Click for next page ( 26

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 25
25 PFC was a nominal charge for every flight passenger VI. LARGO EXTENSION OF BLUE LINE PROJECT departing JFK Airport. In addition to the funding de- bate, the Air Transportation Association filed suit to Project Overview block the AirTrain project over the definition of en- hanced capacity. The lawsuit halted the review proce- The Largo Extension project consists of a 3.1 mi ex- dure until the Port Authority resolved the funding issue tension to the WMATA Blue Line train. The extension with the FAA. In response, the Port Authority pur- links the existing Blue Line to Largo Town Center in an chased the Van Wyck right-of-way to Jamaica Station effort to relieve the area's severe traffic congestion and and submitted required detailed design and construc- provide more public transit service. Original estimates tion documents to the FAA. The FAA reviewed the doc- showed that after the extension the number of daily uments and determined that the Port Authority could transit passengers would increase by an estimated use $1.2 billion of the $1.6 billion in PFC funds collected 20,000 customers. before 1992 for the AirTrain Project. WMATA awarded a DB contract for line, trackwork, After the Port Authority resolved the funding issues, and systems (Contract 2) to the Lane, Granite, Slattery- various conflicts arose with the contractor due in large Skanska Joint Venture (LGS) in the amount of $218 part to the minimal functional design information pro- million. WMATA awarded separate contracts for site vided in the RFP. Generally, line and grade drawings clearing/preparation (Contract 1, $14 million, DBB) and as well as station locations were provided to define the the construction of two new stations (Contract 3, $92.9 corridor. Limited information was provided with respect million, DB). The work under Contract 1 preceded the to station design. In the Technical Provisions section of Contract 2 work, and was performed by Lane Construc- the RFP, the Port Authority stipulated that tion. The total projected budget for the entire extension the contractor shall address...aesthetic issues with the project was $460 million. The project secured funds same degree of care that will be given to the more easily from two sources: a local funding agreement with the evaluated technical aspects of the System. This means Maryland DOT for $173.6 million, and an FFGA with inducting good architects, signage and graphic designers, the FTA for $260.3 million as part of its New Starts site planners and others on the design-construct team Program (49 U.S.C. 5309), which provides funding for that will contribute to the aesthetic quality of the end re- extensions to fixed guideway systems. This section cov- sult. ers the procurement, contracting strategies, and per- Apart from this description, the Port Authority did formance of Contract 2. not provide specific details for the design aesthetic of the train stations. Consequently, the designers planned Procurement the stations according to their interpretation of the re- quirements. In some cases, the station design choices Scope of Work did not conform to the Port Authority's expectations for The DB RFP stipulated that the design-builder pro- level of quality or standard of care. Generally, the Port vide the following services: engineering and architec- Authority and ARTC worked to resolve these conflicts tural services for the final design, drawings, and speci- within the bounds of the contract, but these issues fications; schedules and cost estimates; and all labor, caused delays in the project schedule. At the conclusion equipment, materials, project management, QC, and of design and construction, roughly $40 million worth of architecture and engineering required for construction. changes or claims remained unsettled. Through exten- The primary scope of the work included double-box sive negotiations, the majority of the disputed amounts structure cut-and-cover work with some aerial and re- were resolved, generally in ARTC's favor, so conse- tained cut construction. The work as defined by the quently no further legal actions were required. RFP included the tasks shown in Table 8. Another delay in the project occurred in the testing phase of the AirTrain system. On September 27, 2002, a car operator died when a test train, travelling at an unknown speed, derailed and crashed in the parapet. The crash caused the front car of the train to tear open and the guideway wall to shear away 150 ft. The Na- tional Transportation Safety Board is still investigating the cause of the incident. According to the investigation, the test operation may have been faulty as it involved the placement of 16 unsecured concrete blocks in three cars of the trains to simulate passengers. The 2,000 pd blocks shifted as the train rounded the curve. In the end, the final cost of the AirTrain project came to $1.9 billion, approximately $770 million more than the con- tract award amount. Currently, the railway operates at approximately one-half of the projected ridership.

OCR for page 25
26 Table 8. Largo Extension Project Tasks providers to accommodate station construction under Contract 3. Additionally, the proposer was to facilitate Project Task Subtasks integration with WMATA system elements at large. WMATA's goal was to have the trains running before Structures Retained cut with walls the 2005 Presidential Inauguration, an unchanging Retained fill with walls goal, which ultimately governed the pace of the project. Cut-and- cover double box and single box Process Overview Aerial guideway Aerial through girder WMATA used a two-phase, best value selection proc- Vent shaft ess for procuring a DB team. The first phase of pro- Multicell culverts under box curement was based on a request for qualifications structure in wet areas (RFQ), which resulted in the selection committee nar- Trackwork Mainline track rowing the proposers down to a shortlist of four entities. Storage track In the second phase, each of the shortlisted proposers Two No. 10 tangential geometry submitted a detailed proposal in response to an RFP. double crossovers Three No. 10 tangential geome- Selection and Award Criteria try turnouts WMATA's evaluation committee used a combination Primarily direct fixation con- of technical capability and price to determine the ulti- struction with some ballasted mate design-builder. The technical proposal considered track the management plan, key staff, preliminary safety Automatic Automatic train protection plan, quality plan, and a preliminary schedule. Price Train Control Operation was set forth in a separate, sealed, cost proposal. The System Supervision price proposal structure is illustrated in Table 9, Connections and compatibility whereby WMATA included estimated incentives and with existing Blue Line system allowances and the proposer provided lump-sum and Traction Power Two 9-MW substations options costs. Tie breaker Distribution system Voice and Data Telephone Communications Remote indication and control of Systems operating facilities Security Radio Public address Passenger information display system Systems CCTV Fire Intrusion Corrosion Con- n/a trol Jet Fan Tunnel air circulation Control room Operations n/a Building Facility Sys- Mechanical tems Electrical Plumbing Additionally, the scope of the project included sev- eral points for interfacing and integrating with the ex- isting Blue Line system. The extension connects with aerial and at-grade structures and elements of the ex- isting Addison Road station. It also connects with a Beltway-crossing bridge built under Contract 1. The proposer was obligated to coordinate with track, trac- tion power, train control, communications, and systems