___Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza zi3.gz2.2000 TelMetropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA 9oois-z952 metro.net

MetroREVISED

FINANCE, BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEENOVEMBER 14, 2012

CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEENOVEMBER 15, 2012

SUBJECT: CRENSHAW/LAX TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT

ACTION: INCREASE LIFE-OF-PROJECT BUDGET FROM $1.749 BILLIONTO $1.762.9 BILLION BY ADDING AVAILABLE TIGER II FUNDS

RECOMMENDATION

A. Increase Life-of-Project (LOP) Budget for Crenshaw/LAX Transit CorridorProject, No. 865512, by $13.9 million, increasing the LOP budget from $1.749.0billion to $1.762.9 billion; and,,

B. Reprogram to a proiect reserve contingencv $13.9 million in Proposition C25% funds freed up when Crenshaw/LAX Transportation InvestmentGenerating Economic Recovery (TIGER II) grant available funds were notrequired for their original purpose.

ISSUE

Board approval is required, per Final Unified Cost Management Process and Policy, toincrease the LOP budget. The project received TIGER II funds of $20 million in October2012 to be used to support a TIFIA Loan of up to $545.9 million. As part of the TIGER IIfunds, $6.1 million has been determined as the amount required for the subsidy andadministrative costs of the TIFIA loan and $13.9 million has been reallocated by theFederal Transit Administration (FTA) for use only on s~+~,al constructionexpenditures. Staff is seeking to increase the total LOP budget by the $13.9 million ~e

. by reallocating Proposition C 25%fundsfrom the construction category to the project reserve contingency cateAory andallocating the $13.9 million TIGER II funds to the construction cateaorv. Staff isconcurrently seeking alternative funding sources in the event the contractor's bidsexceed the project budget for the options.

DISCUSSION

The Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor is a north/south corridor that serves the cities ofLos Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne and EI Segundo as well as portions ofunincorporated Los Angeles County. The adopted alignment extends 8.5 miles, from theintersection of Crenshaw and Exposition Boulevards to a connection with the MetroGreen Line at the AviationlLAX Station. The project provides major connections withthe Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) as well as links to the Metro Green Line, theExposition Line and countrywide bus nefinrork. The Board adopted a light rail system asthe locally preferred alternative on December 10, 2009. A LOP Budget of $1.749 billionwas adopted by the Board in October 2011.

The TIGER II funds will be used to support the recently approved TIFIA Loan of up to$545.9 million, approximately one-third of the total Project cost. Up to $20.0 million inTIGER II funds will be used in finro grants approved by the FTA: (1) a $13.9 million FTAFY2010 TIGER II Discretionary Grant #~~-s ad only for construction costs incurredfor the Project and (2) a $6.1 million FTA FY2010 TIGER II Discretionary Grant for aTIGER II TIFIA Payment as needed to directly pay for the credit subsidy andadministrative costs associated with making the TIFIA Loan.

The $13 9 million net addition to the project budget will be added to a projectreserve contingency. The a~i#+e+a~ $13.9 million allowed by FTA forsaga-~construction costs will be reserved ~~-~ ̂ ~nnro~c~~ ~.qo -,r,,,,,,~+ of f~ ~nrlinn ~.,"~~h,

for construction activities including bid options within the design-build contract that may

be incorporated in the final base scope of work for the project. Because theprocurement is continuing for the design-build base alignment contract per the EISdocuments, the cost of the base work and value of bid options will not be known until

receipt of bids and the completion of the bid evaluation.

The original LOP Budget Board Report is included as Attachment B.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

This recommended action has no impact on safety.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The $13.9 million is an increase to the project budget resulting from a new fundingsource, TIGER II Grant, and no other project budget is being reduced. Since this is a

multi-year project, the cost center manager and Executive Director, Transit ProjectDelivery will be accountable for budgeting the cost in future years.

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor -Life of Project Budget

Impact to Budget

$118,087,265 +ems is already included in the FY13 budget under Project 865512(Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project), in Cost Center 8510 (Construction ProjectManagement). The sources of funds for this project are capital funds identified in theadopted Long Range Transportation Plan. The Funding/Expenditure Plan has beenincluded as Attachment A. The $50.4 million of Proposition A 35% is eligible for railoperations. The other funds are not eligible for bus and rail operating expenditures.

ALTERNATI\/ES CONSIDERED

The Board may choose not to approve an increase in the LOP budget for theCrenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project. This will decrease the ability of the project toincrease the amount of funding available for construction activities including funding anyor part of the options within the design-build main alignment contract.

The Board may choose to reduce another funding source such as Proposition C 25% by$13.9 million and then add the $13.9 million TIGER II Grant to the existing funding planleaving the LOP Budget at the current adopted $1.749 billion. This would increase theamount of Proposition C 25%funds available to address unexpected cost increases orrevenue decreases in the Long Range Transportation Plan.

NEXT STEPS

Upon Board approval, the project will proceed immediately with the revised fundingFunding/Expenditure Plan. With the conclusion of the procurement of the design-buildmain alignment contract, the award of the contract will come back to the Board forapproval in early 2013.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Funding/Expenditure PlanB. Original LOP Approval

Prepared by: Robert Ball, Deputy Executive Officer and Project DirectorExecutive Office, Project Management (213) 922-7280

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor -Life of Project Budget

,~

Krishniah N. M rthyExecutive Director, Transit Project Delivery

t ~G

Arthur T. LeahyChief Executive Officer

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor -Life of Project Budget

Attachment A

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project

Funding/Expenditure Plan*

(Dollars in Millions)

of

Capital Project 865512 Prior FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 TOTAL Totai

Uses of Funds

Construction 1.1 592 227.6 292.0 298.6 118.9 44.8 10.4 1.052.6 59.7%

Right-of-Way 2.2 86.1 44.0 132.3 7.5%

Vehicles 30.7 41.3 15.8 87.8 5.0%

Prof Services 35.4 23.7 50.8 57.4 36.8 34.9 21.0 9.3 3.8 273.1 15.5%

_.Project Contingency - 9.3 11.1 36.6 42.7 47.8 26.4 17.2 191.1 10.8%

Subtotal 38.7 178.3 333.5 386.0 408.8 242.9 108.0 36.9 3.8 1,736.9 98.5%

Environmental/Plannin 25.5 0.5 26.0 1.5%

Total Project Costs: 64.2 178.8 333.5 386.0 408.8 242.9 108.0 36.9 3.8 1,762.9 100%

Sources of Funds

Proposition A 35% 4 $ 45.6 50.4 2.9%

Local Agency Funds 18.4 11.4 22.6 52.4 3.0%

Proposition C 25% 3 7 14.8 112.5 4.0 13.9 148.9 8.4%

Measure R TIFIA Loan 337.4 208.5 545.9 31.0%

Measure R 35% 43.6 63.1 234.6 235.6 53.0 - 27.0 0.4 3.8 661.1 37.5%

Prop 1 B PTMISEA 6.2 110.9 84.1 201.2 11.4%

Regional ImprovementProgram 2.4 34.4 36.8 2.1

Section 5309 Bus&Bus-Related FacilityEarmark ~ ~ 7.1 0.4%

COQ 24.0 24.0 1.4%

RSTP 20.0 20.0 1.1

Federal -other ~ 2 1.2 0.1

Federal -TIGER II _ 13.g _ 13.9 0.8%

Total Project Funding: $64.2 $178.8 $333.5 $386.0 $408.8 $242.9 $108.0 $36.9 $3.8 $1,762.9 100%

Surplus/(Shortfall): - - - - - - - - - -

*Sources of funds are preliminary and subject to change. Costs are based on Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimate and

subject to change. Assumes Revenue Operations in 2018.

** Per Financial Impact section, approved FY13 budget 865512 is $118,087,265.

*'k* The Project Contingency Cost Element above includes $13.9 million in project reserve contingency.

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor -Life of Project Budget

ATTACHMENT BAttachment B

Original LQP Approval

~~

Los Rng~tes Courrty One Gateway PtQza ~~~.gz2.z000 Tet

Metrapali#an Transportation A~tEtorifif ~QS Angeles, CA goot~ 2gga ~netra.r~et~ ~ :c

~~r~3REVISED

F~N~4f1tCE, B~QGET AND AElDtT ~~NiMfS~'EEoc~ra~~~ ~~, Za~~

PR~JEC~: CR~NSHA1t1fI~.Ai~ TRAt~tSfT GORR~~QR PRQJECT

ACT10~t: APPR~\fE L1F~-O~-PE~C~JECT BUF}GF~

RECD~JItEDATt

A. Esta.b[~sf~ Life-af-Pro~e~t (LaP~ budget o~ $'1:~'~ 5 bili~on for the Crenshav~rlLAX

Transit Corr~~€~r Prc~~.ect NQ. ~5~512.

B. R~pro~rarn up to ~34~.~ mi~iic~n bud mot less ~ha~ $3'x..3 r~i~fic~ns ~n pr~ar Stake TtF

~une~s frort~ t~.~ Cnterstat~ 4Q5IArbo~ V~ae interchange lm~pravement project to

Prc~~ec~ ~o. 8655'! ~ ~r~cr~as~r~g LOFT° B~cfg~t ire ~ecar~c~endafion A tv ~'~ .~49

b~tCQn.

iSS~lE

B►~arc~ approval rs requ~ret~, per final Urttf~~d ~o~t a~nager~teR~ ~'~c~cess and Pc~l~c}t, to

estat~l sh the LUP ~udc~et to com.rn~~ce cc~~nstruct~ar~ p~iase ac~ivi~i~s ~t~ch as ri~~tt-of-_ _ _wad a~quisit~an, early ut~~i y ~etoc~~ians, a.r~~f satic~a~Qn of cans e#~or~. con~ra.~s.

D1S~US~IQP~

The ~.rensha~v~f~C ~~a~sif G~rric~c~r is a nc~itf~Isou~~t c~rr dog that ,senf~s ~; ~ t~~s o~f_ -~os An~e~es, I~-gle~ooas .Hawt~t€~ e aid ~t ~egu~clo a~ wre1~ as partiv~s Qt

un~r~Ea gated Las An ~ ~~e~ C~u~ : ~"~t~e : ~4 ased a~i - ~rm~n~ expends ~.5 .rn~ ~~ from~ ~ ~Y t~ P 9the tn~ers~c~ian ofi ~~eR~hav~r- aid E~c~o~ tan ~o~f~vai~e~s ~o ~ cannec~ian v~i~h tine ~tietry_. _G~-eer~ Line a~ ~~te A~i~ti~r~fLA~ Stat[~on. ~"I~te - ~~'~c~ ~: roar des major c~r~~tectior~s iivi~hp ~ .~ Pt~~ ~QS ~~ge6~s~ t~nter~~i~nai A~r~o~ ~L~} ~_s ~e~t as fires to tie ~e~ro ~ree:n Line, the:.~zp~si~ opt Line anc~ c€~un~~i~~ bud ~e rock. The ~aar~ a~d~p~~d a ~~gh~ r~i[ ~ys~e~m a~

the ~oc~l~~r ~:r~~~rred aEt~r~ativ~ v~ D~cec~be~ '~ Q, 20a~.

Ti~~ at:~gnr~ent ~s c~~npr~sed ~f .a do~t~~e-~'ac~ced right#-off ~a~ cansistirtg Qf se~ti~n~ ~ at-_ .grace ire-s~~~et, a~-grade within. ra~i~oar~ rig~~rt af-v~r~~, aerial, and bel~ov~r grade c~~id~euva~

se~ions; six stat~Qns, ~a~r~C aria ride- ~ac~['i~ies a~ ~~ree locations, ~titities, ~ar~ds~aping,

~aad~tay ~~pro~reme~ts required by t~t~ p~fl~ec~ aid a maintenance & ~fic~rac~e fac~li~~.

The pr~jec~ ~rif~ ~gravide dabs ar~d cammur~ity re~ri~a[iza~iar~ opp€~r~unit~es in a historically

underserv~d area of tos Angeles County and is expected ~o be a slgnifcan~ er~gin~ for

develap~ent in the corridor.

(n C3c~o~er 2Q~ t~, the Beard estab4ish~d an interim LQP budget cif $2'~ .Q mi[IEOn forcapital project 8~55'~ 2 and authorized campletio~ of ~relim~nary engineering with thecor~di~ion t~a~E a final ~tJP budget wtou(d ~antinue tQ be developed d~rin~ phis phase:

C~~aring preliminary engineering, scope ~odifica~ions were incorp€~rated as park t~f theproject. These changes, resu[~ing from c€~nsultatic~ns with ~g~~~~es such as t~~ Pub[ic~t~(ity Ga~r~mission, LQS Angeles Qepar~ment of Trans~or~atEan, an~4 Federal ~via~ionAuthority, included;

'! } Afi-grade to ~e~ow-~~ade segment from Exposition Bc~u~evard to 39~ S~ree~;

2} ~a Brea Avenue Grade Se~ara~ion ganged from aerial #o beto~nr-grade;

3} Partially covered trench ad~acen~ to LAX as an interim condition; anc~4} N~ain~en~~c+~ Facility near LAX {Ar~Qr V~~ae1Be~~a.nea~

Thy changes ire sec~pe wire included with ~o addi~iona! fund~nc~ #row the 20t~9 LRTP,

vrr~ich provided a $1.7'~ 5 bi[IiQn (Year of Expend'r~ure} budget. Hg~nrever, the comb~~ed~f~a~ges abase resulted fn a pro~e~ed ~ncrea~e ~o ~~~ ov~r~~~ comet for fie project.

Ta ~it~ga~e ~as~ increases a~re~ and above ~'~ .71 ~ bEl[ion, e~ensive value engineer ng,cosfi reduetior~ strategies, d~scgrt refinements ar~d ova#cation of contracting strategies~rere undertaken during prelir~ina.ry engineering and many propasal~ that reduced castshave ~e~~ fully evaluated ~n ac~ordanee vv~th the Mare 20'E 1 Board a~o~ted F~t~a!Unifi~c Cos# Management Process ar~d Pa~~cy fc~r f1fleasure R Trans P~-oj~cts. ~s~mmar}~ of th e e~ratu~~ic~n ~ndertaker~ is ~r~e~ue~e_d as Attaeh~rtent B.

given with value engineering ar~ef t~th~r cast red.uct~or~ prapasa(s, a budget gap Eot~td. nQtb~ c€~r~pl~~ely eliminated ar~d ~s up to ~3~:4 t~n~E~ior~ over the 20 9 ~.RTP ~o~al praje_ct~~udg€~t ~f $1.7~ 5 billion (Yeas Qfi ExpendEture~.

the ~rens~ia~l~ferr~or~ ~~~im~:rt ParEc pillage} statfQn is not included in ~~.e ~.QP 4f$1.715 b~l~ionR ~4s.d r~~tecf b~ ~~e Beard ~~ flay 2~1 °~, tie sta~~o~ may be ~c~ilt ~f the~anst~uctio.r~ bids far tote des~~n-build alignment ~o~►~ract ~~th a design ap~ion. fQr thesta~i:an aye ~v~rit~ [n t~~ Lt~~'E~ bud~e~ of ~'t _7'i 5 bil~i_on.

R~c4~m~ndaf on B i~ to~ ~ep~agram. fending ~~at is ava~la~b~e v~~thi~ tie same sub-r~gio~t~o cover the ~t~dge~ gad, Thy re~ragra:m~ ng of avaital~~:e sub-region funding is .requested up to $34.~ mr~~~on that ~rvas freed-u~ from the i-4~51Arb4~ tfi~ae interchangeproject. O:n 11~ay 2~, 20'[ ~ t the Board ap~rc~vec~ a l~atian ~o-seek funding t~ increase theadQp~ed funding lever! in ~h.e 2QQ9 Lont,~ Rance Transportat~c~n Phan to enable ail~,ppro~e€~ scoffer ncluc~~r~g ~ shat an at Vernon ~uenue {Leimer~ Park, ~o ~e

CrertsF~a!~ylt~lX_ Transit Corridor = t~ife of Protect SF~dge~ ~ 2

constructed, Faf~av~ring Board directior~T staff is recammend~ng re-~rograr~nm~ng the [-

405lArbQrVitae funding tc~ increase the Recommendation ALife-af=Project budget to

$~ .743 biEEion. This funding level wild cav~r tie add~tiona[ cost of tl~e adopted pro~ec~

~nrhich includes tie extended ~elo~r grade segrnen~ to ~xpositio~ Boulevard and may

cover the Saarc~ requested Vernon Avenue (Leimert Park} station bid option if Design-

Build contrac~ar respc~nsibEe and responsive #yid prices are within available ~undin~_

For more ~nfot-~afion about the State T1P finds from tie Interstate 445/arbor Vitaelnterchar~ge lr~provemen~ ~raj~ct, please see the c€~ncurrent report being bro~rc~ht ~o the

Planning ar~d Pragrarnming Camrnitt~~.

~taf~ has carnp~eted vatu~- e~.gineering and vu~1~ continue to see~C furfh.er cast reductions

including deferral of pra~e~c~ e~er~en~s and eva`Ic~at ot~ of ~~rrer~t market con~itior~s:. artacfdf~ior~, selection of praeurer~~nt stra~eg~es that rna~r provide aP~o~~n~~i~s t~encourage competition, further cosh reduction anc! innovation ~hvugh a cfes~~.n-bu~1c~negoti~#ion procurement strategy are being considered. An inc~us~r~ review pr~ces~s has

also been ir~itEated #o seek r~arke~ in~e~est and input from Erzterested proposers fv~ the

project prior fQ re1~a~~ of a Request for. QuaffficatiQn~ ~n ~tovember 2Q11 anc~ Request

far Pr€~posals ~n January 24~ 2.

~ur~ent(}~ v~ri~h the increase ~n scopes the project ~cf~edu~€~ a~ this ~~r~e inEl~des

forecast for the Re~e~ue S~nti~~ dale of DeEernber Zt~-1.8.

h~gi~~r than the o~he~trise z ht. be.. ~ _

F~~AI~ICIAL ~l'P~iG~'

~un~s-are ir~c[uc~~c~ :n ~Y'l 2 fir ~~hi~ a.ct[on under Leasure R Proj~c~ 8fi5512

(C~er~sh~ 1~AX Tra~stt ~Qrr dog Project, in Cost Gent~r 8.510 {~o~tstE-c~ctiar~ ~ra~eG~~llanagement}, ~nd~ ~~+ca~n~ ~lt~. ~~'tQ1: ~~nc~ this ~s a mil#f =}dear p~ojecf, the Exee[~ti~r~

Director aid Praj~~ ~an:ag~r wilt tie ~esponsr~~e fir budgeting f€~ture gear's posts.

tr~aet to E3us and ~a~1 C ~~a~i~~ and' Ga i~a~l Budd

The f~i~d nth for this project v~ l~ ~e ca~~~al ~€unc~s. ~der~tifed in. ~h.e ad~v:pfied ~c~:n~ Range

~ranspartatia~ P[a~. the ~und:i.ng/Ex~er~d turn Plan has been ~ncludecf as Atta+~h~en~A. the sources a~-~u.~d~s are nit elig~bte for bus operating activities.

CEenshawfLAX Transit Car~ida~-~ Life of Pro}ect Budget ~

~~TE~~AT~vES cos~Q~~~~

the Board may choQSe ~o~ ~c~ a~p~rave t ie LOP ~~d~et for this projec#. Ho~re~rer, phis

a~~io~ ma}~ dewy the c~mmi~c~en~ ~f funds needed fog timely right-c~€ way acq~t:~sitior~s

and sot~cita~ion of cor~st~-~rction ca~~racts.

t~~ T STEPS

Upon Board approval, tl~e project gilt proceed with cor~tp~etioR a~ preliminary

engineering, right-of ~nray acgc~isi~i~n; advance utility refacation and solic~a~ion for

cons~ruc~~an contracts_

ATT'A~F~M~[~TS

A. Finding/E~cpendi~ure PEan~. Cost (~ar~.agement process

Prepared ay: ~ITi~liam Bra n, D}rector P~ro~~ct Gor~~rolRQ~ert Ba~~, Deputy Execut~u~ C}~~er ~~d F~ro~ect Ntanager for~xe~uti~e Office, Prc~~ect ~1llanagetrrent

Ccens3~a~rdLeJC Transit Garridor~ t.ife of Project 9udget

~.

~L

Kr~shniah t~. Mint yExecutive Director, Tra~sE~ Project ~efivery

Arty u r T_ LeahyChief Executive Officer

CsensF~aw/LAX Transit corridor -Life of r~sojscf B~tiget ~

Attachment A

Crens~a~nrlLAX Transit Project

Fundi~glExpendi~~re Plan`

~Do[lars in Millions}

_ --

~ ~ ~

_ ___

4l0 ofCapital Project 8 5512 Prior FY92 FY~3 FY14 FY~5 FY'[& FY17 ~ FY98 ~Y19 F'Y2D TOTAL,.. Tofat

Uses of Funds ~ € ,

Cc~nsir+~ctior~ ~. 3_ 56. 23 .1; 312.1 295_ : 170.7 55. 4.(l ~.~~3-c .8~1~

Rig(~t of-Way ~.1 'f 4. 41 _ 17:9 ~~ ~ ~.0 ~~

Vehicies 3~.7 4'l.3. 15.8 87." ~_~!

Prof Services 12. 2'f: 28.6 35.£~ 41.3j 47.9 49. 1'(.3 ~.~ ~_~ ~~~_~ ~~.7

Project Contingences ~ 3 5_~:. ~~ 3_ 32 6~~. 33._.__ . 47. 41._ ~_.~..._. ~.-_ _ .. _ E~~. ~~.~w_ ...._,.._.._.

48.'1 34.1: 124.. 17.7 3. 1.723.Q 98.5%Subtafal Proj. 8655't : '~2. 38.3 131. 29'#.3 3$~.iT

Envircnrner~ta(lPtanni~ 2~. 0_ 26. 1.5°/a

ToCa! Pro~ectCosts:: 38.'~ .. 39.'f 13~..... . ... 291.3. _3$6.Q 4g8.'t: 3U~..~ 124. _ ~7> . _ 3.., ~ 1:,74. 1qa°lo

Sources of Funds

_

Propc~si~ian A ~5°to 4. 4. F3.3°feBonds

LBCaI AgetlCy frut3dS 51.4 ~_€)~ x 5Z.4 3.t}ala

PrcSposif~an C 25°l0 4.1. 14.7 '1fl2. ~ . 26. 6.4€ - 't54. 8.8°1Q

fAlteaSUre R TEFIA Lczar~ 'E39.3 3~~.'i 9C_6" Q: X45. 3'~~.2°/a

Measure R Cash 47.1 24~. ;234.: '142.8. 't f .€3 3. 655..37.5°l0

P~Qp 1B PTMtSEA 3$. 131: 317;3 2€~1. _~ 11.5(0

F~egio~af tmpravecrEen~ 2. 34.4~ 3~. 2.1 °foPragrarn

~~Ciiflf iS3G~ FsiIS&ait~'

8." ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ t~ ~~ 11 ~o-r'ceiaied raciiiiy ~arrna (

3

enn~r~ ~ ~~.2 ~.o - ss,~ ~.~4io _.Rs-c-~ ~ 2~.: ~ 20.0 ~.~cQfF~de~aE -other ~. 4. _: i1.1°fa .

Total Project Funding: 38.'[ 33.1. 'E31..: ..291... 3.86_ 408.1 .30g'[ 124.2 1~_~ 3.. 9,7~9.~ '#00°fa.

* S~~rrc~~ of fends are preliminary and subject to change_ hosts are ba~sd an ctra€t Preiir€~inary

Engin~erir~g Cost Esti€~afe.and assume Revenue Operations in 2 18:

Wotes: _ . .'l~The Construction ca~~to En tie arn~unt of '~.133:6..milfior~ in~tt~~#~s Si~evuocklS~eEia! Coni3itions in. #iii amount of$236 r~iifiort.

CrenshawltAX Tra~si~ Corridor -Life of Project Budget

At~achmen~ B

Crenshaw/~~JC Transit Carr~dor Pro~ec~

host ~tianag~~nent Process

to accordance Frith the Dina[ l~nifed Gosh t~anagemen~ Process and Po[icy adapted biy

the MTA Board in march 2a'~ 'i , ~!/!TA ~ta~F has e~ensively evaluated the

GrenshawlLAJC ~rojec~. At this t~rt~~, the est~rnated k~udget gap over the ~~TP b.~dget

of $1.7't5 ~E~~ior~ is u~ tc~ $34.4 rr~illion_ The adc~p~ed FinaE t~nifiec! Cost Ma~agemen~

PrQCess and Policy ~~i~u[ates the fvl[ovuirtg:

„1f increases in cast estimates acc~t~, the M~'A Board ~nus~ ap~ro~re a pla.~ of ac~~ort. to

address the issue prior to taking any action necessary to perr~n~ the project to m4~e to

the new rnitestone. Jncreases in cost estimates v~ril! be measured against the 2Q~9

Long Range Trans.por~a~~~r~ P~ar~ as adjusted by subsequ.~c~~ aef~on~ on cQS~ estimates

~a(cen try tie ETA Board. Sf~or~tfa~fs w~11 first be adc~resse~ at the pra~~c~ ~~ve~ Rrio~ fo

eva~uat[an far any additional c~eso~rces using these ~netho~is n~ this order':

1 } Value engin~eri~g and/or seQpe reductions;

2} dew lacat ager~cy~ f~nd~nc~ resources;

3} Shor~e~ segme~tatic~n;

4}- Other co~~ reduc~~a~s wi~t~in the same ~ra~sit co~r~dor or highvsray ca~-ric~c~:r;

~~ Other cost rec~uc~~or~s ~rithir~ the same. sub-reg~n; and ~r~a~ty,

f} GQU-nfyvtir cue transit cc~s~ reductivn~ andlor aft~e~ finds v~r~~~ be sought ~us~ng

pre-estab~sh~c~ pror~t~es.

~s~ st~tec~ ~~ the policy, staff eva[ua~ed anc~ ~c~et~tified ~R fia $34.4 mi~[i~n shor~faE~ ors n~

the six methods iden~~~er~ above_ Each e~af ua~jQn r~e~hc~~ is d s~uss~cf ~n ~~eta t below,

`~a.i u~ E N:.. _

n ineer~rt anc#f~r Sc~ Redactions_

I~ur~Rg Pr~:iimi~a~y ~ng~~n~~r~~g; s~~~ c€~~pt~~ed value e~gine~r fig, e~ralua#ion Qf east

red~rctia~ stra~eg:ies, c~~sign ref~nem-enfs a~c~ eva~uatiQr~ c~~ c~~t~a~ti~tg str~~~gies tt~

redu~~e project ~c~s~s. ~Ia~a~ eos~ stra~eg'~~s have teen ~rr~p~emented and i~ctucfe ~h~

scope mc~ifieat~ans/contra~t[~g s~rateg~es {ist~d below:

Crenshawlf.AAX Transit Carridar~-Life of Proiect Budget

7 ~ Selection of Design-E3uild as a procurement s~ra~egy to seek innovation from

con~truc~ion industry

2~ Cample~ion of Pre~imir~ary Engineering has provided fu~~e~- design

refir~ementfdesign d~tai~s anci a fetter cost estirnatrng basis

3) ~arraw a(ignmer~~lReduce R~gf~~-of-~l~tay Coss o~ Harbor Subdivision

4~ Changes tc~ Man+~hester aerial Structure = e[im~nate prQVision far an aerialstatic~r~ ar~d a[I~vv ~€~r a future at-grade stat~an- ~~st of Manehes~er A~ver~ue

~} ~~ift L.a Brea stati~r~ from de~~~ssed u~c~er La Brea ~~ren~e ~a a~-gra~f~station near N~arket Street

~i~ li~odify mec[~anrc~l v~r~tilatiQn system ~n ~~t ar~t~ Corer sec,~rner~fs

~~ Re#inemen# of ~ys~ems elements allowing r~ductian ~n eos~

8~ l~ectuction in hardseape/Ear~dscape ~lane~ carridar

9~ ~h~anging ai~~nment from an undererossir~g under '111 ~ Street tv anavercrossing structure

~ Q)Removaf o€ con~inuc~~s concrete lid eo~e~ ex~endi~ the fuf~ ~e~gth of theLAX Trer~cf~ s~gmen~, eliminated need fog mec~anica[ ventilation

1 ~ }Modi~ station can~gu~at~~n at ~via~~or~IGenfi:~ry

'12}E3hfSF Abandonr~e~nt a~lo~rving ft~r~~e~ ~ptir~iza~ian of I~RT alignment withreduced uti(it~ relaca~ion and right-af wa}~ a~quis~tEOns

'~3}Cost sh~nng o~ ~tSF Fa~~~~~r ~n accordance wi~~ etrfl's conso#ida~edma:in~enar~ce facility ~~fic}~.

T■ / _ • :. o ...: ~ ~: ~. AAA • •e s t ~

s r~.~ v~eu~ ~~..: ine~~ n co~~ savr~_=. s ~s a - r~x~maie sr~ m~i~~on aria aad~n:_....the cast ad~[t~on of '~ QQ miil~on far.. incor ora~in~ t.~~tion ~ under~ra~nd to~x o~if~a~ B~uD~~rar~# s~ rn~~~~ ir~t~ ~~e baste at~~n~~n~~: ~t~_ r~ .~~ csf-era cyst

re~luct~ons. the tafal net value er~~ ~i~eer~~ cost sav~rt€~s ~~ a~roxirnat~ 27~

m~~E~.on.

[~evtr L.oca1 ~ ~r~c - ~un~dir~ Resources

Z1t~~"A is ~~tab#ishi~g cc~o~erati~re ag~eer~ents wEt~ aft local }urisdic~ians along the~rens~rav~rlL,~ ~c~rr~dc~r., v~rh-ch ~il~ r~qu~r~ cQOp.~ra~~on ~y ~rajec~ stak~hc~Eders, ar~d~ni~ing of improverner~ts by stakeho~c~ers be~rond the baseli~~ s~pe of ~rork_ ~t~Cagreements vuE~1 be exsc~tt~d i~ place prior to start of constr~cfion.

1t~TA is actively ~ursuinc~ other fuR€fin~ sources and has applied for fec~era~ grantse~i~g~ble far'inte~mad~l improve:me.nts proposed at tie ~rensh~wlExpasifion andF~orertee/La Brea s~a~ians.Crens(~awILA~4 Transit Corridor -Life ~f Project budget s

S~o~er Set~men~a~ion

Shorter segr~~ntation is addressed in ~~e Final Envira~nzental Impact

Statement/Enviranmental ~ri~pact Report (FEiSfFE1R~.

The Ntinirnurrt ~per~b~e Segrnen~s v~ra~Id reduce capi~ai costs because a~ tie shorter

alignment aver the ~P"A. An 11ifC35 segment ending at Century Boulevard, wsth the

sc~u~hem terminus at the ~uiationfCent~ary ~~ation, wau(d reduce the base year ~api~at

cast ~}r $'22.85 rnifEian, ar '(4t~.23 rnitlior€ in YOE dv~la~s. /~ ~EQS ~egme~~ ending at

ti~a~tFn Leer ~C~ng Boul~varc~, ~rri~h the nor~h~m terrr~~nus at the Crenshavuf King Sta~ic~n=

woult~ reduce the base year capital cost by X257.52 mill~an, or $29~.~f rrEil~io~ in YaE

dailars.

The alaiiity to imp~er-~ten~ shor~ei- seg.rr~en~s Es afi~e~~ed by the fact tha.~ the ~renshavulLA~

ART ~roje~t cgnnects tv~ra other LRT projects at bQ~h of its end points — tt~e ~xpQSi~~an

Line at tote northern enc~ and the N[e~ra Green Line at the sou~he~n end. Either of the

shorter seg~nen~ ~pfians would re~a~e one of the pric~nary ber~e~its 4f the

~rensl~awf~.~C ~roj~ct, namely the ability t~ provide mar€ direct cQnnec#io~~ and

shorter tra~ret times for trips bef~rv~en the South Bay and dar~un~aw~ C.os Ar~~e~es and the

1ltlestside. Shorter segr~er~ta~io~n v~rauld also ~rn~a~~ the ~e~c~rma~ce of ath.e~- ~t€eas~re

R p~~j~cts ir~ctuding the you#h Bay green L~~e E~ct~n~~on end G.~een ~in~ to ~RX Res,

which also demons~ra~e better r~der~hip and operational p~rfarmar~ce .d~c~ to ~e ~Ee-in of

~~e CrenshawfLAX ~.ine tai the existing Nfetro green Line.

The abiE-ity t~ made conn~ctior~s3 ~idersh%p, and aper~tio~~ai efficiency a[I c~~crease w~~E~

either of the ~rc~ ~IiC)S alte~-nat~ves. Stiff does not ~ecornm~nd an ~li~S.

Ether .Cast R~duct~Qn~s within tfie Same.Tra.nsi~. Corridor

There is a c€~st savings ~n ~h~ same ~r~nspartatiQn cart~do~- as the Crenshawl~.AX

pro~~ct. Cal~rans rece~(~ ~nf~rmed the ~ACMTA that th~~ : ~~e;~cf tQ remove tie I-

4Q5/Arbor V~t~e Int~rcha~ge pro~~.c~ from the Sate TI.~' because tl~e na-t~~:~fd aite~n~fi~re

vr~as recommended at tie e~nelu~sivr~ of the env"rrc~nmenta! ~~c~cess_ Of the $34.4 mi~~ic~n

~~ funds refeased by the no--build decision, $3'~ .~ Ct~~'tI.I~[E3K1 (~~~ii'li~C?~~/ C~~fE;:C'~S ~ctCK ~Q

~/~Cil~TA fc~r a re-p~ogramm~~ng ~eca~m~ndati~n_ ~s of this writing, u~re ha~~ been

t~nabte ffl evn~irr~ that the c~ ffe~ence befinreen t~~ $34.4 r~rillfon am $3'~.~ r~t~l~i~n

cte~ni~ely r~~re~s ba~c~ ~o LAC111lTA €o~ r~--~rogra~.m~r~g. Tie $3.1 m~f~iQn differe~te~ ~s

~uc~~-sum RigE~~-v~ I~Jay funds ~~4m prior year that may ~v~ reVe~ t~aek to LA~MTA ~~~-

~i~pas~~io~ du.e ~o tie S~a~e. B~dg~t ~r~eess that Ca~~ran.~ .uses ~Qr ~ig~t-af ~llfay need$

Q~ the ~taf~ ~~ghwray System. Staff€ is pursuing afiF rrn-alive ansv~rers from Ca[~r~ns and

tie CTE rega~~in.~ the ava~abit~~y t~f ~h~ $3.~ m [firm for re-~ro~rarnr~ing.

~rerast~ia~lLAX Trars~it Corr~d4r - ~i€e of 1?raj~ct Bridget

Qther Gust Reductions within the Sarne_Sub-Re~~an

This step is un~ecess~ry because we have identified a cost reduction ~n the sane

corridor, as described a~c~ve_

Crerrsha;~vfLA)f transit Corridor -Life of Project Budget 1~