Xavier University Transit Hub€¦ · A well-developed sidewalk network, with high quality...

Xavier University Transit Hub Presented by: Andrew Archambeau, Meredith Heitkemper, Collin O’Brien, Tyler Rabanus, Alison Taylor, & Anthony Wehr April 23, 2014

Abstract Wasson Way is a proposed pedestrian bike trail and light rail path that utilizes old freight

train corridors beginning at Xavier University and connecting to the Little Miami Bike Trail in Newtown, Ohio. This specific design project is located at the western-most terminus of the Wasson Way corridor, along the border of the neighborhoods of Norwood and Evanston, adjacent to Xavier University’s campus. The design plan describes and displays a proposal for future development along the corridor. Bike paths are found in both urban and rural environments, which means they are a good way to create connections within neighboring communities as well as enable more efficient transportation for pedestrians. Specifically, Wasson Way would take advantage the currently abandoned railroad tracks immediately east of Xavier University and create a 6.5 mile bike and light rail path. Several design standards and implementation processes pertaining to the development of the Xavier University Hub are outlined throughout this paper. These ideas include a reroute of the proposed bike path, parking solutions, neighborhood connectivity and the overall layout of the Xavier University Hub.

Corridor Urban Framework Plan – Area 4A

CVE 5002 – Integrated Design Spring 2014

Table of Contents Cover Page/Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………... 2 List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………….... 2 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Problem Statement………………...…..………………………………………………………… 4 Design Processes………………..…….………………………………………………………… 5 Barriers to Implementation……….…...…………..…………………………………………….. 7 Social, Political, and Ethical Issues…...…………..…………………………………………….. 8 Human Factors………………..…………………………………………………………………. 9 Sustainability…………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Bicycle Path Reroute…...………………………….....…………………………………………. 11 Parking……...…..………………..……………………………………………………………… 14 Design Summary…...……………………………………………………………………………. 19 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………. 24 References…………....………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 List of Figures Figure 1: Site Map of Xavier University Transit Hub …………………………………………... 4 Figure 2: 3-D Rendering of Proposed Site Design……….……………………………………… 6 Figure 3: Delta Avenue Restriping Project …..…………………………………………………. 11 Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Dana Avenue …....……………………………………………. 12 Figure 5: Final Site design showing Bus Loop in Parking Garage……………..……………….. 13 Figure 6: Southeast Facing View of Transit Hub …….………………………………………..... 19



Introduction

According to a study we found on ideal characteristics for light rail station hubs on the Portland Max Light Rail we determined that these same characteristics fit well into our proposed site. Good connections are a major priority for light rail station areas. Public transit riders begin and end their journey as pedestrians. Thus, access to stations and the areas around them should be safe and active pedestrian environments. Pedestrians need a robust network of clearly defined and simple route options to and from a station. These routes should be appealing, convenient, and safe and should directly link to adjacent shopping, services, homes, attractions, and local streets.

Sidewalks or pedestrian routes are how all transit riders eventually get to and from the station. They provide pedestrian access to the neighborhood and services surrounding the station. A well-developed sidewalk network, with high quality pedestrian treatments, that connects the station to the neighborhood and nearby services is integral to providing effective and efficient station access from as many routes as possible. Xavier has recently added a complex pedestrian friendly walkways just outside of our site which will help access and appeal in the area. Surrounding buildings are pedestrian friendly and oriented to the street with ground floor windows and possibly retail to create an active street edge and interactive pedestrian environment.

Bike lanes, multi-use paths, or low traffic streets provide bike access to the station. Bicycle routes to the station should be attractive and convenient to all riders, including the inexperienced cyclist who might be uncomfortable cycling on arterials with high traffic volumes. Routes to and from light rail stations should include adequately wide bicycle lanes, multi-use paths, or wide curb lanes with sharrows, at a minimum, in addition to good signage and traffic signals.

Bus stops are located near the station, with clear paths from the stop to the light rail station. Ensuring efficient transit connections to and from rail stations is crucial to the development of a seamless, well-integrated transit network. Transit stops and/or transfer wayfinding signage should be immediately visible upon exiting the platform. Well-located bus stops will minimize walking distances to and from the platform entrance and avoid the need to cross roadways, particularly busy arterials. Minimizing distances between bus stop facilities bus-bus transfers and simplifies bus-light rail transfers. Bus stops should not be located where they will block crosswalks, obstruct traffic signals, or be obscured from motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.



Problem Statement

The first step in the design of our project was to establish a criteria for success for our project. Our group collectively decided that our goal was to create a viable light rail transit hub, within a limited area, at the western terminus of Wasson Way. The plot of land that was used for our design is owned by Xavier University and is currently being unused. The property is approximately 100,000 square feet and sits on the north side of Dana Avenue. The proximity of this area to both Xavier University as well as the new University Station development, makes this area a good plot for the transit hub. Our proposed site location is shown in Figure 1 below.

According to Light Rail Transit in Vancouver – Costs, Potentials and Alternatives, appropriate station location is of critical importance in attracting and maintaining transit system patronage. The bulk of riders will be drawn from areas within 10-15 minutes walking distance of most stations. Provision of feeder bus or other similar services can only partially compensate for stations located too far away from their potential market area. Provision of adequate parking capacity at suburban stations is critical. Failure to do so will both constrain ridership and create operational and traffic management problems in the surrounding areas.

Figure 1: Site Map for Xavier University Transit Hub



Design Processes After being assigned the final project by Dr. Miller, the engineers and planner went to the field to visit the proposed site. While at the site the group took pictures of the area and surrounding land marks. After the site visit, the group decided the next step was to research other light rail system in the country and the world. The group researched a wide variety of case studies including the Portland Transit Mall, Tempe Transportation Center, San Jose, California light rail, and many others. From this point the group continued research and continued to develop an initial site design. The preliminary site design consisted of a mixed-use transit hub, a parking structure, surface parking lot, two retail structures, an elevated pedestrian crossing, green space. During studio, Jim Coppock from the City of Cincinnati, came to meet with and discuss design ideas with different groups that were focus on light rail. After speaking with Jim our preliminary site design underwent some major changes. The first change was the addition of a second light rail track. This addition was made of Jim informed us of the projected ridership numbers and strongly encouraged having two tracks with two platforms for passenger loading and unloading. This second light rail track required moving the bike trail due to the minimal right-of-way that exists to the east of our area.

The group decided to move the bike path to Dana Avenue and Montgomery Road. When the light rail crosses Montgomery Rd. the bike path will rejoin the light rail so that one bridge is needed to cross Interstate 71. The group did research and found that several roads in Cincinnati are being repaved and restriped to accommodate bike paths. Taking this into consideration the group agreed that rerouting the bike path was the best possible option. Other changes that happened to the site design was elimination of the pedestrian crossing. After researching the MAX Light rail in Portland, Oregon, the group decided that the light rails will be moving slow enough to allow for ground level pedestrian crossing in designated where the cars will only run when going to a nearby maintenance stations. This is pedestrian crossing can be seen in the upper left corner of Figure 2.



Figure 2: 3-D Rendering of Proposed Site Design

On March 11th the group gave an interim presentation to Dr. Miller, Professor Russell, and members of Wasson Way. In this presentation the group named deliverables that would be achieved by the time of the final presentation. The major feedback that the group received was to have more detailed deliverables. Dr. Miller provided the group with helpful insight by stating that sometimes it’s better to one thing really well instead of 10 things ok or subpar. Taking this advice the group narrowed its scope of work and developed more detailed deliverables.



Barriers to Implementation

While the site design plan would be a significant improvement and improvement to the areas of Evanston and Norwood, there are some pretty significant barriers to its implementation. The most significant of these barriers being that the land is still owned by Norfolk Southern and Xavier University. In order to receive federal funding for public transit projects, the city must first purchase or acquire the right of way from Norfolk Southern and the surrounding parcels from Xavier. There have been talks about the city obtaining the land, but there has not been a significant push in terms of negotiation of purchase. Only once this land is obtained can the city move forward with implementation of the light rail, bike trail, and our proposed site design.

If the land is able to be obtained by either the city or a developer, the next step is to physically fund the purchase. Given the current state of the local and national economy, people will more than likely not support a rise in taxes in order to pay for the new development. While federal funding would more than likely be granted, if the land were obtained, there would still need to be a significant push in either local taxes or private funding. Operating and maintenance costs would need to come from somewhere as well. There would need to be some significant decisions made in terms of operation, such as if the ticketing system will be automated, how many cars will be operating at what times of day, and how many drivers will be hired. These are all numbers based off of ridership of the proposed line. It seems that money is the major barrier to implementation of our site design. With the original City of Cincinnati Parking deal not coming to fruition, local funding may be harder than ever to obtain. There is a large push in some political activist groups to kill any kind of new budgets proposed to city council. This is particularly apparent with the Cincinnati Street Car. While construction is currently underway, its implementation took years of debate and voting for its groundbreaking. A light rail extending the length of Wasson Way would most likely meet similar, if not more, opposition given the size and potential cost of the project. With the economy being down, people are up in arms about any potential items being added to the city budget, no matter how beneficial they might be to the local economy in the long run. In opposition to a light rail system being built, many people are calling for a new bus implementation. Bus Rapid Transit, as some claim, offers a light rail feel and a much cheaper cost for riders and the city. A study done by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority in Minneapolis, MN shows that BRT is more flexible than light rail, given that the cars are not on a fixed route. The study also shows that BRT costs nearly half as much to implement and the cost for riders is over half as much. Studies such as this could sway people away from a light rail option and could prompt city council to instead work to revamp the METRO bus system to include more BRT options around the city. Another studies show that projected ridership of light rail systems is often much overestimated and the actual ridership is significantly less. The study done at Aalborg University shows that ridership is often overestimated by an average of 106%. This is a fairly outstanding number. If ridership is not what is expected, than money projected to come from ticket sales will be far less. This in the end will cost the city money in operating costs, something city council and Cincinnati residents will try to stay away from.



Social, Political, and Ethical Issues A light rail system connecting as many neighborhoods as the Wasson Way project would is extremely beneficial to the people it will connect. Having Xavier University as a major hub location provides thousands of students and surrounding Norwood residents access areas that were previously only accessible by car or long bus ride. Students could finish their studies and take a short trip to Rookwood to eat and shop. Hyde Park residents could take the rail line to Xavier to watch college basketball. The social impact is endless as a project of this magnitude is yet to be established in the Cincinnati area. There are currently many boundary lines that the current transportation system creates that prevent people from different neighborhoods to interconnect. The Wasson Way light rail system is a perfect opportunity to erase those lines. The addition of a community center in our site plan provides a much needed meeting place for residents of both Norwood and Evanston. The large community space has the potential to connect three communities in a half mile radius. Xavier students, Norwood residents, and Evanston residents could use the space to plan for further enhancement of their growing communities. A new meeting place for people’s opinions and voices to be heard could be a very attractive arguing point for those trying to sway the neighborhood resident’s opinions in supporting the new light rail system and other developments proposed in the site plan. Politically, the project we have proposed could see some major attention. The uproar in the Cincinnati area over the implementation of the Cincinnati Street Car would almost certainly ripple into a project of this magnitude. While it would see opposition, many politicians would be in support of something like this. Many people only take into account the short term effects when a city spends money on new projects. If City Council could be persuaded to look at the long term economical effect the project would have on the local economy, the project may gain more support. In terms of big government, the current administration is in support of many transportation projects around the country. With the economy being down, federal funding is being spent in order to provide a much needed boost. This federal funding would more than likely be obtainable if the project is ever approved for implementation. Wasson Way is currently seeking federal grants to produce the construction documents for the first phase of the project. If this money is granted, there would almost certainly be more to seek.



Human Factors

Engineers and architects can spend hours upon hours designing projects to be flawless on paper. Even with the newest technology, some factors are sometimes impossible to design for such as human factors. People can research the area, take surveys, enforce laws, but at the end of the day humans are unpredictable. It is still important to take these factors into account to ensure the safety of the users who will put the designs to use.

According to the United States Department of Transportation, human factors and

behaviors can be attributed to the majority of all crashes involving motor vehicles. They claim that the same can be said for crashes involving cyclists. It is very important that all users of the bike path can be assured of their safety.

With the bike path being rerouted to Dana Avenue, all users must be cautious of their

surroundings. The entrances and exits of the parking facilities and bus rapid transit area intersect the bike path along Dana Avenue. The pavement is a different color to help drivers and pedestrians notice the difference between the bike path and the driveways. These issues might be an area of concern for both motorists and pedestrians.

Adding signs along the bike path warning pedestrians of the vehicle crossings ahead will

help protect pedestrians using the bike path. Placing signs warning motorists about the bike path crossing at the entrances and exits of the parking facilities would also protect all users of the bike path. Limiting the speed of all users would also help keep users safe. Also, having appropriate signage throughout the hub station directing users to the correct stations will help eliminate human error. Keeping a steady flow of pedestrians on and off the trains and busses will help keep the trains and busses on schedule and not delay the users.

To protect the bike path users along Dana Avenue, there will be bollards placed between

the main road and the bike path. This will keep the bike path protected from vehicles crossing the lane and injuring pedestrians. The pavement will also be a different color to help show the difference between the bike path and the main street.

The trains will be infrequently cross the bike path, only doing so for maintenance, but

signs should be posted reminding users to look both ways before crossing the tracks. Also, lettering on the pavement reminding users not to stand on the tracks would help keep users safe. There are many examples that would be beneficial to the Wasson Way Bike Path in the Portland Case Study.

Another area of concern for users might be the purchasing of tickets for the light rail

system. It has been proven that automated ticket vending machines are more convenient for users and cost efficient for owners compared to traditional ticket stations. From the Portland Study, fare collection systems for the light rail should use a barrier-free, self-service method. Ticket Vending Machine (TVMs) should have the capacity to vend single-ride and multiple-ride tickets of various pricing levels.



Sustainability In a report done earlier this semester by Group 1C, the environmental group, certain environmental considerations must be looked at before any type of construction can begin. According to Group 1C, before an abandoned rail line can be repurposed for a public trail or light rail transit, an environmental assessment must take place to determine if soil contamination has taken place. Soil contamination is a concern for several reasons. The primary concern is that high levels of contamination could ultimately affect the health of construction workers developing the land, adjacent residents, and eventually pedestrians using the completed trail. To avoid potential project pitfalls, it is important to fully understand the current condition of the land being purchased and the remediation that will follow. Railroads pose environmental issues in a couple of major ways: residual contaminants from the railroad and use of the railroad itself and contamination associated with the industrial uses linked to the railroad throughout its corridor. Specifically, in regards to Wasson Way, the Norfolk Southern railway was previously used by the BASF Chemical Company to distribute product. According to the Light Rail Track Design Handbook, Noise and vibration can cause significant adverse environmental impacts on wayside communities and, as a result, noise and vibration impact mitigation must be considered when designing the track. Effective noise control must consider the vehicle and track as a system rather than as separate, independent components. Many studies of rail transportation and noise vibration have been conducted, producing detailed technical reports containing comprehensive information concerning rail transit noise and vibration prediction and control. The following studies are beneficial sources that should be looked at before construction: The proceeding of the International Workshop on Railway and Tracked Transit System Noise, A review of the state-of-the-art in wheel/rail noise control has been prepared in Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 23. In a report from Group 4A, the impact of parking lots and garages were examined. Parking lots and garages themselves have an immediate impact on the environment, and they can also affect the environment indirectly by cutting off transportation choices, encouraging driving that pollutes the environment. Direct environmental concerns are degraded water quality, storm water management problems, exacerbated heat island effects, and excessive land consumption. By creating an environment that supports the efficient use of parking, mixed use development can also lead to better balance between parking need and other community goals.



Bicycle Path Reroute The ideal plan was to keep the bike path with the single light rail through our

development, but after meeting with Jim Coppock, from the City of Cincinnati, it was determined that two light rail tracks would be needed for the station. Mr. Coppock informed us that due to the expected ridership of the light rail, two tracks would be critical for this area. The addition of the second track would then need to be located where the bike trail was planned to be, thereby eliminating the possibility of the bike trail being next to the light rail. The proposed reroute of the bike path to Dana Avenue was the next best option for the area.

Delta Avenue is a good example for Dana Avenue for rerouting the bike trail since the streets have similar traffic counts. The annual average daily traffic for Dana Avenue east of Montgomery Road is 16,755 from 2006 according to OKI. The annual average daily traffic count for Delta Avenue and Linwood Avenue is 11,339 from 2009 and for Delta Avenue and Erie Avenue is 13,643 from 2009 according to OKI. Delta Avenue, between Columbia Parkway and Erie Avenue, is currently being repaved and restriped. Delta Avenue previously had a 10-foot travel lane and an 18-foot shared travel and parking lane in each direction. According to the City of Cincinnati’s website, the new lane arrangement includes a 10-foot travel lane in each direction, center two-way left turn lane, bicycle lanes, and on-street parking on both sides of the street as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 3: Delta Avenue Restriping Project

(http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bikes/news/delta-avenue-restriping-project/)

Currently, Dana Avenue has 9.5-foot sidewalk on the south side, two lanes, total width of 21 feet, in each direction with a 12-foot median between opposing directions, 6.5-foot right of way and 8-foot sidewalk on the north side. The proposed new lane configuration would include, from the south side of Dana Avenue to the North side, a 9.5-foot sidewalk, 11-foot lane for traffic traveling East, 10.5-foot median, 20.5-foot two lanes for traffic traveling West, barrier to protect pedestrians, 12-foot bike path, 6.5-foot right of way, and 8-foot sidewalk. This is shown below in Figure 2.



Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Dana Avenue

The bike path would travel along Dana Avenue until Montgomery Road where there is enough room for the two rail tracks and bike trail. The bike path would also run through the proposed site and possibly connect to Xavier University’s existing walking paths, as shown below in Figure 3. The proposed bike path on Dana Avenue includes the bike path intersecting the entrances and exits to the parking lot, garage, and bus rapid transit area. This could be a problem, but there is really no other option for the location of the bike trail. It is essentially just like a crosswalk so both the bike path users and the motorists will need to travel slowly through the area and be cautious. Signs could be posted along the bike path warning users of the potential crossing of vehicles and signs could also be posted for motorists to slow down and watch for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the area. Also, additional markings and reflective markers could be places on the pavement to aid in warning all users.



Figure 5: Final Site design showing Bus Loop in Parking Garage



Parking Case Studies The Regional Transportation District is the transit agency that operates the light rail system in metropolitan Denver. It has a total of 46 light rail stations, but unlike other light rail systems in the United States, does not have any transit centers that feature such amenities as retail, transit offices, conference rooms, locker rooms, etc. Approximately 5,500 undergraduate students and 6,200 graduate students study at the University of Denver. The station at the University of Denver is one of 24 light rail stations that feature Park-n-Ride facilities, as a five-story parking garage with 540 spaces is adjacent to the station for users of the light rail and accompanying bus routes. The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, or TriMet, is the transit agency that operates public transportation in Portland, Oregon. The light rail system in Portland is known as the Metropolitan Area Express, or MAX Light Rail. MAX Light Rail operates 17 transit centers that feature amenities such as concessions, bike racks, lockers, and ticket vending machines. There are also and 87 stations, 4 of which are located around the campus of Portland State University. There are 23,353 undergraduate and 5,413 graduate students who study at Portland State University, 45% of whom use mass transit as a means of getting to class. MAX Light Rail does not have a transit center dedicated for this specific area, nor are any of the stations among the 23 MAX Light Rail stations that feature Park & Ride. However, Portland State University built the Urban Center on its campus, which acts as a de facto hub, as it has some of the same amenities that other MAX Light Rail transit center have in addition to 4 MAX Light Rail, 5 Portland Streetcar, and multiple bus stations within close proximity.

Valley Metro is the public transit authority in Phoenix, Arizona and its surrounding areas that operates and maintains the Metro Light Rail. The Metro Light Rail operates 28 stations, 6 of which are transit centers. The 40,000 square foot Tempe Transportation Center is one of these transit centers and serves Arizona State University and the surrounding areas. The Tempe Transportation Center is a truly revolutionary hub, as this 3-story building holds retail space, security, transit information, a bike station, offices, locker rooms and conference rooms. There are approximately 60,000 students at Arizona State University’s Tempe campus. The Metro Light Rail operates nine Park-and-Ride locations which collectively have a capacity of 3,636 parking spaces, none of which are located at the Tempe Transportation Center. As can be seen from the table below, Denver (334.44 parking spaces per mile) provides almost double the number of parking spaces per length of track than both Portland (171.62) and Phoenix (181.80). Denver (5.41 weekday boardings per parking space) also provides more than twice the number of parking spaces per rider than both Phoenix (12.21) and Portland (12.82). One can notice that both the metrics used were eerily similar in Phoenix and Portland. Since no ridership estimates could be given for the light rail along the Wasson Way, the estimate for the number of parking spaces the hub at Xavier University will therefore be based off of parking spaces per mile. For the sake of convenience, it will be assumed that there will be a station for every mile of track along the Wasson Way. The enrollment of Xavier University (4,500



undergraduate and 2,000 graduate students) most closely matches the enrollment figures found for the University of Denver. Likewise, the area surrounding the proposed site of Xavier University has a population density of 7,917.39 people per square mile, which most closely matches with the area surrounding the University of Denver (5,247.79 people per square mile) compared to either Arizona State University (3,363.30) or Portland State University (3,781.52). Because of the similarities between the University of Denver and Xavier University, the estimate for the number of parking spaces needed per mile (and intuitively the number needed at the Xavier University hub) will come from averaging Portland and Phoenix, and taking that number and averaging it with Denver. The average number of parking spaces per mile in Portland (171.62) and Phoenix (181.80) is 176.71, and the average of this number (176.71) and Denver (334.44) is 255.56, which will serve as a baseline going forward, which is more than the required number of spaces according to the Cincinnati Zoning Code.

Table 1: Comparison of Light Rail Systems

Denver, CO Portland, OR Phoenix, AZ Name of Light Rail RTD Light Rail MAX Light Rail Metro Light Rail Number of Stations 46 87 28 Length of Track 48 miles 52.4 miles 20 miles Weekday Boardings 86,900 115,300 44,400 Parking Spaces for Light Rail 16,053 ~8,993 3,636 Parking Spaces per Mile 334.44 171.62 181.80 Weekday Boarding per Parking Spaces

5.41 12.82 12.21

Stations per Mile 0.96 1.66 1.40

Table 2: Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required Use Classifications Required Parking Floor Area (square

feet) # of Spots

Transportation Passenger Terminals

1 for evey 2,000 square feet

11,400 6

Retail sales 1 for every 250 square feet

20,850 83

Offices 1 for every 400 square feet

5,000 13

Commercial Meeting Facility

1 for every 50 square feet

2,000 40

Totals - - 142



Design The table below shows the areas allocated for parking for the Xavier hub. An underground garage was selected for the west side of the hub to maintain access between the hub and Xavier University. An above ground parking garage was selected to the east because above ground parking garages are cheaper and this parking garage would be adjacent to the University Station parking garage, which is a structured parking garage that would already block access from this area to the hub. The ground level of the above ground parking garage will be used for buses and this parking garage will be capped at five stories to prevent the view of Xavier University’s campus from being completely blocked from Dana Avenue.

Table 3: Parking Garage Surface Area (square

feet) # of parking spaces

per level Above Ground 21,250 65

Surface Lot 6,800 20 Underground 15,000 45

*1 parking space for every 325 square feet of surface area

Table 4: Cost of Above Ground Parking Garage # of Levels Cost

2 $2,810,269.92 3 $4,233,481.24 4 $5,647,159.00 5 $7,079,903.88

Table 5: Cost of Underground Parking Garage

# of Levels Cost 1 $1,438,516.24 2 $2,374,057.98 3 $3,309,599.72 4 $4,245,141.46 5 $5,180,683.20 6 $6,116,224.94



Table 6: Cost of Above Ground Parking Garage Above Ground Levels Underground Levels # of Parking Spaces Cost

2 2 175 $5,184,327.90 3 1 195 $5,671,997.48 0 4 200 $4,245.141.46 4 0 215 $5,647,159.00 2 3 220 $6,119,869.64 3 2 240 $6,607,539.22 0 5 245 $5,180,683.20 4 1 260 $7,095,208.80 2 4 265 $7,055,411.38 5 0 280 $7,079,903.88 3 3 285 $7,543,080.96 0 6 290 $6,116,224.94 4 2 305 $8,030,750.54 2 5 310 $7,990,953.12 5 1 325 $8,518,420.12 3 4 330 $8,478,622.70

The cost of constructing a minimum of 255.56 parking spaces will be at least $7.0 million. The estimates for the underground parking garage were based off of a 2-story underground parking garage and costs were added linearly with an increase in stories, so the underground parking garage figures after 2 levels are, in all likelihood, underestimated. The estimates for the above ground parking garage were based off of a 5-story parking garage, so the estimates for fewer than five levels should be overestimates. With all that being said, the most economical way of putting in at least 255.56 parking spaces is an above ground parking garage with 4 levels and an underground parking garage with 1 level, which comes out to between $7.0 million and $7.1 million for 260 parking spaces.



Parking Spaces Table 7: Required Parking per Cincinnati Code

Use Classifications Required Parking Floor Area (square feet)

# of Spots

Transportation Passenger Terminals

1 for evey 2,000 square feet

11,400 6

Retail sales 1 for every 250 square feet

20,850 83

Offices 1 for every 400 square feet

5,000 13

Commercial Meeting Facility

1 for every 50 square feet

2,000 40

Totals - - 162 Source: Cincinnati Code of Ordinances, Title XIV: Cincinnati Zoning Code, Chapter 1425-19-A: Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirments



Design Summary The deliverables for our group were to present a proposed site design for the Xavier University light rail hub. Along with a proposed site design our group developed construction cost estimates and construction schedules for a main transit center, an aboveground parking structure, retail structures throughout the hub and a small bike shop. The costs for construction were developed using RSMeans construction square foot cost data for the year 2012, this was the most recent year for which data was available. To determine the duration of construction we used daily output data from RSMeans and related those daily outputs to our estimated construction quantities.

After researching other light rail systems in the country and throughout the world, our group decided that a best practice example to base our design on was the Tempe Transportation Center in Tempe, Arizona. The Tempe Transportation Center (TTC) was completed in 2008 with a final project cost of 18.9 million dollars. The main transit center is a total of 40,000 sf and contains the city’s transportation offices, community rooms and Arizona’s first bike station. There is retail on the ground floor as well as food service. A feature of TTC that was worked into our site design was the placement of certain buildings. For Tempe, the building placement was carefully considered to maintain views of Hayden Butte, which was a sacred site for Native Americans.

Figure 6: Southeast Facing View of Transit Hub

Mixed-Use Transit Center

The proposed site design includes a mixed-use transit center, bike hub, retail space, structured above and below ground parking as well as some surface parking. The Mixed-Use Transit Center consists of two floors totaling 22,800 square feet (sf). The Transit Center will play host to 9,800 sf dedicated for ticketing and other transit related amenities such as display boards or seating for passengers waiting for trains. The Transit Center also contains 6,000 sf of retail



space on the ground floor. Having retail space in the main transit center will be beneficial for the retail stores because there will be guaranteed foot traffic in the transit center. If the retail stores advertise properly, they will be able to draw in many customers who may be on their way to or from work or maybe people who came to the hub simply to shop.

The second floor will enclose approximately 5,000 sf of transit offices and 2,000 sf of

Community Conference Rooms available for rent for community group meetings or group gatherings. Comparing to the TTC design, we felt that it was almost imperative that we have space available for community members to use. This will make the Transit Center and the whole transit hub a more inviting place for nearby citizens. Having these available community areas will hopefully increase community support for the hub which can lead to the large term success of the hub. Also having transit offices located within the building was important so that transit officials would have a direct connection to the citizens using the different public transportation options.

A detailed estimate of the structure can be seen in Table A-1 of Appendix A. The total

cost for the structure is was slightly above $2.7 million. The cost breakdown for different parts of construction is presented in Table 1. The construction of the mixed-use transit center will take approximately 11 months to complete. A detailed schedule is presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B.

Aboveground Parking Garage

To the east of the Transit Center is a 4-story parking garage totaling 85,000 sf. The first level of the parking garage is designated for a bus turn-around area and contains two bus bays for buses to drop off passengers. Providing a selected area for bus passenger drop off and bus turn-around is a good way to incorporate multiple forms of transportation at one location. People will be able to ride the bus to the transit hub and then take the light rail to their final destination. The 3 levels aboveground will be used for parking. These three levels, each level being 21,250 sf, will provide approximately 195 parking spaces. This estimated number of parking spaces is based off a report by the American Planning Association. The report states that a minimum of 350 sf should be designated for each parking space. The space itself would comprise 200 of the 350 sf. The other 150 sf would used in aisles, entrances and exits, and landscaping. Since our parking garage will not have any landscaping we decreased that 350 sf to 325 sf per parking space.

The total amount of parking spaces provided in our site design totals 270 spaces, while

the Cincinnati code requires 160 spaces. While we wanted to provide more than the minimal parking required, we did not want to overload the area with parking. Our group wanted to promote the use of bike and light rail but we recognized that people would still drive to the hub and need a place to park. After looking at several case studies of other light rails around the country we felt that an additional 110 spaces of parking above code was a good amount. Using the same cost data source that was used for the Transit Center, an estimate was developed for the aboveground parking structure. The final cost of the garage is just above $5.6 million. A detailed cost breakdown for the parking garage can be seen in Table A-22 in Appendix A. The



construction of the parking structure will last roughly 1 year. Determining the schedule for the parking garage became difficult because of the different work breakdowns for the square foot estimates and the detailed estimates that were used to determine daily output. Our group found a case study of a parking garage from Pennsylvania State University. This case study included an actual schedule of construction. Our group related the duration of the case study project to our project because the parking structure in the case study was roughly 2.5 time bigger than our garage. A detailed schedule for the estimated schedule is presented in Table B-2 in Appendix B.

A topic that came up in our group discussions as well as comments from professors and

others viewing our presentation was the location of the parking structure. In our proposed design the structure is located to the east of the Transit Center next to the University Station development. We felt that this was the best location for the garage. The main reason we liked this location was because it allowed us to create a natural flow between our transit hub and Xavier University. Parking structures act as visual barriers and we did not want a barrier next to a college campus. Xavier presents a critical ridership that will help Wasson Way succeed. Cutting off access from Xavier University would only hurt Wasson Way. Also, putting the parking garage next to the University Station property creates a visual barrier that divides the two developments.

Retail Structures

Similar to the Tempe Transportation Center, our group felt it was imperative to have designated retail areas located at the transit hub. Having retail at the transit hub will serve a dual purpose. First, people who use the hub everyday will have access to the retail as well as Xavier University students. Second, citizens living near the transit hub will now have easy access to shopping. Whether people use the transit hub for mainly transportation or mainly for shopping, people who use the hub for transportation will begin to shop and people who shop are likely to use it for transportation. Our group also decided to separate the retail space rather than have it located within one structure. We felt this promoted movement through the hub which would lead to more movement outside of the hub.

During our research, the group looked at the MAX Light Rail in Portland, Oregon. The

MAX Light Rail has a terminus located adjacent to the campus of Portland State University. The Urban Plaza is an example of best practice when combining shared right-of-way and mixed-use development. The MAX Light Rail in some instances travels underneath mixed-use buildings and next to common areas where pedestrians can gather. The total cost for the retail structures was estimated to be nearly $1.6 million. The cost for retail structures was estimated based upon the total amount of square feet for retail. The group decided to use this route because we did not have exact building dimensions for each of the separate retail structures. A detailed cost breakdown is shown in Table A-3 in Appendix A. We felt that using the total quantities would enable us to get a better cost estimate. The construction of a single retail structure will take nearly 3 months. A detailed construction schedule is shown in Table B-3 of Appendix B. We felt that estimating the cost of a single retail structure would be best because the actual construction would depend on how the contractor would want to construct the structures.



Bike Hub

The bike hub, located just west of the Mixed-Use Transit Center was designed to be 1,750 sf. This area will serve as a bicycle repair shop, indoor bicycle storage as well as a bike rental facility. While the bike hub does not consume a large area or cost a lot compared to other parts of the transit hub, it is still equally important. A major key for the success of bike paths is having areas where bikers can safely store their bikes while they enjoy other activities. Having a bike hub located on this property was something upon which our group strongly agreed. While Wasson Way contains light rail transit, there is still bicycle traffic.

Another part of our design for the bike hub was green roof. The group felt that a green

roof would be a good addition to the site and we felt that the bike hub was the best spot for it due to the small roof size and bicycle usage could be seen as environmentally friendly as would the green roof. A similar bike hub located in Taoyuan City, Taiwan also has a green roof. Using similar cost data has as previously been discussed as well as case studies of green roofs provided by the Environmental group, the cost of our bike hub will run approximately $274,000. The case studies provided by the Environmental group were regarding green roofs as there was no cost data for this item in RSMeans. A detailed cost breakdown is provided in Table A-4 of Appendix A. The construction time of the bike hub is just under 2 months. A detailed construction schedule is presented in Table B-4 of Appendix B.

Bike Path Reroute

With the decision to have two light rail tracks on the north side of the hub, the group was forced to move the bike trail due to simply not having enough right-of-way. After much consideration it was decided to move the bike trail onto Dana Avenue and redesign Dana Avenue to accommodate the bike trail. While this was not the optimum idea it was the best the group could develop for the area. The cost of rerouting the bike trial onto Dana Avenue will cost just under $240,000. A detailed cost is presented in Table A-5 of Appendix A.

Site Design Summary

Under our final site design, an unused parcel of land near Xavier University will be turned into a vibrant transportation hub that can easily service thousands of citizens each and every day. The proposed site will contain a 22,800 sf Main Transit Center that will contain 6,000 sf of ground-level retail area along with space designated for transit and ticketing related …The second floor of the Transit Center will have 2,000 sf dedicated to community conference rooms and 5,000 sf of transit oriented offices. Located to the east of the Main Transit Center is a 4-story parking garage with a bottom floor designated for a bus-loop and bus bays for dropping off passengers. The parking garage will have room for 195 parking spaces. Also, located within the hub is another 14,800 sf of retail stores. In addition, there is a 1,750 sf bike hub with a bicycle repair shop, bike storage area, and a bike rental facility.

Including these amenities as well as rerouting the bike path to Dana Avenue and other

miscellaneous construction, the total cost of constructing the Xavier University Transit Hub is



$10.7 million. According to RSMeans, the Cincinnati, Ohio area has a local construction factor of 92% compared to the national average. This means that construction costs in Cincinnati are 92 cents on the dollar compared to the national average. The subtotal cost was multiplied by 92% to account for this local characteristic. Finally, a 15% contingency was added to project cost. A contingency was added to account for the rough nature under which the estimates were made, as there were no detailed plans provided, and that the exact features of the transit hub are still not concrete. Including the local construction characteristics and adding the 15% contingency, the final cost estimate comes to $11,366,596.



Conclusion The current plot of land near Xavier University where our proposed site plan is located, currently sits empty, while the areas around it are being developed with a number of mixed-use amenities. The final plan presented is a very sustainable design that fits well into the already being constructed area. By interconnecting different means of transportation of pedestrians, bicycles, cars, busses, and trains the site has the potential to be a vibrant hub for the community. The potential impact are endless in enhancing not only the community experience but also property values and welfare of the community. Our final cost of $11.4 million shows that our site design is very feasible, if the federal funds are obtainable and city council backs the project.



References Flyvbjerg, Bent, Mette K. Skamris Holm, and Søren L. Buhl. "Inaccuracy in Traffic Forecasts."

Transport Reviews 26.1 (2006): 1-24. Print. "Project Fact Sheet." Bottineau Transitway. Bottineau Transitway, Jan. 2012. Web. 23 Apr.

2014. <http://bottineautransitway.org/library/pdfs/2012_01_25_DRAFT_Bott_Project_Fact_Sheet_Jan%202012_.pdf>.

"Tempe Transportation Center / Architekton" 30 Aug 2011. ArchDaily. Accessed 15 Apr 2014.

http://www.archdaily.com/?p=160316

"Concrete Prices." Concrete Prices. N.p., 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

Site Design, Parking and Zoning for Shopping Centers. Publication no. 59. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1954. Print.

Balboni, Barbara, ed. Square Foot Costs 2012. Norwell, MA: RSMeans, 2011. Print.

"Delta Avenue Restriping Project - Bikes." Delta Avenue Restriping Project - Bikes. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.

"OKI Traffic Counts." OKI Traffic Counts. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.

"Light Rail Transit in Vancouver - Costs, Potential and Alternatives." (n.d.): 1-141. Print.

Light Rail Transit: Planning and Technology. Rep. no. 182. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science, 1978. Web.

Precast Prestressed Concrete Parking Structures: Recommended Practice for Design and

Construction. Rep. N.p.: Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1988. Web. Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit. Rep. no. 57. Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit

Administration, 2000. Print. “MAX Light Rail Project History” TriMet. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 April 2014 < http://trimet.org/about/history/maxoverview.htm> Brandman, Richard. “Portland Streetcar Development Impacts” Metro. N.p. December 2006, Web. 16 April 2014 < http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/portlandimpacts.pdf> Joshi, Himanshu. “Simulating the Effect of Light Rail on Urban Growth in Phoenix” Journal of

Urban Technology. Volume 13, Number 2, pages 91-111

http://bottineautransitway.org/library/pdfs/2012_01_25_DRAFT_Bott_Project_Fact_Sheet_Jan%202012_.pdf

http://bottineautransitway.org/library/pdfs/2012_01_25_DRAFT_Bott_Project_Fact_Sheet_Jan%202012_.pdf

http://www.archdaily.com/?p=160316



Litman, Tood. “Rail Transit in America” Victoria Transit Policy Institute. N.p., 16 January 2012. Garrett, Thomas A. “Light-Rail Transit in America” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. N.p., August 2004. American Public Transit Association. (1993) Transit Fact Book, Washington, D.C. 104. “About TriMet” TriMet. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 April 2014 <http://www.trimet.org/about/> “Traffic counts show regional travel decreased, transit ridership increased” PlanPhilly. N.p., 12 November 2013. Web. 16 April 2014

< http://planphilly.com/articles/2013/11/12/traffic-counts-show-regional-travel-decreased-transit-ridership-increased>

“Residents Who Live Near Public Transportation Live Healthier, Longer Lives, Study Finds” American Public Transportation Association. N.p., 11 August 2010. Web. 16 April 2013

<http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2010/Pages/100811_Public%20Health%20Benefits.aspx>

MacDonald, John M. “The Effect of Light Rail Transit on Body Mass Index and Physical Activity” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Volumbe 39, Issue 2, pages 105-112 Ciciora, Phil. “Study: Surge in obesity correlates with increased automobile usage” News Bureau Illinois. N.p., 11 May 2011. Web. 16 April 2014 < http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/0511obesity_SheldonJacobson.html> “Quick Facts” University of Denver. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://www.du.edu/apply/admission/quickfacts.html? “University of Denver Station” RTD. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://www.rtd-denver.com/LightRail_Map.shtml#universityofdenver> “News” Portland State University. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014

< https://www.pdx.edu/university-communications/news/presidents-progress-report-2014-numbers>

“Station Platforms” Valley Metro. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014

<http://www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/lightrail_publications/LRT2274_LR_Statio n_Platform_Factsheet_-_Update_October_2013.pdf>

“Quick Facts” Arizona State University. N.p., Fall 2012. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://uoia.asu.edu/sites/default/files/quickfacts/Quick_Facts_Fall_2012.pdf?



“Park-and-Rides” Valley Metro. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 <http://www.valleymetro.org/park_and_rides/mlr> “Facts and Figures” Xavier University. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://www.xavier.edu/enrollment-ambassadors/Facts-and-Figures.cfm> “Zip Atlas” N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://zipatlas.com/> “Facts and Figures” RTD. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://www.rtd-denver.com/factsAndFigures.shtml? “The Transit Tourist: Portland, Ore.” The Source. N.p., 22 June 2012. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://thesource.metro.net/2012/06/22/the-transit-tourist-portland-ore/? “Light Rail” Valley Metro. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 April 2014

<http://www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/lightrail_publications/Light_Rail_System_Factsheet_-_January_2014.pdf>

“Public Transportation Ridership Report” American Public Transportation Association. N.p., 2013. Web. 14 April 2014

<http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2013-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf>

“Park-n-Ride List” RTD. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://www.rtd-denver.com/AlphabeticalList.shtml?> “Park & Ride Locations” TriMet. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 April 2014 < http://trimet.org/parkandride/index.htm#portland> “Park-and-Rides” Valley Metro. N.p., N.d. Web. 14 April 2014 <http://www.valleymetro.org/park_and_rides/mlr> Cincinnati Code of Ordinances, Title XIV: Cincinnati Zoning Code, Chapter 1425-19-A: Off-

Street Parking and Loading Requirements



Unit Total Units Cost per Unit ($) Total Cost ($)A. Substructure $177,592

Standard Foundation S.F. Ground 15,800 2.28 $36,024Slab on Grade S.F. Ground 15,800 5.11 $80,738

Basement Excavation S.F. Ground 15,800 0.30 $4,740Basement Walls S.F. Ground 15,800 3.55 $56,090

B. Shell $380,667Roof Construction S.F. Roof 22,800 7.00 $159,600

Exterior Walls S.F. Walls 6,100 9.72 $59,292Exterior Windows S.F. Walls 676 2.88 $1,947

Roof Covering S.F. Roof 22,800 6.89 $157,092Roof Openings S.F. Roof 22,800 0.12 $2,736

C. Interiors $677,916Retail

Partitions S.F. Walls 1,400 5.72 $8,008Interior Doors S.F. Walls 6,000 8.53 $51,180Wall Finishes S.F. Walls 1,400 2.48 $3,472Floor Finishes S.F. Floor 6,000 6.72 $40,320

Ceiling Finishes S.F. Ceiling 6,000 6.86 $41,160Transit


Ceiling Finishes S.F. Ceiling 14,800 6.86 $101,528Community Conference Rooms


Ceiling Finishes S.F. Ceiling 2,000 6.86 $13,720D. Services $765,852D20 Plumbing

Plumbing Fixtures S.F. Floor 22,800 3.62 $82,536Domestic Water Distribution S.F. Floor 22,800 6.31 $143,868

Rain Water Drainage S.F. Floor 22,800 1.53 $34,884D30 HVAC

Terminal & Package Units S.F. Floor 22,800 9.91 $225,948D40 Fire Protection

Sprinklers S.F. Floor 22,800 3.64 $82,992D50 Electrical

Electrical Service/Distribution S.F. Floor 22,800 1.06 $24,168Lighting & Branch Wiring S.F. Floor 22,800 5.86 $133,608

Communications and Security S.F. Floor 22,800 1.47 $33,516Other Electrical Systems S.F. Floor 22,800 0.19 $4,332

E. Equipment & Furnishings $28,500Vehicular Equipment S.F. Floor 22,800.00 1.25 28,500

Sub-Total $2,030,527Contractor Fees $507,632Architect Fees $162,442Total Cost $2,700,601

Appendix

Table A-1: Cost Estimate for Main Transit Center



Unit Total Units Cost per Unit($) Total Cost ($)A. Substructure $ 355,300

Standard Foundation S.F. Ground 85,000 1.36 115,600Slab on Grade S.F. Ground 85,000 1.35 114,750

Basement Excavation S.F. Ground 85,000 0.04 3,400Basement Walls S.F. Ground 85,000 1.43 121,550

B. Shell $ 1,722,437 Floor Construction S.F. Floor 63,750 26.43 1,684,913

Exterior Walls L.F. Walls 11,800 3.18 37,524C. Interiors $ 1,016,768

Concrete Block Partitions S.F. Walls 14,080 31.46 442,957Interior Doors Each 8 23,880.00 191,040

Stair Construction S.F. Total 85,000 0.27 22,950Wall Finishes S.F. Walls 14,080 0.14 1,971Floor Finishes S.F. Floor 85,000 4.21 357,850

D. Services $ 1,110,054 D10 Conveying

Elevators and Lifts Each 2 139,802.00 279,604D20 Plumbing

Plumbing Fixtures S.F. Floor 85,000 0.04 3,400Water Distribution S.F. Floor 85,000 0.07 5,950

Rain Water Drainage S.F. Floor 85,000 1.92 163,200D40 Fire Protection

Sprinklers S.F. Floor 85,000 4.20 357,000Standpipes S.F. Floor 85,000 0.09 7,650

D50 ElectricalElectrical Service/Distribution S.F. Floor 85,000 0.24 20,400

Lighting & Branch Wiring S.F. Floor 85,000 3.03 257,550Communications and Security S.F. Floor 85,000 0.12 10,200

Other Electrical Systems S.F. Floor 85,000 0.06 5,100E. Equipment & Furnishings $ 106,250

Vehicular Equipment S.F. Floor 85,000 1.25 106,250

Sub-Total $4,310,809Contractor Fees $1,077,702Architect Fees $258,649Total $5,647,159

Table A-2: Cost Estimate for Aboveground Parking Garage



Unit Total Units Cost per Unit ($) Total Cost ($)A. Substructure $161,024

Standard Foundation S.F. Ground 14,800 1.86 $27,528Slab on Grade S.F. Ground 14,800 5.11 $75,628

Basement Excavation S.F. Ground 14,800 0.30 $4,440Basement Walls S.F. Ground 14,800 3.61 $53,428

B. Shell $317,519Roof Construction S.F. Roof 14,800 7.00 $103,600

Exterior Walls S.F. Walls 12,123 9.72 $117,836Exterior Windows S.F. Walls 1,347 2.88 $3,879

Roof Covering S.F. Roof 14,800 6.11 $90,428Roof Openings S.F. Roof 14,800 0.12 $1,776

C. Interiors $181,335Partitions S.F. Walls 3,465 0.98 $3,396

Interior Doors S.F. Floor 14,800 1.99 $29,452Wall Finishes S.F. Walls 3,465 2.02 $6,999Floor Finishes S.F. Floor 14,800 2.70 $39,960





Sprinklers S.F. Floor 14,800 4.73 $70,004Standpipes S.F. Floor 14,800 1.00 $14,800

D50 ElectricalElectrical Service/Distribution S.F. Floor 14,800 2.65 $39,220

Lighting & Branch Wiring S.F. Floor 14,800 10.67 $157,916Communications and Security S.F. Floor 14,800 1.64 $24,272

Other Electrical Systems S.F. Floor 14,800 0.23 $3,404

Sub-Total $1,228,346Contractor Fees $307,086Architect Fees $98,268Total $1,633,700

Table A-3: Cost Estimate for Retail Structures



Unit Total Units Cost per Unit ($) Total Cost ($)

A. Substructure $19,040Standard Foundation S.F. Ground 1,750 1.86 $3,255

Slab on Grade S.F. Ground 1,750 5.11 $8,943Basement Excavation S.F. Ground 1,750 0.30 $525

Basement Walls S.F. Ground 1,750 3.61 $6,318B. Shell $26,646

Roof Construction S.F. Roof 1,750 7.00 $12,250Exterior Walls S.F. Walls 1,434 9.72 $13,938

Exterior Windows S.F. Walls 159 2.88 $458C. Interiors $21,431

Partitions S.F. Walls 406 0.98 $398Interior Doors S.F. Floor 1,750 1.99 $3,483Wall Finishes S.F. Walls 406 2.02 $820Floor Finishes S.F. Floor 1,750 2.70 $4,725





Sprinklers S.F. Floor 1,750 4.73 $8,278Standpipes S.F. Floor 1,750 1.00 $1,750

D50 ElectricalService/Distribution S.F. Floor 1,750 2.65 $4,638

Lighting & Branch Wiring S.F. Floor 1,750 10.67 $18,673Communications and Security S.F. Floor 1,750 1.64 $2,870

Other Electrical Systems S.F. Floor 1,750 0.23 $403

F. Special Construction $71,750Green Roof S.F. Roof 1,750 41.00 $71,750

Sub-Total $206,084Contractor Fees $51,521Architect Fees $16,487Total $274,092

Table A-4: Cost Estimate for Bike Hub



Unit Type Amount Cost per Unit ($) Total Cost ($)A. Removal $ 7,340

Marking Removal L.F. 1,560 2.49 $3,884Pavement Removal L.F. 1,280 1.35 $1,728

Curb Removal L.F. 1,280 1.35 $1,728

B. Pavement and Markings $ 173,019 Replaced Asphalt

Crushed Surfacing Base Course S.Y. 2,916 5.02 $14,638Hot Mix Asphalt S.Y. 2,916 52.03 $151,719

Replaced MarkingsNew Markings L.F. 10,920 0.61 $6,661


Table A-5: Cost Estimate for Dana Avenue Bike Path



Unit Type Amount Cost per Unit ($) Total Cost ($)Paved Area (sidewalk) S.F. 39,115 4.55 $177,973

Landscaping (trees) Each 28 304.50 $8,526


Table A-6: Cost Estimate for Miscellaneous Construction



Cost ($)Main Transit Building $2,700,601

Parking Garage above ground $5,647,159Retail Structures $1,633,700

Bike Hub $274,092Restriping Dana Ave $239,878

Miscellaneous Construction $248,044Local Construction Factor 0.92

Total Construction Cost $9,883,996Contingency 15%

Final Construction Cost $11,366,596

Table A-7: Total Construction Cost



IDTas

k Mo

deNam

eDur

ation

Start

Finish

Succes

sors

1Not

ice to P

roceed

1 day

Mon 4/2

1/14Mon

4/21/14

22

Mobiliza

tion4 da

ysTue

4/22/14

Fri 4/25/

1433

Baseme

nt Excav

ation

2 days

Mon 4/2

8/14Tue

4/29/14

44

Domesti

c Water

Distrib

ution

8 days

Wed 4/

30/14

Fri 5/9/1

455

Rain Wa

ter Dra

inage

1 day

Mon 5/1

2/14Mon

5/12/14

66

Founda

tion1 da

yTue

5/13/14

Tue 5/1

3/147

7Bas

ement W

alls1 da

yWe

d 5/14/1

4Wed 5

/14/14 8

8Slab

on Gra

de4 da

ysThu

5/15/14

Tue 5/2

0/149,10

9Plum

bing Fix

tures

10 days

Wed 5/

21/14

Tue 6/3

/1427

10Exte

rior Wa

lls16 d

aysWe

d 5/21/1

4Wed 6

/11/141

1,1211

Exterior

Window

s5 da

ysThu

6/12/14

Wed 6/

18/1427

12Roo

f Constr

uction

6 days

Thu 6/1

2/14Thu

6/19/14

13,14,17

13Part

itions

50 days

Fri 6/20/

14Thu

8/28/14

2314

Roof Co

vering

9 days

Fri 6/20/

14We

d 7/2/14

1515

Roof Op

enings

1 day

Thu 7/3

/14Thu

7/3/14

16,19

16Term

inal & P

ackage U

nits6 da

ysFri 7

/4/14

Fri 7/11/

1427

17Stan

dpipes

10 days

Fri 6/20/

14Thu

7/3/14

1818

Sprinkle

rs10 d

aysFri 7

/4/14

Thu 7/1

7/1427

19Elec

trical Se

rvice/D

istribut

ion15 d

aysFri 7

/4/14

Thu 7/2

4/1420

20Ligh

ting & B

ranch W

iring

15 days

Fri 7/25/

14Thu

8/14/14

21,24,22

21Com

municat

ions & S

ecurity

10 days

Fri 8/15/

14Thu

8/28/14

2522

Other E

lectrica

l System

s10 d

aysFri 8

/15/14

Thu 8/2

8/1425

23Inte

rior Doo

rs7 da

ysFri 8

/29/14

Mon 9/8

/1427

24Wal

l Finishe

s7 da

ysFri 8

/15/14

Mon 8/2

5/1425

25Ceil

ing Fini

shes

60 days

Fri 8/29/

14Thu

11/20/1

42626

Floor Fin

ishes

68 days

Fri 11/21

/14Tue

2/24/15

2727

Final Ins

pection

20 days

Wed 2/

25/15

Tue 3/2

4/1528

28Sub

stantial

Complet

ion1 da

yWe

d 3/25/1

5 Wed 3

/25/15

190 da

ys

179 da

ys

162 da

ys

158 da

ys

121 da

ys3 d

ays

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

March

April

May

June

JulyAug

ustSep

tember

Octobe

rNov

ember

Decemb

erJan

uary

Februa

ryMa

rchApr

ilMa

yJun

eJuly

August

Appendix B- Construction Schedules Table B-1: Construction Schedule for Main Transit Center



IDTask

Mod

eNam

eDura

tionStart

Finish

Successo

rs

1Noti

ce to Proc

eed1 day

Thu 4/17

/14Thu

4/17/142

2Mob

ilization

4 days

Fri 4/18/

14Wed

4/23/143

3Base

ment Exc

avation

10 days

Thu 4/24

/14Wed

5/7/14 4

4Foot

ings59 da

ysThu

5/8/14

Tue 7/29

/145,7,9,

13,115

Under Sla

b MEP

8 days

Wed 7/30

/14Fri 8

/8/146,1

26

Foundatio

n Walls

46 days

Mon 8/11

/14Mon

10/13/14

77

Slab9 day

sTue

10/14/14

Fri 10/24

/14 88

Precast P

anels

35 days

Mon 10/2

7/14Fri 1

2/12/141

1,13,9,14

9MEP

Rough-In

s29 da

ysMon

12/15/14

Thu 1/22

/1510

10Gara

ge Finish

es29 da

ysFri 1

/23/15

Wed 3/4/

151511

Site Wor

k31 da

ysMon

12/15/14

Mon 1/26

/15 15

12Elev

ators34 da

ysMon

8/11/14

Thu 9/25

/1415

13M.E.

P. System

s18 da

ysMon

12/15/14

Wed 1/7/

151514

Exterior H

ardscape

13 days

Mon 12/1

5/14Wed

12/31/14

1515

Parking S

triping

6 days

Thu 3/5/

15Thu

3/12/15 1

616

System Te

sting5 day

sFri 3

/13/15

Thu 3/19

/1517

17Fina

l Inspectio

ns10 da

ysFri 3

/20/15

Thu 4/2/

151818

Substanti

al Comple

tion1 day

Fri 4/3/1

5Fri 4

/3/15

27 days

114 days

40 days

45 days

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

EB

ME

BM

April

MayJune

JulyAug

ustSept

ember

October

Novemb

erDece

mber

January

February

March

April

MayJune

JulyAug

ustSept

emb

Table B-2: Construction Schedule for Aboveground Parking Garage



Table B-3: Construction Schedule for Single Retail Structure



IDTas

k Mo

deNam

eDur

ation

Start

Finish

Succes

sors

1Not

ice to P

roceed

1 day?

Mon 4/2

1/14Mon

4/21/14

22

Mobiliza

tion4 da

ysTue

4/22/14

Fri 4/25/

1433

Baseme

nt Excav

ation

2 days

Mon 4/2

8/14Tue

4/29/14

44

Domesti

c Water

Distrib

ution

3 days

Wed 4/

30/14

Fri 5/2/1

455

Rain Wa

ter Dra

inage

1 day

Mon 5/5

/14Mon

5/5/14

66

Founda

tion1 da

yTue

5/6/14

Tue 5/6

/147

7Bas

ement W

alls1 da

yWe

d 5/7/14

Wed 5/

7/148

8Slab

on Gra

de1 da

yThu

5/8/14

Thu 5/8

/149,10

9Plum

bing Fix

tures

1 day

Fri 5/9/1

4Fri 5

/9/1425

10Exte

rior Wa

lls4 da

ysFri 5

/9/14W

ed 5/14/

1411,12

11Exte

rior Win

dows

2 days

Thu 5/1

5/14Fri 5

/16/142

512

Roof Co

nstructi

on7 da

ysThu

5/15/14

Fri 5/23/

1413,14

,15,16

13Part

itions

2 days

Mon 5/2

6/14Tue

5/27/14

21,22

14Term

inal & P

ackage U

nits2 da

ysMon

5/26/14

Tue 5/2

7/1425

15Stan

dpipes

1 day

Mon 5/2

6/14Mon

5/26/14

1716

Sprinkle

rs1 da

yMon

5/26/14

Mon 5/2

6/1417

17Elec

trical Se

rvice/D

istribut

ion2 da

ysTue

5/27/14

Wed 5/

28/1418

,1918

Lighting

& Branc

h Wirin

g1 da

yThu

5/29/14

Thu 5/2

9/1425

19Com

municat

ions & S

ecurity

1 day

Thu 5/2

9/14Thu

5/29/14

2020

Other E

lectrica

l System

s1 da

yFri 5

/30/14

Fri 5/30/

1425

21Inte

rior Doo

rs1 da

yWe

d 5/28/1

4Wed 5

/28/142

522

Wall Fin

ishes

1 day

Wed 5/

28/14 W

ed 5/28/

1423

23Ceil

ing Fini

shes

1 day

Thu 5/2

9/14Thu

5/29/14

2424

Floor Fin

ishes

7 days

Fri 5/30/

14Mon

6/9/14

2525

Final Ins

pection

4 days

Tue 6/1

0/14Fri 6

/13/142

626

Substan

tial Com

pletion

1 day

Mon 6/1

6/14Mon

6/16/14

21 days

16 days

9 days

7 days

6 days

8 days

4/64/1

34/2

04/2

75/4

5/11

5/18

5/25

6/16/8

6/15

6/22

6/29

7/67/1

37/2

07/2

78/3

8/10

8/17

8/24

Apr

il 11Apr

il 21Ma

y 1Ma

y 11Ma

y 21Jun

e 1Jun

e 11Jun

e 21July

1July

11July

21Aug

ust 1

August

11Aug

ust 21

Table B-4: Construction Schedule for Bike Hub



Appendix C-Group Contributions

Group Members ContributionsAndrew Archambeau Benefits, Parking, Estimate, Selection of Parking Site, Case StudiesMeredith Heitkemper Rerouting the Bike Path, Human Factors, SchedulingAnthony Wehr Summary of Final Design, Problem Statement, Estimate, SchedulingCollin O'Brien Abstract, Introduction, Design Processes, Sustainability, SchedulingTyler Rabanus Social and Political Issues, Barriers to Implementation, Scheduling

Xavier University Transit Hub€¦ · A well-developed sidewalk network, with high quality...

Documents

Transcript of Xavier University Transit Hub€¦ · A well-developed sidewalk network, with high quality...