HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5175
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5175)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/20/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study
Title: Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This study session provides the City Council an opportunity to discuss findings in the attached
report by Hatch Mott McDonald (HMM) and provide direction on next steps. No action is
recommended at this time.
Executive Summary
HMM, a consulting firm specializing in construction engineering, was hired at the direction of
the Palo Alto City Council to study conceptual grade separation alternatives for a portion of the
Caltrain right of way encompassing three existing at-grade crossings (Charleston, Meadow, and
Churchill). This study provides preliminary information on the potential impacts and cost of
construction (by order of magnitude) for various roadway submersion and trenching
alternatives.
This information is intended to facilitate community dialogue on the issue and ultimately to
help form a policy position on grade separations. The study is not definitive in determining an
ultimate configuration, but does provide a starting point for dialogue on the issue. Specifically,
the study indicates that the roadway submersion alternatives would require significant
property acquisitions, while the trenching alternatives would not. Also, the trenching
alternatives would maintain turning movements along Alma Street, while not all of the roadway
submersion alternatives would do so.
For example, the two percent (2%) grade trenching alternative would grade separate
Charleston and Meadow for around $488 million and require zero property acquisitions versus
the alternative that submerges the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Charleston and
Meadow and maintains turning movements on and off of Alma which would cost approximately
$320 million and require acquisition of 32 full parcels and seven partial parcels.
Background
City of Palo Alto Page 2
At the November 4, 2013 City Council meeting, HMM was authorized, at a cost of $59,790, to
move forward with Phase I of an analysis that delivered a conceptual cost estimate for a
number of preliminary grade separation alternatives south of the California Avenue Caltrain
Station. The most important information obtained from this analysis was intended to be a
clearer understanding of the differences in cost and construction impacts between submerging
the roadway and trenching the railroad at certain intersections in Palo Alto. The reason
trenching was only studied south of Oregon Expressway is that because if it was determined
that trenching was cost prohibitive south of Oregon Expressway it certainly would be north of
Oregon Expressway where trenching the corridor would require the complete reconstruction of
the City’s three existing grade separated crossings (Oregon Expressway, Embarcadero, and
University) and submerging the City’s two Caltrain stations (California Avenue and Palo Alto), in
addition to complications posed by San Francisquito Creek.
Phase I of the analysis, as presented in this report, evaluates the preliminary alternatives by
evaluating construction feasibility, right of way impacts (i.e. property acquisitions), and concept
level cost estimates for comparison purposes.
Phase II of the analysis would develop the City’s selected preliminary alternatives to a final
concept level, produce concept design exhibits, and provide refined order of magnitude project
costs and assessments of feasibility. The cost of Phase II would be an additional $67,760 and
staff is interested in hearing from the Council whether this additional work is needed to provide
sufficient information for community dialog and policy decisions regarding which of the
preliminary alternatives, if any, should be pursued from a funding and logistical standpoint with
outside agencies such as Caltrain, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Listed below are the specific grade separation alternatives evaluated by HMM. Alternatives that
were studded by HMM are:
1. Trenching the corridor from approximately San Antonio to approximately Oregon
Expressway, which would grade separate both Meadow and Charleston by keeping the
existing roadways at-grade and running rail traffic beneath it in an open trench.
Please note that this alternative does not impact whether or not the roadway is
submerged below the railroad tracks at Churchill.
2. Submerging the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Churchill
3. Submerging the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Meadow
4. Submerging the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Charleston
It should be noted, as the report from HMM indicates, that if Council chooses to pursue the
roadway submersion alternatives at both Charleston and Meadow that maintain turning
movements on and off of Alma they must be done as a single project due to their proximity;
however, submerging the roadway at Churchill can occur regardless of what happens at the
Meadow and Charleston intersections.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attached for your review is HMM’s Palo Alto Grade Separation Study (Attachment A), including
an attachment that outlines the costs associated with each alternative. The primary difference
between the trenching estimate that was generated by HMM in 2011 and the one generated in
this study is that the previous estimate was based on California High Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA) cost of construction per foot figures and did not take local, existing conditions into
consideration at the level of detail this study does.
The updated study uses current and local construction cost information. HMM generated their
estimates in part by using information they’ve obtained from current transportation
construction projects in the area with similar traits such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to
San Jose extension project. Furthermore, HMM used figures that are more applicable to the
existing conditions at the intersections they studied as it relates to utility relocation costs, right
of way impacts, staging, and traffic signal impacts rather than wholesale allowance numbers.
The use of recent and local construction data provides more realistic order of magnitude cost
estimates for work on the Peninsula compared to the 2011 study.
Results of the Analysis
As displayed in the Alternative Cost Estimates attachment to the HMM report, the most
expensive alternative is the one percent (1%) grade trench alternative at a cost of
approximately $1.05 billion. This alternative would not require a design exemption as it relates
to the slope of the grade but it’s more than double the cost of the two percent (2%) grade
trench alternative mainly due to the impacts it would have on Oregon Expressway (already
grade separated) and the San Antonio Avenue and California Avenue Caltrain stations based on
its expanded footprint. Additionally, this alternative becomes significantly more complex than
the two percent (2%) grade trench alternative when existing creeks are considered because
instead of the trench being able to go above them the creeks would have to be rerouted, likely
requiring additional infrastructure such as pump stations.
Although both the one percent (1%) grade trench alternative and the two percent (2%) grade
trench alternative are more expensive than the roadway submersion alternatives they require
zero parcel acquisitions, have fewer visual impacts by having a reduced footprint at each
intersection, and result in a grade separated roadway that is level with the existing roadways,
significantly benefiting bicycle and pedestrian movements.
Table 1 below summarizes the trench alternatives:
Table 1: Summary of Trench Alternatives
Trench Grade One Percent (1%) Two Percent (2%)
Cost $1,050,728,700 $488,187,283
Full Property Acquisitions 0 0
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Partial Property Acquisitions 0 0
Turn Movements Maintained Yes Yes
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
As for the roadway submersion alternatives displayed in the Alternative Cost Estimates
attachment to the HMM report, they are significantly less expensive than the trenching
alternatives (ranging in price from approximately $85 million to $184 million per roadway
submersion) but have far greater impacts in the form of property acquisitions, lost turning
movements, and have far more visual impacts at each intersection due to their larger
footprints.
Below are two tables that summarize the roadway submersion alternatives. Table 2 below
shows the roadway submersion alternatives where Alma Street is left at-grade and therefore
turning movements on and off of Alma Street are lost. Table 3 below shows the roadway
submersion alternatives where Alma Street is lowered in order to maintain turning movements.
Table 2: Summary of Roadway Submersion Alternatives that Abolish Alma Street Turning
Movements
Roadway Submersion Intersection Churchill Meadow Charleston
Cost $90,334,561 $84,578,797 $101,783,449
Full Property Acquisitions 16 11 18
Partial Property Acquisitions 4 5 3
Turn Movements Maintained No No No
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
Table 3: Summary of Roadway Submersion Alternatives that Lower Alma Street to Maintain
Turning Movements
Roadway Submersion Intersection Churchill Meadow Charleston
Cost $183,513,669 $143,385,047 $152,903,454
Full Property Acquisitions 33 14 18
Partial Property Acquisitions 3 4 3
Turn Movements Maintained Yes Yes Yes
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
As previously noted, if the roadway submersion alternatives that maintain turning movements
on and off of Alma Street at the Meadow and Charleston intersections are selected they must
be constructed congruently, as a single project, and that will cost an additional $23,177,765 for
a total project cost of $319,466,266 ($143,385,047 + $152,903,454 + $23,177,765).
Next Steps
Based on Council comments, staff will come back to Council in the near future with a staff
City of Palo Alto Page 5
recommendation for Council review and approval on a preferred alternative to pursue. By
identifying a preferred alternative staff will be more effective in both discussing the issue with
transportation and funding agencies in addition to facilitating our public outreach efforts.
The property acquisitions associated with some of the alternatives presented in the HMM
report are significant and therefore staff feels strongly that any decision that is made on this
topic should not be rushed. Therefore, staff felt that first discussing the HMM report in a study
session before bringing it before Council for action was most appropriate.
Finally, as noted above, staff is interested in learning whether Council believes further study,
such as Phase II of the HMM scope of work, should be done or if at this time the information
HMM has already provided is sufficient.
Attachments:
Palo Alto Grade Separation Study 10-7-2014 (PDF)
MEMO
Hatch Mott MacDonald
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799www.hatchmott.com
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
From Michael Canepa, PE, HMM
Date 10/7/14
Project # 324006
Page 1 of 7
CC Chris Metzger, Brian Hughes, Derek
Penrice
Subject Palo Alto Grade Separation Study
This memo discusses alternatives for grade separating the Caltrain tracks at existing at-grade
crossings in the City of Palo Alto. The two alternatives evaluated in this study were:
construction of an undercrossing at Churchill Ave, Meadow Dr, and Charleston Rd, and the
construction of a rail trench under Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd. The following information
was evaluated in support of the findings of this study:
· Typical cross sections for each alternative
· Plan/profile for each alternative
· ROW impacts
· Traffic impacts
· Utility impacts
· Cost estimate
Undercrossing at Churchill Ave, Meadow Dr, and Charleston Rd
The first alternative is to build an undercrossing at Churchill Ave, Meadow Dr, and Charleston
Rd to separate the existing Caltrain tracks from the roadways. Due to the proximity of Alma St
to the rail corridor, two scenarios were evaluated – keeping Alma St at existing grade and
lowering Alma St to match the elevation of the undercrossing.
Design Criteria and Assumptions
· Design speed is assumed to be 5 mph above the posted speed limit or a minimum of
30 mph
· Maximum roadway grade used is 8%
· Maximum sidewalk grade is 5% (per ADA)
· Roadway vertical clearance is 15.5’ (per JPB Standards for Design and Maintenance of
Structures 2.4.2)
· Sidewalk vertical clearance is 10’ (per HDM 208.6)
· Minimum vertical curve length is 200’ (per HDM 204.4)
· 1:10 depth to span ratio for rail bridges
· Roadway bridge depths:
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 2 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
o Reinforced concrete bridge (continuous span over Caltrain trench) – AASHTO
Bridge Design Table 2.5.2.6.3-1
o Prestressed girder bridge (simple span over roadway undercrossing) – based
on manufacturer’s recommend depth for prestressed girders
Typical Roadway & Bridge Sections
· Churchill Ave undercrossing width is 60’ when Alma St remains at existing grade
o 2x 12’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Churchill Ave undercrossing width is 70’ when Alma St is lowered
o 2x 12’ thru lanes
o 12’ right turn lane
o 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Meadow Dr undercrossing width is 80’ when Alma St is at existing grade or lowered
o 4x 11’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Charleston Rd undercrossing width is 80’ when Alma St is at existing grade or lowered
o 4x 11’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Rail bridge width at undercrossing is 40’
o 15’ track center (per Caltrain Design Criteria 3.1)
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 3 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
o 2x 9.5’ from centerline of track to OCS pole (per Caltrain Standard Drawing
ETF-0001-0010)
o 2x 1.5’ OCS pole (per Caltrain Standard Drawing ETF-0001-0010)
o 2x 1.5’ from OCS pole to edge of bridge deck
Two scenarios were evaluated at each undercrossing. In the first scenario, Alma St would
remain at existing grade and each undercrossing would pass below both the Caltrain tracks
and Alma St. This would disconnect Alma St from the crossing streets and would require
traffic to be routed to the next crossing to the north or south. In the second scenario, to
maintain connectivity between the streets, Alma St. would be lowered to match the elevation
of the crossing street.
At each crossing, several streets will be closed to avoid property impacts at the intersections
with the undercrossing. Closures at these intersections will force traffic to adjacent
intersections which may require signalization to compensate for the increase in traffic.
In the first scenario, with Alma St at existing grade, the following impacts will occur:
· ROW impacts along Churchill from Castilleja Ave to Emerson St with intersection
closures at Mariposa Ave and the eastern side of Castilleja Ave
· ROW impacts along Meadow Dr from 2nd St to Emerson St with intersection closures
at Park Blvd and 2nd St
· ROW impacts along Charleston Rd from Ruthelma Ave to Wright Pl with intersection
closure at Park Blvd
· Traffic impacts at Madrono Ave/Churchill Ave intersection
· Traffic impacts at Wilkie Way/Meadow Dr intersection
· Traffic impacts at Ruthelma Ave/Charleston Rd intersection and Wilkie
Way/Charleston Rd intersection
For this scenario, there will be 16 full parcel takes and 4 partial takes for Churchill Ave
undercrossing, 11 full parcel takes and 5 partial takes for Meadow Dr undercrossing, and 17
full parcel takes and 3 partial takes for Charleston Rd undercrossing.
In the second scenario, with Alma St lowered to the new elevation of the undercrossing, the
following impacts will occur in addition to those listed above:
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 4 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
· ROW impacts along Alma St from Melville Ave to Lowell Ave with intersection closures
at Kellogg Ave and Coleridge Ave
· ROW impacts along Alma St from Alma Village Cir to Meadow Dr
· Intersection closure at Lindero Dr if undercrossings are constructed at both Meadow
Dr and Charleston Rd
· Traffic impacts at Melville Ave/Alma St intersection and Lowell Ave/Alma St
intersection
The total number of parcel takes required for this scenario in addition to those listed above is
17 additional full parcel takes and 1 less partial take for Churchill Ave undercrossing, 14
additional full parcel takes and 1 less partial take for Meadow Dr undercrossing, and no
change in parcel takes for Charleston Rd undercrossing.
This study also evaluated the potential of combining roadway undercrossings with a slight
elevation of the rail tracks to minimize the extent of the ROW/traffic impacts along the
crossing streets. For every 3’ the tracks are raised, the length of the impacted area along the
cross street decreases by 40’-50’ at each end.
In the first scenario, with Alma St at existing grade, the following benefits will occur when the
tracks are raised 3 feet:
· 3 parcel impacts will no longer be required at Churchill Ave
· Castilleja Ave closure will no longer be required at Churchill Ave
· 2 parcel impacts will no longer be required at Meadow Dr
· 2nd St closure will no longer be required at Meadow Dr
· 3 parcel impacts will no longer be required at Charleston Rd
In the second scenario, with Alma St lowered to the new elevation of the undercrossing, the
following benefits will occur in addition to those listed above when the tracks are raised 3
feet:
· 2 additional parcel impacts will no longer be required at Churchill Ave
· Alma Village Cir closure will no longer be required at Meadow Dr
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 5 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
Rail Trench Under Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd
The second alternative is to build a trench under Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd to separate
the existing Caltrain tracks from the roadways. Due to the constraints of Matadero Creek,
Barron Creek, and Adobe Creek crossing the corridor, two scenarios were studied to avoid
impacts to the creeks – maximum grade of 1% (preferred maximum) and maximum grade of
2% (design exception required).
Design Criteria and Assumptions
· Design speed is assumed to be 90 mph (per Caltrain Design Criteria 1.0)
· Preferred maximum grade is 1%; maximum grade with design exception is 2% (per
Caltrain Design Criteria 7.1)
· Minimum rail vertical clearance is 24.5’ (per Caltrain Standard Drawing SD-2002)
· Minimum distance from TOR to creek invert at creek crossing is 32.5’ (24.5’ rail
vertical clearance + 3’ trench lid + 5’ cover)
Typical Roadway & Trench Sections
· Trench width is 47’
o 15’ track center (per Caltrain Design Criteria 3.1)
o 2x 10’ from track centerline to trench wall (per Caltrain Standards for Design
and Maintenance of Structures 2.4.3)
o 2x 3’ trench wall
o 2x 3’ excavation support wall
· Churchill Ave bridge width is 66’
o 2x 12’ thru lanes
o 12’ right turn lane
o 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Meadow Dr bridge width is 76’
o 4x 11’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 6 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Charleston Rd bridge width is 76’
o 4x 11’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
Two scenarios were studied for the rail trench alternative. In the first scenario, a maximum
grade of 2% is used to minimize the length of the trench while avoiding impacts to the creeks.
Using this alternative, the trench will begin just south of the Matadero Creek. It will pass
under Baron Creek, Meadow Dr, Charleston Rd, and Adobe Creek, and will return to grade just
north of San Antonio Rd. The depth and grade of the trench is controlled by the 32.5’
clearance required under the two creeks (Baron Creek and Adobe Creek) and the constraints
at either end (Matadero Creek and San Antonio Rd). Both the 1.75% grade into the trench
and the 2.00% grade coming out of the trench will require design exceptions.
In the second scenario, a maximum grade of 1% is used, which will also avoid impacts to
creeks but will require approximately 10,500’ additional feet of trench and will require the
reconstruction of Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Rd. The trench will begin just south of
Churchill Ave. It will pass under Oregon Expressway, which will need to be reconstructed to
remove the existing undercrossing and return the roadway to surrounding grade level. The
trench will continue under Matadero Creek, Baron Creek, Meadow Dr, Charleston Rd, and
Adobe Creek, with the depth of the trench being controlled by the 32.5’ clearance require
under Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek. As the trench returns to grade at Rengstorff Ave, it
will pass under San Antonio Rd, which will need to be raised several feet to accommodate
24.5’ of clearance over the rail. This alternative will not require any design exceptions.
This study also evaluated the potential relocation of the three existing creeks to mitigate
design exceptions and minimize trench length. However, relocation of any of the creeks would
require resizing of the culverts to accommodate slower flow through a flatter channel. In
addition, at Adobe Creek and Matadero Creek, the 100 year flood water surface elevation is at
the top of the culvert, and at Baron Creek there is only 1.8’ of freeboard. Any modifications
would require upsizing all the culverts to provide 3’ of freeboard. While maintaining a
minimum slope of 0.25%, the creek crossing could be relocated several hundred feet north or
south, however, this would not provide enough space to avoid a maximum grade design
exception for the 2% grade scenario and would only provide a few hundred feet of savings in
trench length for the 1% grade scenario.
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 7 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
\\plt-fas2040\project\324006 Palo Alto Grade Separation Study\Memo\Palo Alto Grade Separation Study Memo-Rev 1.doc
There will be no permanent ROW impacts with this alternative, as the trench will be built
within the existing JPB ROW. Traffic impacts will be temporary, and will be related to
construction of the roadway bridges.
Cost Estimate
A preliminary cost estimate for each alternative for comparative purposes is provided as
Attachment A to this memo. The major civil components used to produce the preliminary cost
estimates include earthwork, trench and bridge structures, pump stations, railroad shooflies,
traffic detours, railroad and roadway signaling, utility relocations, and right-of-way costs. Soft
costs for professional services and contingency costs have been included as percentages of
estimated construction and project costs.
Attachments
Attachment A – Alternative Cost Estimates
line Unit Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
no.Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
001 Estimate Summary
002 Construction 622,440,744 289,191,768 25,200,625 52,677,350 27,370,319 55,705,363 29,076,479 57,591,565 128,158,000
003 Utility Relocation and Protection 213,300 104,400 1,664,300 4,960,380 2,750,450 5,559,850 2,350,750 4,129,000 8,562,750
004 Subtotal A 622,654,044 289,296,168 26,864,925 57,637,730 30,120,769 61,265,213 31,427,229 61,720,565 136,720,750
005 Professional Services (% of Subtotal A)35%217,928,915 101,253,659 9,402,724 20,173,206 10,542,269 21,442,825 10,999,530 21,602,198 47,852,263
006 Right of Way (incl. ROW Services)- - 36,000,000 69,000,000 27,000,000 32,000,000 39,000,000 39,000,000 71,000,000
007 Subtotal B 840,582,960 390,549,826 72,267,649 146,810,936 67,663,038 114,708,038 81,426,759 122,322,763 255,573,013
008 Contingency (% of Subtotal B)25%210,145,740 97,637,457 18,066,912 36,702,734 16,915,759 28,677,009 20,356,690 30,580,691 63,893,253
009 Total Project Cost (2014 dollars)1,050,728,700 488,187,283 90,334,561 183,513,669 84,578,797 143,385,047 101,783,449 152,903,454 319,466,266
010
011 note 1) Professional Services includes Design Engineering, Project Mgmt, and Construction Mgmt.
012
013
Palo Alto Caltrain - Grade Separation Projects
Attachment A - Alternative Cost Estimates
Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma Lowered
Rail Trench
1% Max Grade
(Caltrain Preferred)
Rail Trench
2% Max. Grade
(w/Design Exception)
Qnty Qnty
Charleston Meadow&CharlestonChurchillChurchillMeadow
Description Unit
Meadow Charleston
Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty
Palo-Alto_Quantities-Rev 1.xlsx - page 1 of 4 PRELIMINARY-- worksheet for discussion only 10/7/2014
line Unit Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
no.Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Palo Alto Caltrain - Grade Separation Projects
Attachment A - Alternative Cost Estimates
Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma Lowered
Rail Trench
1% Max Grade
(Caltrain Preferred)
Rail Trench
2% Max. Grade
(w/Design Exception)
Qnty Qnty
Charleston Meadow&CharlestonChurchillChurchillMeadow
Description Unit
Meadow Charleston
Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty
014 Construction
015 Support of Excavation (SOE)- - - - - - - - - -
016 SOE Area SF 80 2,428,595 194,287,616 1,239,904 99,192,320 59,200 4,736,000 155,040 12,403,200 56,320 4,505,600 155,776 12,462,080 60,000 4,800,000 160,320 12,825,600 381,600 30,528,000
017 Excavation - - - - - - - - - -
018 Mass Excavation CY 15 1,232,246 18,483,684 588,380 8,825,706 45,222 678,333 123,748 1,856,222 56,059 840,889 137,788 2,066,822 59,722 895,833 142,161 2,132,417 333,778 5,006,667
019 Offhaul/Disposal - Subcontract Trucking HR 110 236,180 25,979,845 112,773 12,405,019 8,668 953,435 23,718 2,609,023 10,745 1,181,916 26,409 2,905,033 11,447 1,259,144 27,248 2,997,230 63,974 7,037,148
020 Offhaul/Disposal - Dump Fee (Average)Load 50 118,090 5,904,510 56,386 2,819,323 4,334 216,690 11,859 592,960 5,372 268,617 13,205 660,235 5,723 286,169 13,624 681,189 31,987 1,599,352
021 Invert Slab - - - - - - - - - -
022 Invert Slab Concrete CY 600 130,163 78,097,778 54,667 32,800,000 8,800 5,280,000 22,489 13,493,333 10,193 6,115,556 24,919 14,951,111 11,467 6,880,000 26,193 15,715,556 54,267 32,560,000
023 Invert Slab Rebar TON 2,500 6,508 16,270,370 2,733 6,833,333 440 1,100,000 1,124 2,811,111 510 1,274,074 1,246 3,114,815 573 1,433,333 1,310 3,274,074 2,713 6,783,333
024 Trench Walls - - - - - - - - - -
025 Wall Concrete CY 900 149,556 134,600,400 77,104 69,394,000 3,211 2,890,000 8,567 7,710,000 3,111 2,800,000 8,618 7,756,000 3,267 2,940,000 8,833 7,950,000 21,700 19,530,000
026 Wall Rebar TON 2,500 22,433 56,083,500 11,566 28,914,167 482 1,204,167 1,285 3,212,500 467 1,166,667 1,293 3,231,667 490 1,225,000 1,325 3,312,500 3,255 8,137,500
027 Waterproofing - - - - - - - - - -
028 Waterproofing Membrane SF 10 2,224,604 22,246,040 1,062,940 10,629,400 88,300 883,000 228,900 2,289,000 96,800 968,000 245,760 2,457,600 106,800 1,068,000 256,300 2,563,000 561,600 5,616,000
029 Fences - - - - - - - - - -
030 Fence/Railing LF 200 38,800 7,760,000 18,000 3,600,000 1,800 360,000 4,400 880,000 1,600 320,000 4,400 880,000 1,800 360,000 4,600 920,000 9,600 1,920,000
031 Bridges - - - - - - - - - -
032 Bridge Deck Concrete SF 500 13,667 6,833,500 6,478 3,239,000 6,798 3,399,000 2,640 1,320,000 8,858 4,429,000 3,440 1,720,000 8,858 4,429,000 3,440 1,720,000 6,880 3,440,000
033 Creek Crossings - - - - - - - - - -
034 Creek Crossing Concrete SF 500 2,419 1,209,500 1,599 799,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
035 Underdrains - - - - - - - - - -
036 Underdrain Rt-Ft 60 19,400 1,164,000 9,000 540,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
037 Pump Stations - - - - - - - - - -
038 Pump Station - Location 1 LS 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000
039 Pump Station - Location 2 LS 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
040 Other Work - - - - - - - - - -
041 UPRR Shoofly with Temp. Signal System (Corridor) Rt-Ft 800 19,400 15,520,000 9,000 7,200,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
042 UPRR Shoofly with Temp. Signal System (Local)EA 2,500,000 - - - - 1 2,500,000 1 2,500,000 1 2,500,000 1 2,500,000 1 2,500,000 1 2,500,000 2 5,000,000
043 Rebuild Oregon Expwy LS 15,000,000 1 15,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
044 Rebuild San Antonio Road LS 5,000,000 1 5,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
045 Rebuild California Av Caltrain Statn (N.of Oregon Expwy) LS 8,000,000 1 8,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
046 Rebuild San Antonio Caltrain Statn (S.of San Antonio Rd) LS 8,000,000 1 8,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
047 Total Construction 622,440,744 289,191,768 25,200,625 52,677,350 27,370,319 55,705,363 29,076,479 57,591,565 128,158,000
Palo-Alto_Quantities-Rev 1.xlsx - page 2 of 4 PRELIMINARY-- worksheet for discussion only 10/7/2014
line Unit Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
no.Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Palo Alto Caltrain - Grade Separation Projects
Attachment A - Alternative Cost Estimates
Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma Lowered
Rail Trench
1% Max Grade
(Caltrain Preferred)
Rail Trench
2% Max. Grade
(w/Design Exception)
Qnty Qnty
Charleston Meadow&CharlestonChurchillChurchillMeadow
Description Unit
Meadow Charleston
Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty
048 Utility Relocation and Protection
049 Protect-in-Place - Electric (Overhead)LF 200 340 68,000 160 32,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
050 Protect-in-Place - Gas - 04"LF 160 - - - - 150 24,000 - - - - - - 685 109,600 - - - -
051 Protect-in-Place - Gas - 06"LF 200 40 8,000 40 8,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
052 Protect-in-Place - Gas - 08"LF 250 130 32,500 40 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
053 Protect-in-Place - Sanitary Sewer - 08"LF 120 40 4,800 40 4,800 - - - - - - - - 540 64,800 - - - -
054 Protect-in-Place - Sanitary Sewer - 10"LF 140 40 5,600 40 5,600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
055 Protect-in-Place - Sanitary Sewer - 30"LF 300 130 39,000 40 12,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
056 Protect-in-Place - Storm Drain - 12"LF 140 - - - - 70 9,800 - - 50 7,000 - - 65 9,100 - - - -
057 Protect-in-Place - Water - 06"LF 200 - - - - 75 15,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
058 Protect-in-Place - Water - 08"LF 220 40 8,800 40 8,800 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
059 Protect-in-Place - Water - 10"LF 240 - - - - 75 18,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
060 Protect-in-Place - Water - 12"LF 260 130 33,800 40 10,400 75 19,500 - - 300 78,000 - - - - - - - -
061 Protect-in-Place - Water - 16"LF 300 - - - - - - - - 300 90,000 - - 655 196,500 - - - -
062 Protect-in-Place - Water - 18"LF 320 40 12,800 40 12,800 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
063 Relocate - Electric (Overhead)LF 300 - - - - 650 195,000 5,121 1,536,300 4,181 1,254,300 10,661 3,198,300 2,635 790,500 6,450 1,935,000 13,516 4,054,800
064 Relocate - Electric (Underground)LF 300 - - - - 400 120,000 362 108,600 - - - - 190 57,000 190 57,000 - -
065 Relocate - Gas - 02"LF 160 - - - - 650 104,000 425 68,000 100 16,000 100 16,000 - - 65 10,400 165 26,400
066 Relocate - Gas - 03"LF 180 - - - - 500 90,000 510 91,800 - - - - 475 85,500 470 84,600 - -
067 Relocate - Gas - 04"LF 200 - - - - - - 2,185 437,000 - - 900 180,000 - - 1,800 360,000 3,170 634,000
068 Relocate - Gas - 06"LF 250 - - - - - - - - 240 60,000 970 242,500 775 193,750 765 191,250 1,735 433,750
069 Relocate - Gas - 08"LF 300 - - - - - - - - 1,150 345,000 1,150 345,000 - - - - 1,150 345,000
070 Relocate - Joint Trench (PRI,TEL,CATV,W,G,S/L,SEC) LF 300 - - - - 500 150,000 455 136,500 - - - - - - - - - -
071 Relocate - Sanitary Sewer - 06"LF 140 - - - - 500 70,000 466 65,240 - - - - - - - - - -
072 Relocate - Sanitary Sewer - 08"LF 160 - - - - - - 795 127,200 1,400 224,000 1,800 288,000 525 84,000 900 144,000 2,700 432,000
073 Relocate - Sanitary Sewer - 10"LF 180 - - - - - - - - - - - - 700 126,000 - - - -
074 Relocate - Sanitary Sewer - 12"LF 200 - - - - - - - - 70 14,000 70 14,000 - - - - 70 14,000
075 Relocate - Sanitary Sewer - 30"LF 350 - - - - - - - - - - 1,145 400,750 - - - - 1,145 400,750
076 Relocate - Storm Drain - 08"LF 160 - - - - 100 16,000 149 23,840 - - - - - - - - - -
077 Relocate - Storm Drain - 10"LF 180 - - - - - - 25 4,500 - - - - - - - - - -
078 Relocate - Storm Drain - 12"LF 200 - - - - 300 60,000 516 103,200 430 86,000 430 86,000 300 60,000 900 180,000 1,330 266,000
079 Relocate - Storm Drain - 15"LF 220 - - - - - - 645 141,900 - - - - - - - - - -
080 Relocate - Storm Drain - 27"LF 300 - - - - - - - - 15 4,500 15 4,500 - - - - 15 4,500
081 Relocate - Storm Drain - 36"LF 400 - - - - - - - - 50 20,000 50 20,000 - - - - 50 20,000
082 Relocate - Water - 06"LF 240 - - - - 1,200 288,000 2,550 612,000 120 28,800 120 28,800 - - - - 120 28,800
083 Relocate - Water - 08"LF 260 - - - - - - - - 650 169,000 650 169,000 1,225 318,500 1,200 312,000 1,850 481,000
084 Relocate - Water - 10"LF 280 - - - - - - 1,835 513,800 - - - - - - - - - -
085 Relocate - Water - 12"LF 300 - - - - - - 1,835 550,500 800 240,000 900 270,000 - - - - 900 270,000
086 Relocate - Water - 16"LF 330 - - - - - - - - 345 113,850 900 297,000 - - 1,800 594,000 2,700 891,000
087 Relocate - Water - 18"LF 350 - - - - - - - - - - - - 730 255,500 745 260,750 745 260,750
088 Relocate - Water - 24"LF 400 - - - - 650 260,000 605 242,000 - - - - - - - - - -
089 Relocate - Water - 27"LF 450 - - - - 500 225,000 440 198,000 - - - - - - - - - -
090 Total Utility Relocation and Protection 213,300 104,400 1,664,300 4,960,380 2,750,450 5,559,850 2,350,750 4,129,000 8,562,750
Palo-Alto_Quantities-Rev 1.xlsx - page 3 of 4 PRELIMINARY-- worksheet for discussion only 10/7/2014
line Unit Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
no.Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
Palo Alto Caltrain - Grade Separation Projects
Attachment A - Alternative Cost Estimates
Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma At-grade Alma Lowered Alma Lowered
Rail Trench
1% Max Grade
(Caltrain Preferred)
Rail Trench
2% Max. Grade
(w/Design Exception)
Qnty Qnty
Charleston Meadow&CharlestonChurchillChurchillMeadow
Description Unit
Meadow Charleston
Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty Qnty
091 Right of Way (incl. ROW Services)
092 Property Take - Partial LS 1,000,000 - - - - 4 4,000,000 3 3,000,000 5 5,000,000 4 4,000,000 3 3,000,000 3 3,000,000 7 7,000,000
093 Property Take - Full LS 2,000,000 - - - - 16 32,000,000 33 66,000,000 11 22,000,000 14 28,000,000 18 36,000,000 18 36,000,000 32 64,000,000
094 Total Right of Way (incl. ROW Services)- - 36,000,000 69,000,000 27,000,000 32,000,000 39,000,000 39,000,000 71,000,000
Palo-Alto_Quantities-Rev 1.xlsx - page 4 of 4 PRELIMINARY-- worksheet for discussion only 10/7/2014