Application of Value Engineering – The Crosstown Project · Application of Value Engineering –...

Application of Value Engineering –The Crosstown Project

Presented To: CSVA Conference, Toronto

Presented by: Rick Thompson, Chief Project Manager – SRT/Yards

November 15, 2011

1. Eglinton Scarborough Crosstown Overview

2. Value Engineering for the Crosstown Project

3. Examples of VE Workshops

(i) SRT Conversion(ii) Station Box Length(iii) Tunnel Design

4. Questions

11/18/2011Application of VE - The Crosstown Project

Agenda2

Agenda

11/18/2011 3

Agenda

Application of VE - The Crosstown ProjectAgenda

Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown

Application of Value Engineering 1 - The Crosstown Project

11/15/2011

Eglinton Corridor

11/15/2011Application of Value Engineering

1 - The Crosstown Project

Maintenance and Storage Facilities (MSFs)

• Funded by the Province through Metrolinx - $8.4 Billion

• TTC responsible for delivery of the project, on behalf of Metrolinx

• Support future growth across the City

• Provide connections to the TTC subway and GO Transit

• Implement PRESTO transit fare card

Key facts:

• 25 km east-west corridor between Scarborough Centre and Jane Street / Black Creek

• 19 km underground tunnel (Jane/Black Creek to Kennedy)

• 6km through-running service along upgraded SRT to Scarborough Centre

• Up to 26 stations

• 3 interchanges with subway

• Two Maintenance and Storage Facilities (MSF)

Light Rail Vehicles

Bombardier Awarded Contract in June 2010

New LRV features:

• Low floor and accessible

• Audio and visual passenger information

• Enhanced noise and vibration mitigation• 31m long• Will operate in 3 car consist

Potential Interior Layout

• Deliver quality product

• Deliver accessible product

• Minimize property and construction impacts

• Minimize disruption to extensive utilities around stations

• Accommodate local traffic during construction

11/15/2011 Application of Value Engineering 1 - The Crosstown Project

• SRT – Kennedy to McCowan – 2019

• Eglinton – Keele to Kennedy – target 2020

Project Implementation

– Nov. 2011 – Tunnels – Keele to Laird – 90% – Dec. 2011 – SRT Conversion – 30% – Dec. 2011 – SRT Kennedy Station – 10% – Early 2012 – Stations – Keele to Chaplin – 10%

Project Status - Design

• Jul. 2011 – West Launch Shaft @ Black Creek

• Summer 2012 – Tunnelling starts (west to east)

• 2014 – Eglinton Stations Start

• 2013/2014 – Advanced SRT construction

• Sep. 2015 – SRT shut down

• Sep. 2015 - – McCowan Maintenance & Storage Facility.

Project Status - Construction

Agenda17

Agenda

Best value at lowest cost.

VE Objective

Application of VE2-Value Engineering for the Crosstown Project

11/15/2011

In achieving best value at lowest cost, must:• Provide safe operation

• Adhere to design requirements

• Provide low life-cycle cost

• Provide high performance- reliability- availability- maintainability

• Be functional and aesthetically pleasing for customers.

VE Objective

11/15/2011 Application of VE2-Value Engineering for the Crosstown Project

Value Engineering

– Traditionally perceived as a means to reduce costs. – Can also be applied to improve performance.– Measures to determine performance are specific to

each VE

What is Value?

Creative

How Achieve Objectives?

The Box☺

Pre-Judge

Defensive

Creative

“No” “No”

☺ ☺

• Instil VE as a culture

• Promote creativity and an open-minded approach

• Optimize designs to deliver maximum value at the lowest achievable life-cycle cost

• Perform VE early to achieve greatest benefit

VE Benefits

• Encourages design creativity

• Builds confidence within project teams

• Provides a mechanism to deliver optimum value and quality service

• Provides confidence to funding partners.

3 Types of VE

• Mainstream

• Formal

• Construction

3 Types of VE - Continued

Mainstream VE:

• Every day decisions throughout the design process

• Good engineering practice

• Request design variances

• Innovative design

3 Types of VE - ContinuedFormal VE:• 3 VE Consultants retained

• VE Consultant retains appropriate specialists

• Perform at or before 30% design• 10% - evaluate options• 30% - evaluate selected options

• Constructibility

• To be used for:• Stations• Tunnels• Maintenance Facilities

Formal VE Process – 5 Day Workshop

• Day 1 - Presentation by project team and site visit

• Days 2-4 - VE Consultant reviews project documentation and generates analysis of options. VE Consultant may contact project team for additional information.

• Day 5 - VE Consultant delivers presentation of VE recommendations.

Formal VE Process Initial Evaluation

• VE Consultant provides draft report

• Project team reviews.

Formal VE ProcessFinal Evaluation

• Project team develops position on each recommendation

• Project team modifies designs accordingly

• VE Register is updated with selected options.

VE Register

• Active list of selected VE recommendations

• Important tool to convey message to other teams

• VE updates issued regularly

3 Types of VE - Continued

Construction VE:

• Contracts encourage contractors to submit alternatives

• Internal evaluation

• Cost benefits shared with contractor

11/15/11 Application of VE - The Crosstown Project3(i)– SRT Conversion

Agenda

(i) SRT Conversion

SRT Conversion

Elevated Section• Midland Station• Scarborough CC Stn• McCowan Station

Tunnel Section

At-Grade Section• Lawrence Station• Ellesmere Station

Kennedy Station

SRT Conversion

SRT Conversion- New LRT Vehicle

11/15/2011

Mark 1 Flexity

• Heavier (Axle load 12 vs 6 tonnes)• Low floor• Catenary traction power• Longer consist (93m vs 51m)

Application of VE - The Crosstown Project3(i)– SRT Conversion

SRT Conversion - Scope

• Design was at approximately 10% • Improve design by focusing on high cost items

and improving project performance

• Assist in selection of design options

VE Workshop – SRT Conversion

Establish Performance Attributes:

Transit OperationsUser AccessibilityMaintainability Construction ImpactsEnvironmental ImpactsProject ScheduleRisk

VE Workshop – SRT Conversion

VE Workshop – SRT Conversion Performance Attribute Weighting

PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE MATRIXWhich attribute is more important to the project? TOTAL %

Transit Operations A A/B A A A A/F A 6.0 21.4%

User Accessibility B B B B B/F B 6.0 21.4%

Maintainability C C C C/F C 4.5 16.1%

Construction Impacts D E F D 2.0 7.1%

Environmental Impacts E F E 3.0 10.7%

Project Schedule F F 5.5 19.6%

Risks G 1.0 3.6%

28.0 100%

Modify Roof Over Track

Proposed At-GradeStation Modification

11/15/2011 42

Extend Platform

Lower Platform

Validation - The Base Case design has the highest Value

OVERALL PERFORMANCE Performance (P)

% ChangePerformance

Cost (C) % Savings Value Index

(P/C)% Value

Improvement

Baseline 500 $237.7 2.10

A-8 Replace framing with thinner, shop fabricated beams 454 -9% $228.4 4% 1.99 -6%

A-4a Platform canopies only, no roof over tracks, raise track 369 -26% $223.3 6% 1.65 -21%

A-4b At extensions, no roof, only platform canopies 435 -13% $227.5 4% 1.91 -9%

VE Evaluation of At-Grade Stations

SProposed Elevated Station ModificationRaise Roof over Track

Strengthen Track DeckAnd Raise Track

Strengthen Joints

11/15/2011 44

Extend Platform

VE Supported Base Case

SRT Conversion - Tunnel

Modify Tunnel to accommodate larger vehicle

Tunnel ‐ Roof ModificationProposed Tunnel Modification

11/15/2011 46

Remove existing tunnel roof

Raise support columns & walls and add roof

Tunnel Modification - Sequencing

1. Construct detour and remove mainline

2. Remove tunnel roof, raise support columns and walls

3. Cast new tunnel roof

4. Re-install GO Transit mainline

5. Remove detour

Tunnel Modification - Sequencing

6. VE: Use existing spur as detour (not acceptable to GO)

Elevated Guideway Existing Structure

SRT ConversionElevated Structure with New Vehicle

Overstressed due to 100% additional load

• Option 1 –Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

• Option 2 - Conventional Reinforcing

• Option 3 - New Superstructure

• Option 4 - New Guideway

• VE did not identify any new options

Elevated Structure Modification Options Identified by Project Team

• Quality Control is a challenge

• Weather dependant

• Relatively new and on-going research

• VE did not recommend

VE EvaluationOption 1 - FRP Reinforcing

Add Concrete Slab With 20 Dowels Per Metre

External Stirrups For Girder

Exterior Post-tensioning

Option 2. Conventional Reinforcing

5211/15/2011

Exterior Post-tensioning

VE Evaluation Option 2 - Conventional Reinforcing Evaluation

• Requires 40,000 dowels• Existing structure participates in live load

– Cracking Potential is High• Corrosion

• Only expect 25 year life• VE did not recommend

Elevated Guideway Option 2 New Superstructure

EXISTING PIERPier Modification

Option 3. New Superstructure

11/15/2011 54

Proposed Superstructure

• Higher capital cost• 75 year life• Recommended by VE

VE Evaluation Option 3 - New Superstructure on Existing Piers/Foundations

11/15/2011 56

• Highest capital cost• VE did not recommend

Option 4. New Guideway-Superstructure and Piers

• Life Cycle Cost Analysis conducted by TTC• Results support VE recommendation

Elevated Structure - VE Follow-Up

• Did not result in capital cost savings• Did result in improved performance• Assisted in selection of options• Supported base case designs

VE Workshop – SRT Conversion Summary

11/15/11 Application of VE - The Crosstown Project3 (ii) Station Box Length

Agenda

(i) SRT Conversion(ii) Station Box Length

Station Design

3 (ii) Station Box Length

Station Location

11/15/2011

• Minimize property and construction impacts

• Minimize disruption to extensive utilities around stations

• Accommodate local traffic during construction

Application of VE - The Crosstown Project3 (ii) Station Box Length

6211/15/2011

Station Construction

• Smaller station– Less impact– Less cost– Shorter schedule

• VE performed on Station Box Length

Station Box Length

6711/15/2011

Relocate Vent Fans

Station Box Length

11/15/2011

Station Box Length

6911/15/2011

VE Alternative Box Length Reduction

Cost Saving per Station

Vent fans outside station box at entrance buildings 22m $ 3.3 M

Delete fire fighter access shafts (in‐line stations) 3m $ 1.0 M

Platform length reduced from 97 to 95m 2m $ 0.6 M

POTENTIAL COST SAVING PER IN‐LINE STATION (Location Specific)

27m $ 4.9 M

TOTAL POTENTIAL COST SAVING $ 100 M

11/15/11 70

Agenda

Application of VE- The Crosstown Project3 (iii) – Tunnel Design

Eglinton Tunnels

• 19 km tunnel from Kennedy to West Launch Shaft (Black Creek Drive)

11/15/2011 Application of VE- The Crosstown Project3 (iii) – Tunnel Design

Eglinton Tunnels

Mainstream VE:

Tunnelling vs cut and cover

• Tunnelling more cost effective for long distances• Less impact to community

Tunnel Diameter

• Minimize to reduce costs

Eglinton Tunnel Boring

7311/15/2011

• 4 TBMs have been purchased

Constructing New Stations & Tunnels

Formal VE – Tunnel Design

• VE performed on 60% tunnel design.

• VE report under review

Eglinton Tunnel Design

7611/15/2011

VE Alternative Cost Saving (Preliminary)

Excavate station boxes from Dufferin east to Yonge prior to tunnelling

$ 59 M

Utilize secant walls as part of the permanent station structure $ 44 M

Use Eglinton West Station box to extract and launch TBMs $ 30 M

Utilize longer TBM tunnel drives $ 26 M

POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS (TOP 4 BIG WINS) $ 159 M

7711/15/2011

Tunnel Construction

11/15/11 Application of VE - The Crosstown Project4 – Questions

Agenda

4. Questions

11/15/11 Application of VE - The Crosstown Project4 – Questions

Questions

Contact: Rick ThompsonChief Project Manager – SRT/YardsToronto Transit CommissionTransit Expansion DepartmentTel: 416-397-4870e-mail: Rick.Thompson@ttc.ca

Application of Value Engineering – The Crosstown Project · Application of Value Engineering –...

Documents

State Route 4 Crosstown Freeway Ramp Extension Project ... · State Route 4 Crosstown Freeway Ramp Extension Project . ... • Reduce industrial truck traffic ... State Route 4 Crosstown

Eglinton Crosstown Leaside Open House Presentation

Crosstown Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Technical ... · Crosstown Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Technical Memorandum 1 Summary of Findings This technical report assesses the

Eglinton Scarborough Crosstown Update Meeting 2011€¦ · April 26 2011 Karen Stintz, Councillor Ward 16 Chair, Toronto Transit Commission. Eglinton ‐ Scarborough Crosstown Community

CROSSTOWN LRT · • To minimize the impact to disruption to pedestrian and vehicle traffic, ... positively impacted by the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project

Crosstown Parkway ExtEnsion DEsign/BuilD ProjECtcrosstownextension.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Crosstown-Extension-FactSheet.pdfCrosstown Parkway ExtEnsion DEsign/BuilD ProjECt

CROSSTOWN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. · CROSSTOWN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Brief Corporate Profile Contractor specializing in Industrial Ventilation, HVAC Systems and Architectural Metal

Eglinton Crosstown Update

ROUTE CROSSTOWN 9 - ONEHUNGA CROSSTOWN - NEW …Crosstown 9 Remuera Onehunga New Lynn Avondale Onehunga Mt Albert ROUTE CROSSTOWN 9 - ONEHUNGA CROSSTOWN - NEW LYNN TO SYLVIA PARK

Calgary Crosstown BRT V - Ian. BRT... · • Ride Share (Uber, Lyft) • Taxi • Paratransit • Bus (feeder, crosstown, mainline) • Express Bus • Streetcar / Tram (mixed traffic)

Crosstown business opportunties and info session presentation

I-35W/Highway 62 Crosstown Commons Reconstruction

MIDTOWN CROSSTOWN PROTECTED BIKE LANES - … · Midtown Crosstown Routes 10 Crosstown Bike Routes Strategy Proposed Routes - accessible every ½ mile through Midtown Protected Bike

CROSSTOWN LRT · Construction of the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Line Background • In September 2008, Metrolinx launched a regional transportation plan – a 25-year, ... • Energy

EGLINTON CROSSTOWN · EGLINTON CROSSTOWN . Cedarvale-Forest Hill Construction Liaison Committee . February 28, 2018

CROSSTOWN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD

JIMI HENDRIX Crosstown Traffic

FOR lease > OFFICe sPaCe Crosstown Woods · 2016. 3. 29. · CHad anvary 952 897 7719 chad.anvary@colliers.com FPO FOR lease > OFFICe sPaCe Crosstown Woods 10125 CrOsstOwn CirCle,

Crosstown Concourse - Tennessee

Crosstown final boards - University of Memphis€¦ · Crosstown final boards.indd Author: Martin Created Date: 4/28/2016 2:09:20 PM