5 million. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 52

62 Table 8 Calculation of Project Cost Range Distribution of the Potential Project Cost Range The lower and upper end of the likely range of project cost is established by first level SCC using the Conditioned Estimate and the Cost Range (see Table 9). The low end of the likely range for a first level SCC line item is 37% of the Cost Range subtracted from the Conditioned Estimate. The upper end of the likely range for a first level SCC line item is 63% of the Cost Range added to the Conditioned Estimate. The sum of the calculated Low End values (K) for the SCC line items is the Low End of the Project Cost Range. Similarly, the sum of the calculated High End values (L) for the SCC line items is the High End of the project Cost Range. Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 53