TO:

THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE
ROGER S. MOLIERE
CHIEF, REAL PROPE
DEVELOPMENT
One Gateway Plaza
Los An geles, CA 90012. 2 952
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
213.922.2000 Tel
metro. net
July1,2011
In response to a motion made by Director Najarian at the December Board
meeting staff, at the February 24, 2011 Board meeting, presented a report
outlining preliminary costing information for the SR-71 0 North gap project.
Discussion of the report at the February meeting generated some further
questions from Board members concerning the basis of cost assumptions. These
questions are discussed herein.
BACKGROUND
At the February Board meeting, an initial Interim Draft Report ("Preliminary
Report") concerning the SR 710 North gap project cost analysis was presented in
response Director Najarian's December motion. The Preliminary Report
contained a comparative cost analysis of a nominal tunnel option for the
SR-710 North Gap project based upon independent cost estimates and an
analysis of comparable tunnel construction costs of a tunnel which will utilize
design and technology similar to that which could be used for the proposed SR-
710 North Gap project.
The Preliminary Report findings validated the updated cost estimates for the SR-
710 North Gap tunnel calculated for earlier strategic assessment work
undertaken by staff and by our public private partnership ("PPP") consultants.
Staff and our consultant team has since completed a final version of the this
report ("Final Report") which substantiates the initial findings and indicate that the
presented costs are reflective of current market pricing. The Final Report
contains further details relating to the specific bases of the concept design,
project description phasing and assumptions as well as a detailed breakdown of
the comparative cost analysis. A copy of the Final Report is attached,
As noted in both reports, the recent actual bids received for the generally-similar
Alaska Way Tunnel in Seattle, WA confirm the viability of the per-mile
construction cost estimates we are using for the preliminary engineering and
environmental work on the proposed tunnel alternative.
In response to the questions raised at the February Board meeting, and to
provide a more complete picture of the potential SR-71 0 North tunnel costs, our
PPP consultant team also prepared conceptual deSigns and cost estimates for
the north and south tunnel portals and added detailed cost assumptions for a
separate ventilation tunnel and seismic treatment at the Raymond fault. At this
stage of project development, the best estimate of total project cost utilizing
nominal assumptions for a dual-bore 7.96 mile tunnel is that total cost will fall
between $2.7 billion and $3.5 billion, with the most likely cost being $3.25 billion.
Discussion of the preliminary cost report at the February 2011 meeting generated
some further questions from Board members concerning the basis of cost
assumptions as well as questions related to other tunnel construction projects.
Those questions and the responses prepared by staff and our PPP consultant
team are as follows:
Question 1: Why didn't you consider total costs ofthe project, including
mechanical, electrical, plumbing, lighting, etc.?
Answer: The construction costs shown in Table 1 of the Final Report include all
of those costs. It is the total projected construction cost. The total project cost
shown in Table 1 includes total capital construction cost plus agency engineering
costs, agency management costs, an allowance for right-of-way, insurance, and
contingency.
Question 2: What is the per mile cost for the tunnel and for the project as a
whole?
Answer: Table 1 of the Final Report shows underground cost per mile ($349
million/mile) and Appendix A of the Final Report shows the Overall cost per mile -
($455 million/mile for a single bore tunnel and $420 million/mile for dual bore -
total $840 million/mile for the dual bore suggested configuration).
Question 3: How do these costs per mile compare to the Boston Central Artery,
to the WMATA transit tunnels in Washington DC and to the BART tunnels?
Answer: These are substantially different projects and a comparison of costs is
difficult to do in a meaningful manner. The Central Artery in Boston was a
complex project that not only included a cut-and-cover tunnel, with immense
environmental mitigation costs, but it also included a submersed tube tunnel, a
high level signature bridge and significant project components outside of the
tunnels. It was a design-bid-build project with the public agency retaining most of
the risks of both cost overruns and time of delivery. As such it is a very different
project model from PPP based construction. The other referenced transit tunnels
were much smaller diameter tunnels than that contemplated for SR-71 0 North
and were also delivered by design-bid-build.
It is important to note the Alaska Way Tunnel in Seattle which was used for
comparative purposes to verify our cost estimates is the only tunnel in the U.S.
that is a large diameter tunnel constructed with a tunnel boring machine and is
being delivered design-build with a similar PPP risk allocation as is being
considered for SR-71 0 North Gap project. Following are the comparisons on a
per mile basis for these three projects:
SR710N Base Boston Central BART Warm SQrings WMATA Metro
Alternative, 2011 ~ ' s : Arter'L, 2007 ~ ' s Extension {1969-2001 ~ ' s l
Total Cost Esti mate $3.244B $14.8B $890M $8.8B
Overall project length
8 miles (two tunnels- 8 miles (5 miles in 5.4 miles (most but 103 miles (most but
4 miles long each) tunnel) notall in tunnel) not all in tunnel)
Total lane miles 32 161 2 tracks 2 tracks (typically)
Overall cost per mile
$840M $1.85B $165M $85.4M
project length
Overall cost per lane mile
$100M $91.9M $82.5M $42.7M
ortrackmile
Question 4: What is the cost if a different alignment is chosen? What if it is a
28,000' tunnel instead of a 21,000' tunnel?
Answer: Table 4 of the Final Report shows the cost of each of the five zonal
alignment alternatives. The Zone 2 alignment is 27,500' and, at an underground
cost of $325 million/mile, is estimated at a total project cost of $4.27B compared
to $3.24B for the base (Zone 3) alternative at an underground cost of $331
million/mile.
NEXT STEPS
We are proceeding with the development of business cases for the six initial PPP
candidate projects, including the SR-71 0 North Gap project. The information
compiled for this cost analYSis will be beneficial to this next phase of work, which
we expect to be completed by the end of this summer.
This Report will be released to the public, our stakeholders and will be published
on our website, www.metro.net/ppp. We anticipate completing the Task 4A
business cases by mid- to late-2011, and will be returning to the Board with
recommendations. If appropriate, we will request authorization to proceed into a
procurement phase.
ATTACHMENT
Final Report: SR-710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Public-Private Partnership
Program
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis
March 29
th
, 2011
Prepared by
INFRACONSULT LLC
Consultants
Englander & Associates
Sharon Greene & Associates
Halcrow, Inc.
KPMG LLP
Nossaman UP
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Table of Contents
o. Introduction and Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 1
1. Comparative Analysis with Seattle's Alaska Way Tunnel ......................................................................... 1
1.1 Basis of Comparison ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Results of Comparative Analysis ......................................................................................................... 2
Table 1: Alaska Way Tunnel and SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Comparison ............................................ 3
2. Portal Configuration and Estimate Adjustment ........................................................................................ 3
Table 2: Cost Estimates Based on Conceptual Designs ........................................................................ 3
3. Range Estimate ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3: Reasonable Low, Best, and High Estimates ............................................................................ 5
4. Zonal Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................. 6
Table 4: SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone Comparison ...................................................... 6
5. Comparative Risk Assessment: SR 710 North to AWT ............................................................................. 7
Table 5: Risk Comparison between the SR 710 North and the Bids for AWT ....................................... 7
Appendices
Appendix A: Detailed Breakdown of Comparative Cost Analysis
Appendix B: Conceptual Portal Designs
Appendix C: SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone vs. Alaskan Way Cost Plan Summary
InfraConsult
ii
O. Introduction and Conclusions
This report is in response to Metro Task Order 4A-2(a} under Metro's Public-Private Partnership Advisory
Services contract with InfraConsult, LLC. The Report presents a summary of a cost assessment for the SR
710 North Tunnel, as defined in the Strategic Assessment Report prepared previously. The primary
conclusion to draw from this assessment is that the tunnel cost estimate for the representative SR 710
North alignment derived for the earlier strategic assessment work is reflective of current market pricing.
The actual bids received for a generally similar project confirm the per-mile construction cost that Metro
is using for its preliminary engineering and environmental work on the proposed tunnel.
It is very early in the planning and design process and clearly there are unknowns that could emerge as
the planning and design process progresses. But given this early stage of analysis, the most likely
construction cost (low bid price) for the Zone 3 alternative in 2011 dollars is $2.8B and can be
reasonably assumed to fall between $2.3B and $3.0B. In terms of total project costs, it can reasonably
be assumed that they will fall between $2.7B and $3.5B and most likely be $3.25B, in 2011 dollars.
1. Comparative Analysis with Seattle's Alaska Way Tunnel
In December 2010, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) opened bids on the
first large bore highway tunnel in North America using state-of-the-art tunnel boring machine (TBM)
technology. The Alaskan Way Tunnel (AWT) in downtown Seattle will be built using design and
technology similar to that proposed for the SR 710 North gap closure tunnel, should a tunnel be selected
by the Metro Board as the Locally Preferred Alternative during the environmental process. This section
of this report provides a summary comparison of the accepted bid price for the WSDOT tunnel to the
proposed SR 710 North tunnel as defined conceptually by Metro and the InfraConsult Team. It should be
noted that this comparative assessment has been prepared for the nominal tunnel alignment currently
under study for a potential public-private partnership {PPP} for the SR 710 North project. The results of
this study will represent a baseline with respect to the other alternatives that will be fully assessed in
the pending environmental and engineering work. Section 4 of this report applies the results of this cost
analysis to nominal alignments in the other four alternative zones to be studied in the pending
environmental assessment work.
WSDOT received bids from ACS/Dragados and FCC, both major European contractors with large bore
tunneling experience, a relatively recent technological advance in underground civil works. The bid
prices were very close to one another, and both were below the WSDOT estimate. While ACS/Dragados'
price was slightly higher {about $10M out of $1.1B}, it was awarded the project on January 6, 2011
based on a comprehensive evaluation of best value. The contract is a design-build contract, with the
contractor assuming substantial design and construction risk. The transference of risk from the public
sector to the private sector is a key advantage of a design-build/PPP approach. This would also be the
case with the SR 710 North tunnel under a PPP project delivery approach (Section 5 of this report
presents a comparison of risk transference anticipated for the SR 710 North tunnel project under a PPP
approach with that in the WSDOT AWT contract). The WSDOT requirement for such risk transference
1
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
assured that competition was effectively limited to those contractors with previous experience
designing and constructing large bore tunnels and confident in their ability to meet the contractual and
performance criteria.
1.1 Basis of Comparison
While there are many similarities between the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the proposed SR 710 North
representative tunnel alignment, there are also key differences which must be taken into account in
undertaking a comparative cost assessment. The most obvious difference is tunnel length. The Seattle
tunnel is 9,500' long, while the proposed nominal SR 710 North tunnel alignment is 21,000' and
currently anticipated to be a dual bore tunnel, creating a total center-line length of 42,000'. While this
approach obviously increases the cost, it also provides for economies of scale, thus a reduction in the
cost per mile of tunnel. For example, the purchase and placement of the TBMs - a substantial fixed cost
- needs to be undertaken only once for each tunnel. Efficiencies also improve as tunneling progresses.
Other key differences are as follows:
The soils along the AWT tunnel alignment present a greater geotechnical challenge than the
soils in the vicinity of the SR 710 North tunnel.
The AWT alignment under downtown Seattle encounters numerous high rise buildings, as well
as a number of historic buildings of substantial footprint. Certain special mitigation actions were
therefore included in the AWT which are unlikely to be needed for SR 710 North. (One of the
AWT bids included $36M for these costs, while the other bid carried $138M for such mitigation,
as shown in Appendix A).
The ventilation requirements for the AWT are less substantial than for the SR 710 North tunnel,
owing to its shorter length. No interim vent stacks were necessary in Seattle, and horizontal
ventilation is contained within the bore itself. For SR 710 North, this is not the case. For the
purposes of this comparative analysis, the SR 710 North tunnel cost assessment incorporated
$90 million for a parallel small bore tunnel to accommodate horizontal ventilation and to serve
as a pilot bore and as an additional evacuation alternative.
Both tunnels are in seismically vulnerable areas. The SR 710 North tunnel alternative considered
here would dissect the Raymond Fault at nearly a perpendicular angle. While this is not
considered particularly problematic, for the purposes of this assessment $50M has been
included for special handling of the fault crossing.
The portals in Seattle must be newly constructed in dense urban areas. For SR 710 North, there
are stub freeway connections at both ends and the portal designs are relatively straight forward.
The portal configurations and likely costs are considered in more detail in Section 2 of this
report.
1.2 Results of Comparative Analysis
The primary conclusion to draw from this comparative analysis is that the tunnel cost estimate for the
representative SR 710 North alignment derived for the earlier strategic assessment work is reflective of
current market pricing. The actual bids received for a generally similar project confirm the per-mile
construction cost that Metro is using for its preliminary engineering and environmental work on the
I nfraConsu It
2
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
proposed tunnel. That is, the AWT tunnel construction cost, as bid, supports the value used in the earlier
analysis of $332M per tunnel mile for the costs of the underground construction, but now including the
$90M ventilation tunnel and the $50M seismic treatment at the Raymond fault. Also evaluated as part
of this costing analysis were an alternative to build only a single bore as a first phase of the total project
and building bores sequentially with a single tunnel boring machine (TBM) or simultaneously using two
TBMs. Table 1 shows the top level results of this analysis and a detailed spreadsheet with more specific
breakdowns is included with this report as Appendix A.
Table 1: Alaska Way Tunnel and SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Comparison
Underground Cost Total Construction Total Project
per Tunnel Mile Cost Cost
(million $/mile) (million $) (million $)
SR 710 North Tunnel
PB 2006 Estimate - 2,514 2,891
Task 3 Cost Estimate - 2,849 3,469
Current Estimate: Twin Bore - 2 TBMs 331 2,846 3,344
Current Estimate: Twin Bore - 1 TBM 321 2,761 3,244
Current Estimate: Single Bore 349 1,596 1,882
Alaska Way Tunnel
WSDOT Estimate 428 1,365 2,155
FCC Bid 350 1,198 1,878
Dragados Bid 309 1,200 1,880
2. Portal Configuration and Estimate Adjustment
The portal design for SR 710 North is much simpler that AWT. The alignment being considered for the
Zone 3 base case alternative ties into two stub freeways with no additional right of way required and
favorable vertical alignment. For this study, we have extended and modified the previous assumptions
with conceptual designs for both the north and south portals. The conceptual design retains the same
access to city streets as currently exists. We have also segregated the cost by Phase 1 (first bore) and
Phase 2 (second bore). These conceptual design drawings are included herewith as Appendix B. The
cost estimate developed based on these conceptual designs, including contingency is shown in Table 2
below.
Table 2: Cost Estimates Based on Conceptual Designs
South Portal North Portal Total
Phase 1 $68.2M $27.3M $95M
Phase 2 $42.9M $18.3M $61.2M
Total $111.1M $45.5M
Grand Total: $156.6M
I nfraConsu It
3
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
The concept design is specifically based on the following:
Description
Project Limits for South Portal: Hellman Avenue to Valley Road.
Project Limits for North Portal: Palmetto Drive to Del Mar Boulevard.
Phase 1
Construction of a single bored tunnel carrying 2 northbound (NBP1) and 2 southbound (SBP1)
lanes in a stacked configuration.
Includes construction of an off ramp from NBP1 to Valley Boulevard.
Includes on ramp from Valley Boulevard to SBPl.
Includes partial reconstruction of Valley Boulevard to allow for NBP1 and SBP1 underpass.
Includes an off ramp from NBP1 to Pasadena Avenue.
Includes an elevated on ramp from Del Mar Boulevard to SBPl.
It is assumed that existing access from 1-210 Foothill Freeway southbound to West California
Boulevard to remain as is.
Phase 2
Construction of a second single bored tunnel carrying 2 northbound (NBP2) and 2 southbound
(SBP2) lanes in a stacked configuration.
Includes partial reconstruction of on ramp from Valley Boulevard to SBP2.
Includes partial reconstruction of Valley Boulevard to allow for NBP2 and SBP2 underpass.
Includes partial reconstruction of on ramp from Del Mar Boulevard to SBP2.
It is assumed that existing access from 1-210 Foothill Freeway southbound to West California
Boulevard to remain as is.
Assumptions
The Cost Plan is based on Concept Engineering Design as shown in Appendix B.
The Cost Plan is based at 1
st
Quarter 2011 prices.
Drainage items are costed at 10% of Roadway Items 1 & 2.
Minor Items are costed at 15% of Roadway Items 1 to 5.
Mobilization is assumed to be 10% of Roadway Items 1 to 6.
Utility Relocations are costed at 10% of Roadway Items.
A Design Development/ Pricing Risk of 15% has been applied to the estimate.
A Risk/Contingency of 20% has been applied to the estimate.
Exclusions
The Cost Plan excludes:
All additional Taxes.
Table 2 does not include any costs associated with land or property purchase. It appears that
the portals can be constructed within existing right-of-way but $13M is included in the total
project cost estimate to cover any such need that does emerge (see Appendix A).
Any socio-environmental costs that may emerge.
I nfraConsu It
4
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Any 3
rd
Party costs that may emerge.
Project management and preliminary design costs are excluded from Table 2 but are covered in
the total project cost estimate (see Appendix A).
Price escalation and inflation beyond 1
st
Quarter 2011.
All Maintenance and Operational Costs.
No allowance has been made for any costs associated with Public Authorities.
All finance or funding costs are excluded.
3. Range Estimate
At this level of analysis it is necessary to consider a range of possibilities related to costs and physical
configurations. In determining the estimates presented in Sections 1 and 2 of this report we have
selected the most reasonable assumptions with respect to each of the several cost components. It can
be useful to assess the potential variability in these assumptions to place an upper and a lower bound
on the numbers and assess the possible margin of error. That is the purpose of this section.
In addition to the "Best Estimate" presented in Sections 1 and 2, we assessed a reasonable low cost or
best case estimate and a reasonable high cost estimate. The results of this analysis are shown in Table
3. The following can be concluded from this analysis:
The most likely construction cost (low bid price) in 2011 dollars is $2.8B, but can be
reasonably assumed to be between $2.3B and $3.0B.
In terms of total project costs, it can reasonably be assumed that they will fall between
$2.7B and $3.5B and most likely be $3.25B.
Table 3: Reasonable Low, Best, and High Estimates
SR 710 North Revised Dual Bore - 1 TBM
Item Description
Reasonable Low
Best Estimate
Reasonable High
Estimate Estimate
Millions, US$ Millions, US$ Millions, US$
Civils - Portals 122.4 156.0 156.0
Civils - Tunnels 2,059.0 2,413.5 2,495.1
TBM estimated fixed costs 55.0 85.0 85.0
Estimated Tunnel Variable costs: 2,004.0 2,328.5 2,410.1
f(length)
Civils - Tunnel Ventilation Structures 90.0 90.0 150.0
Civils - Special Treatment at Raymond 0 50.0 75.0
Fault
Toll Collection Systems 15.0 16.0 18.0
Socio-Environmental Works 4.0 5.0 6.0
Operational Control Centre / Building 25.0 28.0 60.0
Geological Surveys 1.8 2.0 2.2
Sub-total Construction Costs 2,317.2 2,760.5 2,962.3
Design Costs 69.5 82.8 88.9
Project Management Costs 23.2 27.6 29.6
Land Costs / Right of Way 0 13.0 18.0
Total Project Base Costs 2,409.9 2,883.9 3,098.8
I nfraConsu It
5
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Insurance 60.2 72.1 77.5
Risk I Contingency 241.0 288.4 309.9
Total Project Costs 2,711.1 3,244.4 3,486.2
4. Zonal Cost Estimates
The initial cost estimate developed for the "nominal" project, known as the Zone 3 generic alternative,
was used to develop conceptual cost estimates for Zones 1, 2, 4, and 5. A number of construction
components with fixed costs were held constant: cost of 2 TBMs and 2 portals, allocation for special
seismic treatments, the cost of toll collections systems, an operational control center, and land
costs/right-of-way. Variable costs primarily related to the length of the tunnel and/or geologic
conditions varied between the zones: tunnel civil work costs, tunnel construction, ventilation structures,
design costs, and project management costs.
Overall Project Costs varied from $3.4 billion for the generic alternative in Zone 3 to a high of $7.8 billion
for the longest generic alternative in Zone 5. Construction costs varied from $2.8 billion to $6.6 billion.
Longer alternatives in Zones 4 and 5 had the highest overall costs. Appendix C contains a spreadsheet
with a more detailed breakdown of the costs.
Table 4: SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone Comparison
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone4 Zone 5
Generic Generic Generic Generic Generic
Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt
Overall Length
10.80 10.42 7.96 12.88 20.45
(miles)
Underground Cost per mile
$324 $325 $331 $321 $315
(mi"ion $/mile)
Total Construction Costs
$3,752 $3,637 $2,847 $4,386 $6,689
(million $)
Total Project Costs
$4,404 $4,270 $3,345 $5,146 $7,840
(mi"ion $)
As a part of this study, the IC team reviewed the materials available on the geotechnical data for all the
zones, primarily the CH2M Hill 2009 geotechnical report "Route 710 Tunnel Technical Feasibility
Assessment." Our conclusion is that at this level of detail the cost per mile will not significantly vary
based on geotechnical considerations. There is not much difference from one zone to the other for the
tunnel itself based on the level of available design, geology and constructability/feasibility assumptions.
Geologically speaking, there are comparable fault crossings in the various zones. The number of borings
and geophysics did not provide any significant discriminators among the zonal alignments with respect
to assignment of additional cost contributors.
InfraConsult
6
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
5. Comparative Risk Assessment: SR 710 North to AWT
The purpose of this section is to compare the current SR 710 North risk register prepared in the strategic
assessment phase of this study with the recently submitted proposals for the WSDOT Alaskan Way
Tunnel. Both bidders for the AWT (Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP), the Dragados team, and Seattle
Tunneling Group (STG), the FCC team) submitted risk registers as part of their technical proposals. The
risk registers are prepared from the perspective of the bidding parties and primarily identify and assess
the technical risks associated with the construction contract.
As part of this task, we have reviewed both STP's and STG's risk registers in direct comparison with the
risk register prepared previously as part of the strategic assessment phase (Task 3) of the P3 Analysis
contract.
It should be noted that while it is possible to carry out a comparative study between these projects of a
similar nature, as noted earlier, each project has its own specific risks related to such things as
geotechnical ground conditions, degree of urbanization, proximity of buildings and other structures,
political environment, contract terms and conditions, technical design solutions and project objectives
including expected volumes of traffic.
Table 5 below summaries the risks, by topic, that have been included in the SR 710 North Task 3 risk
register compared to the Contractor's risks registers for the AWT.
Table 5: Risk Comparison between the SR 710 North and the Bids for AWT
Risk Topic
SR 710 North Seattle Tunnelling Group Seattle Tunnel Partners
Risk Register (STG) (STP)
Risks included to cover N/ A - permits and N/ A - permits and
Permits and Approvals Local, Regional and State approvals already approvals already
approvals - LACMTA risk obtained obtained
Risks identified to cover a
change in political
N/ A - would be N/ A - would be
Political support environment or a change
considered a WSDOT risk considered a WSDOT risk
in political support-
LACMTA risk
Risks identified to cover a
N/ A - would be N/ A - would be
Security Provisions
change in security
considered a WSDOT risk considered a WSDOT risk
requirements - LACMTA
as Contract awarded as Contract awarded
risk
Numerous design and Numerous design and Numerous design and
Design ofTBM and tunnel technical risks included - technical risks included - technical risks included-
lining identified as Contractor's accepted as Contractor's accepted as Contractor's
risk risk risk
InfraConsult
7
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Risk Topic
SR 710 North Seattle Tunnelling Group Seattle Tunnel Partners
Risk Register (STG) (STP)
Numerous construction, Numerous construction, Numerous construction,
Operation ofTBM during operational and technical operational and technical operational and technical
construction risks included - identified risks included - accepted risks included - accepted
as Contractor's risk as Contractor's risk as Contractor's risk
Risks identified for
Risks included for varying
inaccuracy of ground Risks included for varying
Ground conditions and
conditions as a shared risk
ground conditions as a
ground conditions as a
contaminated material shared risk between
between LACMTA and
WSDOT and STG
STP risk
Contractor
Risks identified to cover a N/A-would be N/A-would be
Change in Scope change in scope of works considered a WSDOT risk considered a WSDOT risk
- LACMTA risk as Contract awarded as Contract awarded
Risks identified covering
Risk identified as a shared
Unforeseen Utilities discovery of unforeseen
risk
No risks identified
utilities - Contractor risk
Risks included for
Subcontractor/ material
subcontractor / material
Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP
supplier performance
supplier poor
risk risk
performance as a
Contractor risk
Insufficient drainage leading Risks identified as a Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP
to flooding Contractor's risk risk risk
Fire / Explosion damage in Risks id entified as a Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP
tunnel Contractor's risk risk risk
Numerous risks identified
Operations and Maintenance
for the O&M phase of the N/ A - as O&M not part of N/ A - as O&M not part of
project - both LACMTA the Contract the Contract
and Contractor risk
Risks identified for the
Inaccuracies in Cost Estimate
inaccuracy in quantities Risks included as a STG Risks included as a STP
and pricing - Contractor's risk risk
risk
Risks identified for the
increase in construction
Risks included as a STG
Cost escalation / inflation costs due to inflation /
risk
No risks identified
price escalation -
Contractor's risk
I nfraConsu It
8
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Risk Topic
SR 710 North Seattle Tunnelling Group Seattle Tunnel Partners
Risk Register (STG) (STP)
Delays to public / state
Risks included for delays
to public / state funding- No risks identified No risks identified
funding
LACMTA risk
Risks included for the
Availability of Performance availability and premium
No risks identified No risks identified
Securities / Bonds cost for Performance
Securities / Bonds
From this review of the three difference project risk registers, it is apparent that that they are
comparable and a cost comparison is valid from a comparable risk transference point of view. Certain
differences do exist however, primarily as follows:
1. The SR 710 North risk register includes some specific risks for Permitting and Approvals which
have already been obtained for the AWT.
2. The SR 710 North risk register includes Operations and Maintenance risks which are not
applicable to the AWT project.
3. All three risk registers include some detailed risks associated with the specific project
geography, geotechnical, technical and design constraints.
I nfraConsu It
9
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Appendix A, Detailed Breakdown of Comparative Cost Analysis
SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North
Single Bore Revised Dual Revised Dual
Bore - 2 TBMs Bore - 1 TBM
Item Description US$ US$ US$
Civils - Portals 95,000,000 156,000,000 156,000,000
Civils - Tunnels 1,249,233,613 2,498,467,227 2,413,467,227
TBM estimated fixed costs 85,000,000 170,000,000 85,000,000
Estimated Tunnel Variable 1,164,233,613 2,328,467,227 2,328,467,227
costs: f(length)
Civils - Tunnel Ventilation 90,000,000 90,000,000 90,000,000
Structures
Civils - Special Treatment at 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000
Raymond Fault
Civils - Roadworks INCL INCL INCL
Mechanical and Electrical INCL INCL INCL
systems
Toll Collection Systems 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000
Socio-Environmental Works 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Operational Control Centre / 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000
Building
Geological Surveys 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Utility Diversions INCL INCL INCL
Sub-total Construction 1,535,233,613 2,845,467,227 2,760,467,227
Costs
Special Building Settlement NA NA NA
Mitigation
Inflation / Price Escalation NA NA NA
Total Construction Costs 1,535,233,613 2,845,467,227 2,760,467,227
Design Costs 46,057,008 85,364,017 82,814,017
Project Management Costs 15,352,336 28,454,672 27,604,672
Land Costs / Right of Way 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
Total Project Base Costs 1,609,642,958 2,972,285,916 2,883,885,916
Insurance 40,241,074 74,307,148 72,097,148
Design Development /
Pricing Risk
Risk / Contingency 160,964,296 297,228,592 288,388,592
Total Project Costs 1,810,848,328 3,343,821,655 3,244,371,655
Total other costs 275,614,714 498,354,429 483,904,429
% Additive due to Inflation NA
LS added by WSDOT
Facts and Figures
Overall Length 3.98 7.96 7.96
Excavation diameter 57.40 57.40 57.40
Internal liner diameter 52.00 52.00 52.00
Underground Cost per 349 331 321
mile (millions $)
Overall Cost per mile 455 420 408
(millions $)
InfraConsult
Alaskan Way Alaskan Way Alaskan Way
WSDoT Seattle Seattle Tunnel
Estimate Tunneling Partners
GroUp (FCC) (Dragados)
Bid Bid
US$ US$ US$
INCL 324,000,000 340,000,000
770,000,000 630,000,000 557,000,000
85,000,000 85,000,000 85,000,000
545,000,000 472,000,000
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
100,000,000 INCL INCL
180,000,000 INCL INCL


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

60,000,000 INCL INCL
1,255,000,000 1,052,500,000 952,000,000
INCL 35,802,000 137,700,000
110,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000
1,365,000,000 1,198,302,000 1,199,700,000
169,000,000 169,000,000 169,000,000
54,000,000 54,000,000 54,000,000
152,000,000 152,000,000 152,000,000
1,740,000,000 1,573,302,000 1,574,700,000
100,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000

205,000,000 205,000,000 205,000,000
2,155,000,000 1,878,302,000 1,879,700,000
790,000,000 790,000,000 790,000,000
8.76% 10.45% 11.55%
1.8 1.8 1.8
54.00 54.00 57.40
50.00 50.00 52.00
428 350 309
1197 1044 1044
SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Appendix B, Conceptual Portal Designs
InfraConsult
L
..."
o 20 100
Curve = 58Pt-!
PI STA. 311.23.02
CU'-VO : NBP2-I
PI STA. = 209+13.'CJB
Curve = SBP2-1
PI STA.::- 407+2g.01
Del t.oO ::. 30" 27' 29.'=18' {L Tl
o 2' 01' 13.0Q
= 30' 27' 29.98' (L TI Delt", = IS" 24' 43.51' ILTl

Feet
.n0
440
410
..................
Cu.-vo = NSPI-I
PI STA.::. 105+74.86
Delt", ::. 10 02' 12.44" (L Tl
o ' 2' 18' 10.3Q
T ' 218'<8
L ' 435.84
R ::. 2.488.00
PC 5TA.103+56.39
PT STA.107+92.22

............
Cur-va ::. NBPI-2
PI STA. ::. 1lI+73.96
Delto ::. 20' 36'\c1.4S' CL Tl
o ' 2' 43' 42.13'
T , 381.74
L ::. 755.23
R , 2.100.00
PC STA.107+92.22
PI STA.1I5+47.45
. i 1/ \
N8 PHi RAMP
/ --=-
'"


PGL
.... Ex '''1:.. end. <:! SBP2
T = 772.07
L 1.507.61
R ::- 2.836.00
PC STA.303.50.%
PT STA.3\8+58.56
PGL
o 2' 48' 16.17'
T 556.1Q
L = 1.086.05
R ::- 2.043.00
PC STtl.203+57.80
PI STA.214+43.85
.. ---. :-::-::-
ENGINEER OF RECORD
II I III I I
' 16700 E. S,H, 180
f.-. -1-. -+. -I,
I I
3/2'V2011 - lA ppp Wo_k,To,k -4 'Ie Non" ecoc ,o.,e.Won.<>1 Concop' Do"gn on<l E,<cmo<o,DGN Fdo,\PLAN.PROFILES.dg"
o , 2' 03' 02.<2'
T = 378.06
L , 751.56
R = 2.]<:)4.00
PC STA.403+50.95
PT STA.411.02.51
- - - - PROPOSED EO?
PH2 H{1iV,F-'
t!) Metro

----------------
ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

440
400
380
360
340
DRAWING NO
Cl

I
L
\
Cu.-va = 5BP2-2
PI STA.:: 414+42.IQ
Curve :: S8P2-J
PI STA.:: 422+60.85
DeJta :: 13' 46' 12.10" ILl) Dalto :: 6' 23' 45.07" (An
o ' 2' 02' 15.16'
T :: 33<:).54
L ' 675.81
R :: 2.812.00
PC STA.411+02.65
PT STA.4\7+78.46
o ' 2' 06' 20.4S
T ' 152.03
L :: 303.74
R , 2.721.00
PC STA.421+08.82
PT STA.424+12.56
;!!


!'
'"
- - - - PROPOSED EO? I !

220 ---- --------
: -------- ---- -----------------

215- --:';0",;0- ------ ---------------------------- -
CUr"ve = NBP2-2
PI STA. = 222+7Q.e13
Delto = 6' 23' -45.e17"IRTJ
o ' 2' 04' 57.81'
T = 153.7121
L = 3e17.e1Q
R 0 2.751.00
PC STA.221+25.32
PT 5TA.22-4+32.41
r
5TA.125+18.leI =
51A.32-4+89.58
_____ -- _- - - - - ___ N--6'-23'-A5-'II- ____ - - - --- CURVE NSPI-3
% _____ ..:_--..:-- - ---- - _______ eURVE"""5BPl=Z-----------"'C -aBuw-Nor-ttT
i __ -- -- - ----;S23' ;\:-W ..... --- - ;;
': --.:---..:-
Cur-va :: SBPI2 !
is "-PGL S8 PH! PI STA.:: 322+81.64
t-. PGL NB PHI Oet te :: 6' 23' 45.07' (AT) :..... :.....
0 :: 2' e'=!' 02.67" lSI Q)


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

J / ',t.,,--=-=--=--:::-r=_ - tri
- I
+
o :: 2" 01' 13.09" PC STA,321+32.80
,T :: .. PT STA.324+30.18
Pi 11
. VALLEl
IBM SIAGfNq AREA
--i tr fn OC
Cur"ve = N8Pl-3
PI 5TA. = 122+95.89
Del t.o = 6" 23' 45.1217' IRll
D = 2' 07' 36.45"
T = 15121.52
L 0 300.73
R = 2.69-4.0121
PC STA.121+45.37
PT 5TA.124+46.11'1
ri

,RO

, !
, '
"l

n
F j ; \1 rn

+
7 14V'1
- - EXIst. G,.,d. D NBPl
- - - - EXISt.. G,.,ci. NBP2
..,.

o 20 100 1O;o;;__
Feet





PGL A SBPV
--- EXIst. Gnd. '" SBPl

I'" 1 1 "" 1 0 I'" 1 1 "" 1 " 1 C,"SUC""'
MARCH 2011
'I I I I II I I I 6700 E_ s,no 180
f-, -+, ----------+, --+,-,f-I-, -----------+,--+, --1.
t!j Metro
infri'\Consul[
LA Me ..... o ppp Sery,co,\G0 P,oJeet Wo,k\Tc,k "4 8U'Ino", Cc,0\4A.2 No,.,,,,710 Noroh eoH ,o.,e.Won.o] Concopt DC'lgn
DRAWN BY
"
ROUTE 710 TUNNEL

300
r
ACZ
O
---I
L
<If1@.
'2: __
o 20 100
- S8Pt-l "
.... --...........
Cur-vo :: S8P2-1 CUr"ve :: NBP2-'
"
PI SlA.:: 209+13.98 PI 5TA. ::
Feet
/P tl Tl
DcdUl :: 30' 27' 2CJ.CJS" (L Tl Delta :: 15' 24043.5I"(LTI
gelt.o -:

T; 1.507.61
'! l 2.836.00
R A 303+50.95
,<t CO' CC
""'" '-:::::::::" <''' r r,e '" .... CO, , " l
o 2' 03' 02.42'
T :: 378.06
l 751.56
R 2.7Q4.00
PC STA.403+50515
PT STA.411+02.51
o 2' 48' 16.17"
T :: 556.19
l 1.086.05
R :: 2.043.00
PC STA.203+57.80
PT STA.214+43.85
PHZ
,4.
'Be

'/0
4000l, ,",
Cu.-vet :: NaPI-!
PI STt!.:: 105+74.86
Delto :: 10" 02'12.44" (Ll)
o 2' 18' 10.3Q
T :: 218.48
L :: 435.84
R :: 2.488.00
PC STA. 103+56.3Q
PT STA.107+Q2.22
I
II \!:ll
380
lV0
:' 'I

.340"

r------
I - - - - PROPOSED EOP
'"" ',,,,,,,, ",,, ' I- : N
-"< '",,' C,,'; '" ",_ ""_""",, _,,,",, "" " _____ "
< "'" '",8
0
>, <. ,<, "'=, '10. ::....-=-__ ...,"'
:c::CCC------::i \
NBPI2
tL Tl
Oelt.e -. 2' 043' 42.13
o ; 381.74
:
STA.
PT STA.lI
I
"""'--:--
PGl 1'113
.n
"'
;

.;
'!.'
PGl
/
8PI & SBPe!
"
"
c
30' Under NBP2
u
u
,
\
!\ 700' V.C.
.1
Ii;" i I
M
I \
I ,M
J \

I'
.1
HI0.500% 0. w t+l2.024%
,
u
cr
"
"'

I I a
_L I
30' undi' !NBP2
1.623' V.c.
,
"
8Y I CONSULTANT I ENGINEER OF RECORD I PREPARED FOR
ROU TE 710 TUNNEL
440
400
380
360
340
I I I I I I I I I
Metro
f/L A)j(f/f?9F./f, t DRAWING NO
I}y) C 3
Halcrowlnc.
6700E. Pacific Coast Highwny. Suite 180

f-+-------------f---+f-f-I------------+-+-II MARCH 2011
';;-;;=;------;;==---;c"""""""'=JECT5,,'M.P"'t.ot.JO,,,rATL""'I LA Move PPP 5"""'0<>.,60 p,oJoc< ,"o""\T,,,k -4 Bo""",. C.,.e,.n.2 ,""",,,,711) Nonl-. coo< ,,,.\o.Wo,o.ol 00"9n end E.CI'.e....,\O(;N F,lo"PLAN.PRQrlLES.dqn Ir SHEEf IS LESS i"HAN 22' X 34" ITIS A REDUCED PRINT SCALE ACCORDINCLY
-.J
I
L
cu .....o = SBP2-2
PI STA.:: 04J4+-42.IQ
Curve :: SBP2-3
PI 5TA.:: 422+60.85
Coho. :: IY 46' 12.10' (L Tl DelUl :: S' 23' 45.07' (Rli
o 2 02 15.16
T :: 33CJ.54
l 675.81
R 2.812.00
PC STA.411+02.65
Pi STA.417+78.46
o 2 06' 20.48
T :: 152.03
l 303.74
R 2.721.00
PC STA.421+08.82
PT STA.424+12.56
\
."."
: n r-,<!L
/
i II ,/----FC,[ 58
'! _ _ NQ J I
,--PC,1 .... "<Z" j/ _____________ _
/ 22", _--- -- -; CURvE N8P2-2
---- \ / -----------------
_ 6 23' 45 W_ _ _ - - - - - - -t - - -r... _____ -8.JR\'-SBf'2-:>- --
---------- ---- --
I
I \
I I
440 I I I',
-i -=::-
380
<i
1-:>9Jl.

"I.'- -
S8
Cu'-vo : SBPI-2
PI STA. = 322+81.64
Doho = 6' 23' 45.07" IRTl
o = 2' 09' 02.6?-
Curve = 58P)-) T = 148.84
PI STA. = 311+23.02 L: ZQ7.38
Dolto. = 30' 27' ZCJ.CJS- (L II R:: 2.664.00
o :: 2' 01' 13.09- PC STA.321+32.80
-; :: PI STA.324+30.18
__/.: r2S' S. OF VALLE

TAM STAG!Nq AAFA
--i tr "'r""n,,-'t r"'"' "'CO '!
I I
"
"
o o
"
"
-lit
'"

+
-r
L.


po "P'



'" ..
"'-
Curve :: NBP2-2
PI STA.:: 222+79.03
Delt.o :: 6' 23' 45.07' IRTl
o 2 04' 57,81
T 153.70
L :: 307.0CJ
R 2.751.00
PC STA.221+25.32
PT STA.224+32."11
---t-
/5T:.',

Due No... t:h

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

_. _. E",::;", Gnd, Il:l NBP2
."
....
o 20 100

Feet

4:'!..@.
400
380
360
340

EXI5t.Gnd.1l:l NBPI
- - - - EX1"t. Gnd. Il:l SBP)

PGl S8PI 8
-r

I'w I 1
0
"0 I o'lw I 1
0
'0 I" I c""'"''
II
II III I II 6700 E. Soil, 180
1-. -+. -----------1--+. .. ----------t -+. -1' MARCH 2011
y,\PROJECT$\TrQn'PQnQw,n\T:HLAH - LoA ppp p'oJccc 8y"no 711l No"'" CO,L "<,,,e.\Po,,,,1 Oo"gn ond (,L,",o",\OGN Fdo,\PLAN.PI10FllES.dgn
1?<o;lC\C\
m Metro


ROUTE 710 TUNNEL


Ir SHEET IS LESS tHIlN 22" X IT 1$ A REDucm PRINT SCALE ACCORDINGLY
I
-.J
I
L
'LT)
Curve :: 5B2Pl-l
PI STA. :: 6133+12.33
Del to :: 12" 134' 56.0'1' (L Tl
o :: 2' 57' 34.17'
T :: 2134.89
L :: 408.25
R " I.R36.00
PC STA.60\+12I7.44
PT STA.6eJ5+15.69
Curve :: SB2PI-Z
PI STA.:: 6111"79.87
Del to :: l!" 08' 25.5\' (RT)
D " 2' 07' 02.50'
T :: 263.91
L :: 526.15
R :: 2,706.130
PC STA.6139+15.96
PT 5TA.614+4Z.11
58P}
...
o 20 100

Feet
e,,\ a.

'"

-----------------------E-----,
- -..-z,--- Ii:! . I-
- - '", --5
!..----
t:te-No.-t-k ::

c:'
iii

'"
!i:'
-----=======----

------
Curve :: NBZP}-!
PI STA. :: 5138+13.36
Delto :: 6- 29' 15.81' (L T)
o :: I' 39' 14.53'
T :: 196.33
L :: 392.24
R " 3.464.00
PC STA.506+17.133
PT STA.51Ql+Ql9.27
CURVE NB2Pl-l
L-PGL NSPI
EXIST. ON FlAt-IP
NB PHi RAMP
---- c . " . ""'1 '00" , ,.
- - Eme. Gnd. NB2P2 ro r
I I I --- SB2Pl r--..r-,
.. EXI5t. Gnd. SB2P2 - Ld
" i\
" yo:
Cur-va :: N82PI-2
PI STA.:: 514+46.68
- -'
t: .'
<I
:>:
Dalto :: 5' 32' 45.23' <ATl
D " l' 37' 13.28'
T " 171.27
l :: 342.26
R " 3.536.00
PC STA.512+75.41
PT STA.516+17.68
PGL NBRI & NBPe--,
1 I!! -+-- t--
d
001+ I :1
425' D.IM .. SB ,82<',00' Mer NB
".. .::.. I
;0
M
"' +
(+) 121.5013% (-) 121.96121%
..,.--
-1-
./'
'v
''':;, -:.:..:::-= - - -:;
.
PGL SBPll & SBPi?,-'




1"01 1
0
"" I"' 1' 1 1 '"" I" I """LT",
MARCH 2011 II I III I II
6700 E. Soilo ,"0
f-. -+. -----------1.--+. -J.-.f-.-----------+. -+. -I-
mMetro
, InrrLl(Ollsult
.. Lt, Mcvo ppp p'OJQC< ." 7\1l No,'" CO,. uO"9n ono E,,-,noro\QGN Fdo,\I'lAN.PRO'llE5.d9"
j16'VI
/ //-
/\ .. '" /
, .,
DRAVlN8Y
"
"
\
\..
,
,1:,\
ROuTE 710 TUNNEL
DRAWING NO
C5
I
L
8?0
\ r
PGL
:.:-'-"
) ,,! . __ i
N- 0'-'56"", "
;;:
'2!

:s:

... -
!f! U V -
ICl ," .
---
"
58PI
:I-
v>
w
3


<t
"
'"
if
::i
'" '"
NBP
Curve :; NB2Pl-Z
PI STA. :; 514+46,68
Del to = 5' 32' 45.23" (RTl
o I' 37' [3_28'
T = 171.27
L = 342.26
R = 3,536.00
PC STA.512+75.4\
PT STA.516'd7.68
I
I
I
1
- - - - Eme, Gnd, 0 N82P'1
- - Ex),,;., Gnd. '" NB2P2
- - - - EX)5t. Gnd. e> S82Pl
. . - .. - E"lt. Gnd.1ll S82P2
PROPOSEO-- EO;]
1
....

o 20 [00
-------.....,
Feet
I
820
I _APGL NBPI &
"


& 58P2
,0 TIE-[N I --+--- -4---4- 8 00 1
I:' ,
Z80
I
81 +00
71 +00
61 +00
760 51 +0"'
II I - -1- II I "" 1''1'''50'''''
H<Jlcrowlnc.
6700 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 180
f-t------------f--i---ff------------i--+--II MARCH 2011
LA "''',,"0 PPP S,,'vlco,\60 1I",k\T",k "4 80""0" C",,\"".Z N",,,,\71(! NCN'"'" CO'" ,,,v'''.\Po",o\ O""'gn ond Ftlo,WLN<.PROI'lLES.dg"
G) Metro
InfrClConsuli
DESIGNOSY
00
ORA\\NBY
"
ROUTE 710 TUNNEL
PL AN7PR(JFl-l
n
E
(N Rfl-tg-'i 'l y)
.2.8ll..
760

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

I
L
CUr-VII :: S8ZPZ-1
PI STA.:: 802+-48.56
0.1", ' S 35' 24.50 (LTI
o ' 3 02' 57.37
T , 141.12
l :: 281.71
R , I.S7q.00
PC 51A.801.07.0404
PT STA. S03'Sq.15
i NOTES: I
1. SOlnt John Avenue TO REMAIN.
iL TJ
Curve :: N82PZ-1
PI STA.:: 707+Qa.Q.,
OelUll :: 5" 50' 3Q.ZQ- ell)
o , I 40' 54.15
T ,
l ' 347.52
R '
PC STA.706+)7.03
PT STA.10Q+S04.55
[ - - - - PROPOSED EOP 0,'0

?,,7-
Zp
o 20 100 IIO;; ___ ;;;;J
Feet
PGL SBP2
'!!

2.SBPH2 Romp TO BE BRIDGED OVER SOlnt john
...
...
"

.' --------,
'" _.. .. --- ----'= t ,. '
__ _ _ .. __ .-... - m '\ i
___ _ _ _ \ CURVE NB2e2-\ CURVE NS2P2-2 - - ":
M"', ,
;LTI
PGL NSA1 & NBP;>--'
\. _./
....
"
PGL SBP11&
Curve :: fr4B2P2-2
PI STA.:: 711+16.QS
Delta ::.4,' 5<4' 0B.71" CRn
o ' I 36' 33.q6
T , 152.40
l ' 304.61
R ,
PC STA.70Q+S-4.55
PT STA.712+SCi.16
---- -- ------ ---- -y'-- ---: ---. -.-- --
-u J:
. . __ _______ <I
:>:
1-;1, nHI'W Cu... "e = SB2P2-Z
PI STA.:: 811+72.-43
0.1 t.a :: W 08" 25.51- (RT)
o ' 205' 06.00
T , 26S.00
l ' 534.31
R , 2.74S,00
PC STA.80Q+004.043
PT STA.814'38.75
T)
l I l 700' f,c, b I I
t:: . t:: b r; Ig:
-'
'"
ggt
,,;
M

(+J 0.500% C-10_560%
-'
'"
<0 "
/ y"
- + I 'I
:1
825
' .. NB
. :'\
'j I I ,VI
"
, .
/ /I
\ \ I,
-1----_ _ 1
/' I
"- I
\/
,'Y

.-:::::...- - -;.-: :..i,-;t...... =L

DIITt I , CONSULTANT
"'I'"
<OM



OESICNEOBY
00
ROUTE 710 TUNNEL
I I I I I I I I I
tr) Metro

C7
Hlllcrowlrtc.
6700 E. Pacific Coasl HighwilY. Suilo 180
DRAWING NO
f---t------------j--+-j---j-----------+-+--II MARCH 2011
"LA ppp Se,",ce,\6(J -4 Bu,",'e" 71\) No,tk\7J0 Co" ,ev,o.\Po,-.."l Co"cop< Oe"gn end ,<,mo<o\DGN
-l
I
L

"""""'" 5"3i''">r" - - !
-5--
g;
z
J
'" "-
___ ""' __ --' ____ f'_' ..
--N" e'""'58'''Sl''W - - ---. -- - -,//
_"Gl
15 ----,---.,.,.c'---
___ ____ . __.

:
\
I
NBP
l'E3P2
I ----
1
- - - - Em', Gnd, 0 N82P'1
- - L'as':.. Gnd. i.O NB2P2
- M - - Gnd. <:> SB2Pl
. . ... EXlSl:. Gnd.ill S82P2
I
...,.

o 20 100
!II;;;;__ --;;;01
Feet
B03' NB & SBI SR 210 TIE -It<
r]PGL NBPI&
820 "'I 1_- 1 1 820 I
/' " I .. :,j ------1- -i- ------1-
/ \
I \ 00 CO
co
z
o
800


SSPI & SBP2
81!+00
71 +00
61 +00
51 +00
Iii'
\: .
DAlE ISy,C()NSU!..TANT

co I I I I I I I I H,I"owl",
f---f--------------j--f---j-f-------------f--+-l CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION. 26480 MARCH 2011
T,\PROJCi5\T"<>mPQrcoc<on\TllhAM - L'; Mc".o PPP ProJoc, '. OU>Jno" Co,c,':A.2 710 N.,..", ond
C1j Metro

OESlGNEOUY
00
DRAWN BY
"
ROUTE 710 TUNNEL
f/L/W/f/HUf Ht
yll
800

lP,\l_

SR 710 North Tunnel Cost Analysis, Final Report
Appendix C, SR 710 North Generic Alternatives by Zone vs. Alaskan Way Cost Plan Summary
SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North SR 710 North Alaskan Way
Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 4 Zone 5 Seattle Tunnel
generic generic generic generic generic Partners
alternative alternative alternative alternative alternative (Dragados) Bid
(2 TBMs)
Item Description US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$
Civits - Portals 157,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 340,000,000
Civils - Tunnels 2,498,467,227 3,328,056,807 3,217,483,866 3,937,670,588 6,153,224,706 557,000,000
TBM estimated fixed costs 170,000,000 170,000,000 170,000,000 170,000,000 170,000,000 85,000,000
Estimated Tunnel Variable 2,328,467,227 3,158,056,807 3,047,483,866 3,767,670,588 5,983,224,706 472,000,000
costs: f(length)
Civils - Tunnel Ventilation 90,000,000 122,065,327 117,791,457 145,628,141 231,263,819 NA
Structures
Civils - Special Seismic 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 INCL
Treatment
Toll Collection Systems 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 0
Socia-EnVironmental Works 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 0
Operational Control Centre 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 55,000,000
/ Building
Geological Surveys 2,000,000 2,712,563 2,617,588 3,236,181 5,139,196 0
Sub-total Construction 2,846,467,227 3,751,834,696 3,636,892,911 4,385,534,910 6,688,627,721 952,000,000
Costs
Special Building Settlement

0 0 0 0 137,700,000
Mitigation
Inflation / Price Escalation 0 0 0 0 0 110,000,000
Total Construction Costs 2,846,467,227 3,751,834,696 3,636,892,911 4,385,534,910 6,688,627,721 1,199,700,000
Design Costs 85,394,017 112,555,041 109,106,787 131,566,047 200,658,832 169,000,000
Project Management Costs 28,464,672 37,518,347 36,368,929 43,855,349 66,886,277 54,000,000
Land Costs / Right of Way 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000 152,000,000
Total Project Base Costs 2,973,325,916 3,914,908,084 3,795,368,627 4,573,956,306 6,969,172,830 1,574,700,000
Insurance 74,333,148 97,872,702 94,884,216 114,348,908 174,229,321 100,000,000
Design Development / 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pricing Risk
Risk / Contingency 297,332,592 391,490,808 379,536,863 457,395,631 696,917,283 205,000,000
Total Project Costs 3,344,991,655 4,404,271,595 4,269,789,706 5,145,700,845 7,840,319,434 1,879,700,000
Total other costs 498,524,429 652,436,898 632,896,795 760,165,935 1,151,691,713 790,000,000
% Additive due to Inflation
LS added by WSDOT 11.55%
Facts and Figures
Overall Length 7.96 10.80 10.42 12.88 20.45 1.8
Excavation diameter 57.40 57.40 57.40 57.40 57.40 57.40
Internal liner diameter 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00
Underground Cost per 331 324 325 321 315 309
mile (millions $)
Overall Cost per mile 420 408 410 400 383 1044
(millions $)
I nfraConsu It