FOI #15206

1572 Pages·2015·30.44 MB·English

FOI #15206

WTC DESIGN
&
CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS

HUB WORKING GROUP

STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
HUB WORKING GROUP
STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT
Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Steering Committee Presentation – September 25, 2008

III. Recommendations

A. Add Columns Under the No. 1 Line Box

B. Make Oculus Smaller & Simplify Design

C. Save Existing Structure in West Bathtub

D. Revise & Relocate MEP Systems

IV. Architectural Diagrams

V. Structural Diagrams

VI. Mechanical Diagrams

VII. Estimate & Schedule

VIII. Re-Design Efforts

A. Estimated Number of Drawings
B. Estimated Effort to Complete the Documents
C. Design Schedule

IX. Next Steps

X. Appendix

A. Steering Committee Presentation – July 29, 2008
B. Progress Drawings & Diagrams
C. Meeting Notes
D. Hub Working Group Responses to PA Comments

September 25, 2008
Page -2-
HUB WORKING GROUP
STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

September 25, 2008
Page -3-
HUB WORKING GROUP
STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT
September 25, 2008

HUB WORKING GROUP

FINAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION

In July, 2008, the Port Authority formed four working groups to study options for improving the schedule and cost
performance of four key elements of the World Trade Center Project; 1) the Greenwich Street Corridor, 2) the
Transportation HUB, 3) the Memorial and, 4) the VSC. These initiatives were undertaken following the PA’s
acknowledgement of serious cost overruns and extensive projected delays on all four projects. The
recommendations of these Working Groups is intended to provide data to the Steering Committee for decision
making and to give PA Executive Director Chris Ward input for his report to Governor Paterson at the end of
September.

This report contains the final recommendations of the HUB Working Group. In addition to the material presented
to the Steering Committee in mid-September 2008, we have included additional detailed drawings and other
supporting material that was not part of the presentation.

The HUB Working Group included representatives of all the major stakeholders in these projects:

o City of New York
o Port Authority
o FTA
o Memorial
o MTA
o Silverstein Properties

The group utilized the following four primary outside consultants to provide expert design and construction input:

o Constructability, Cost and Schedule - Turner
o Structural - LERA
o MEP - AKF
o Architecture – Beyer, Blinder, Belle

From time to time, the design group sought advice from specialty consultants in specific technical areas, e.g.,
Weidlinger (blast design/criteria), DVS (security criteria), and ARUP (CFD modeling).

While the HUB Working Group was developing alternative concepts, there were parallel efforts underway by the
Calatrava/DDP team and a PA Engineering Department team, which focused on the West Bathtub portion of the
PATH HUB. The HUB Working Group was asked to comment on these efforts and compare them to the concepts
developed by the HUB Group. It should be noted that the charter1 of each group was different and, therefore, there

1 The respective charter of each group can be summarized as follows:
o DDP/CALATRAVA – Save as much of the existing design as possible while improving schedule and cost performance.
o Port Authority – Minimize design breakage while improving schedule and cost performance.
o HUB Working Group – No boundaries on concepts to be considered, save hundreds of millions dollars and help neighboring projects
meet their schedules

September 25, 2008
Page -4-
HUB WORKING GROUP
STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT
should be no surprise that their recommendations are quite different. The recommended concept of the HUB
Working Group has four basic elements:

o Add columns/caissons under the 1 Line Box, eliminating very heavy and difficult to construct
trusses.

o Make Oculus 25% smaller and simplify design

o Save existing structure in the West Bathtub and simplify the roof structure.

o Revise and relocate MEP systems.

These concepts and the resulting cost and schedule benefits are described in more detail in this report. Collectively,
these four elements have the following benefits:

o The Memorial Plaza slab is available May 2010, which meets their schedule.

o The PATH HUB Oculus is completed by June, 2012.

o The West Bathtub portion of the HUB is completed by December 2012.

o There are savings in excess of $500+ million compared to the base design estimate.

o The structure is much simpler/less risky.

o There is created an additional 15,000 s.f. of retail and an additional 62,000 s.f. of program space on
the B4 level.

In our opinion, the only possible negative to the concept described above relates to the architectural design of the
passenger mezzanine in the West Bathtub. While the dramatic design and clear span has been modified for the sake
of schedule, cost and constructability, we fully anticipate that whenever executed, the design would provide an
attractive and compatible design solution to this ceiling.

And, finally, the HUB Working Group recommends careful reviews of practices and procedures, regardless of
which scheme is selected. In our opinion, it would be a serious mistake to continue “business as usual” in light of
the results to date.

Respectfully Submitted

HUB WORKING GROUP

September 25, 2008
Page -5-
HUB WORKING GROUP
STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT

II. STEERING COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
September 25, 2008
Page -6-
S
I
S
N
Y
L O
A I
T
N
A
A
T
N
N
P
O S E 8
U
N S 0
I
T O E 0
O
C R 2
R
I
U G T P ,
5
R A 2
G E
T D
N E R
S N
I T E
N K E
T B
O R M I
M M
C O M
M E
D W O T
O
N C P
B C
A E E
U
R G S
N H
N
G
I
I R
S
E
E
E
D
T

C S
T
W
)
1
1
D
0
)
E S 2
/
R N 1
F
E O 1
O /
D 9
I
L
I S Y
S L
E B T
N I
M L P
K
O
U E
R
C F D A C
O
E E P N

B S H L O
P D C A C
T
E S I
U D S S R L
R
O E E U D O A
D
R D M E M R
R
N W
E U R E E
G S
G ER SID TIT RS VE HU ESI E M LO EN
E (
N T N T D I T D H F G
KI AR CO D A OL CT OS RT R T LE US
R E E P
O CH BE AN EH BJ N C PO LIV EO UL
W O E” AK O S I UP DE P OC
B T G T N S ( / E
U S A S O S Y D
H PT G L TI TO CT LIT A
E G AL C E E A R
A G
C U L J N

N B F D U O O E
O “ O E D R I V
C D S R E P T O
C
N OL T L H G N B
S A C N A
O F E I S I U
S F R T R F E
O E N N O E V
T
A E R
I T B V
M E N T T H O E
LI AK E I BS OR G R ES
I P
O H H U H E R
M
N S T S S N P
I
• • • • • • •