City Begins to Scale Back on Intermodal Station
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 7 July 2010 — 8 comments below »
Leave it to a value engineering study — conducted by the same firm (HDR) responsible for the design, but a separate office1 — to start pointing out elements the City could cut back on and save costs yet still retain the core function of the project, i.e., a train pulling into station, and dropping off and picking up passengers; it is not too complicated.
The value engineering study suggested a considerable cost savings exists (approximately $10m out of $64m total) if the retaining wall that separates the tracks from the bay trail was scaled back significantly. What that means is the use of lesser materials and of a lesser style — which should clearly infuriate the architect (although the project architect was involved in the study) — than that was presented to the public (in an exhaustive series of meetings), the Planning Commission, and the City Council.2
For example, options for the Transit Loop Bridge — now called the Shoreline Loop Bridge — were presented as a handsome structure, adorned with brick and historic lighting fixtures, a feature that would introduce visitors to Hercules as they arrive by train and ferry…
But that may not be the case if the value engineering study is adopted without review by the Planning Commission, the residents’ investigative arm into these matters. And it could bypass the commission altogether.
Staff presented the study to the Transportation and Housing subcommittee (Mayor Kris Valstad and Vice Mayor Ed Balico) at a meeting yesterday, with the study pegged for “acceptance.” From there, the item would be wrapped into the consent calendar at the next City Council meeting for approval without discussion.
Although relatively minor in scope compared to the Intermodal Station itself (tower, shed arches, etc.), the retaining wall has always been presented as an artistic approach to the city, one that would embrace the city’s history and be a unique welcome for residents and visitors alike. Accordingly, no one commented on this during the public meetings. But that doesn’t mean the public has waived their right to comment on a substantial change to the character of the grand entrance to Hercules, one that deviates greatly from that was presented and approved in a lengthy open meeting process.
The proposed view from the station platform.
The Planning Commission should demand review of this proposed change — even if the change is agreeable, cost-effective and appropriate — and staff should not consider these hastily-prepared and under-reported subcommittee meetings (no minutes are recorded) as the ultimate forum for community input.
- It is best practice for an independent team to conduct value engineering studies. The purpose is to take a second look at a project or series of challenges, and often times, the original design team is too ensconced in the details to take an unbiased view at its work.↩
- In all likelihood, instead of a cantilever structure retaining wall, a mechanically-stabilized earth, or MSE, wall would be employed.↩
Residents have a right to request items be pulled from the Consent Calendar. I recommend interested citizens attend the next City Council meeting and demand this item be pulled. We can recommend the item be sent to the Planning Commmission for a complete review. We can also request an opportunity for community input – something this Council continues to ignore.
Has anyone noticed the lack of activity at the proposed site since the last flurry which followed a meeting where the citizens asked questions? The West County Transportation Advisor Committee was told in March that the station would be operating in 2013; nothing on WETA’s calendar suggests a ferry in the near future, they ARE talking about how many passengers in 2025. Considering the track record of our City government its hard to continue to believe that any of this will ever happen. Today’s editorial page surely does not instill any confidence.
Somebody’s making a lot of money and it’s not the City of Hercules but we are paying the bill.
Leave it to Hercules government to drag it out and try to create a grandiose design that will make their city look beautiful at the expense of the Region not having a Transit Center until 2013 ……. Good Luck. I still do not understand why the site was approved primarily because it had a longer Railroad siding then Rodeo.
Fact – Hercules has a 1500 ft (1/4 mile) straight track section and Rodeo has a 2,500 ft (1/2 mile) straight section…..and Rodeo used to have a Southern Pacific Station from 1898 and a Ferry Service up until 1927.
Hercules does not think Regionally; never have never will. The leaders of Hercules only think Locally.
Hercules can not even get their “Pedestrian Friendly Concept” together. Try walking from the new Park and Ride to the Hercules Post Office or to the homes of Foxboro and Mariners Point.
Dan Thomson
@ Dan Thompson — I disagree wholeheartedly. The Hercules shoreline is a great location for a rail and ferry terminal. From a regional perspective, it is easier to get to via I-80 and CA-4 than the site in Rodeo. It is also part of a growing New Urbanist transit-oriented development, which — without the planned station — would cease to exist.
@ Bill Kelly — The rail portion of the terminal, operated by Capitol Corridor / Amtrak, is expected to begin service in 2013. Ferry service operated by WETA is arguably a ways off.
I feel you missed the jest of my comment. Yes Hercules is a good location for a REGIONAL INTERMODAL STATION located in Hercules, to serve the entire region. Not just to serve Hercules and make their Waterfront be more beautiful. Heck……Anything other than a dynamite plant would look great, but not at the expensive of the Region as a whole.
Hercules has never thought Globally. IE: Bart lawsuit in the 1970′S (probably prevented Bart from having a West County station) to competing for a Contra Costa County Services Building and then when built, not providing safe pedestrian access to the building from Rodeo.
@ Dan Thomson — I’ll double-down on my disagreement. Infrastructure doesn’t need to be unsightly. The community has a right to guide its development and growth, including its aesthetic character, and current plans for the Intermodal Station reflect that.
Susan is spot on.
Regarding the comment about a lack of activity at the Intermodal Site, the commentor needs to understand that the construction documents to bid the job still need to be finished before bidding can begin amongst general contractors and to submit for a building permit.
An equally important issue is that I believe the funding is not complete ( I maybe wrong).
As an architect I can tell you projects take time which frustrates Herculeans. Given the on going recession that still aflicts Western Contra Costa County, people are going to need a lot more patience. Not too mention the State raid on Redevelopment funding…