Title: Island Bay Cycleway BondCM Report
Author: Wellington City Council

13 July 2017

Tonkin and Taylor Ltd Wellington

Attention: Jan Noering	via email

Dear Jan,

Island Bay Cycleway for Wellington City Council Options Estimate Report

Background

Tonkin and Taylor Ltd (T&T) have been engaged by Wellington City Council to assess options for the project, and have requested BondCM to provide cost estimating services for the option evaluation.

Option Descriptions

Option 100

This option allows to generally maintain existing footpath widths with the cycle lanes at carriageway level, adjacent to traffic lanes and separated from parallel parking bays by flush hatching safety strip.

Option 200

As for option 100 but with the cycleway configured adjacent to the footpath and separated from the parallel parking bays by a flush hatched safety zone with a raised kerb with bollards.

Option 300

This option generally maintains the east side footpath width but reduces the west side therefore requiring relocation of the kerb line. The cycle lane is at footpath level and constructed in concrete with a nib kerb between the cycle path and footpath. The traffic lanes are slightly increased to 3.2m width and parallel parking maintained on both sides.

Option 400

This option is similar to option 400 except that west footpath width is further reduced and the traffic lane widths increased. Parallel parking is maintained except for the west side in the business zone, which becomes angle parking.

Assumptions in the Estimates

Identification of scope, quantification and pricing are based on the following list of documents supplied by T&T and subsequent phone discussions/emails with T& T staff:

Outline spec Rb
Plans 10003072-100 series – 400 series, subsequently updated by 12/7/17
Calibre The Parade signs & markings plans
Costing table
Design options 0 cross-sections_V4
-	Sk01-04
It was noted and agreed that there is a drafting error on Plan 204, where the existing western kerb between Medway St and #156 does not require relocation as indicated on the plan.
It was confirmed that there is no kerb relocation required south of Humber St for option 100 albeit the existing kerb indicated does not match exactly with the proposed new alignment.
It was confirmed that rain gardens detailed on SK04 for side roads but not shown on plans are to be included.
Extent of works for each option is from the red hatching extent south of Dee St intersection to
the red hatching north of Reef St intersection (a distance of approximately 1500m).
Following discussions, provisional sums have been allowed for each of the aforementioned hatched intersection areas based on expected scope.
An extra-under rate only item (item 6.12a) has been included as requested to paint the surface
only in lieu of constructing raised tables for intersection side roads.
Cost estimation has been based on market rates and, in some instances, first principles build- ups and with reference to the Physical Works Supplier Panel V05.1 schedule provided.
Preliminary and general time-related costs have been based on assessed durations for each
option.
The site is assumed to be a Level 1 classified site for traffic management.
Cesspit relocation assumes re-use of existing pits but supply of new, cycle-friendly grates.
Line marking has generally been based on reinstatement of markings similar to those detailed on the Calibre plans with the addition of full green cycleway marking & hatching strips (for Options 100 & 200).
We have assumed relocation of existing signs with 20% allowance for replacement or additional signage.
14. A 25% contingency has been allowed for each option.

Estimate Summary

Appended are the detailed breakdowns of the cost estimates for each option. Please contact us if you have any queries.

Yours faithfully
Bond Construction Management Ltd.

David Jewell
Director

Page  of 3