Applied Science, Faculty of
Civil Engineering, Department of
DSpace
University of British Columbia. Campus and Community Planning
Chen, Yu An
De Leon, Ella
Glumpak, Malcolm
Holme-Harvey, Veronica
Lee, Aaron
Leung, Rebecca
Ma, Daniel
This final design report presents the culmination of a collaborative effort between The team and UBC Campus and Community Planning (CCP), marking a significant milestone in the transformative redesign of the SW Marine Drive & 16th Avenue intersection. Central to this vision is the creation of an infrastructure that exemplifies safe, multi-modal transportation, embraces sustainable practices, and enhances the spatial quality of the UBC campus. The final design features a shifted intersection accommodating a stormwater detention pond at the low point of the project scope to reduce cliffside erosion risk and manage water sustainably on-site with little maintenance. Active transportation is promoted through extended trails, crossride crossings, and realigned bike lanes – all converging to encourage a shift towards more sustainable transit options. The roundabout varies from one to two lanes, depending on the leg to better accommodate specific traffic demands, slow drivers down by introducing some congestion, and decrease crossing distances for cyclists. There will be rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) on W 16th Ave. along with signage warning drivers to decrease speed to 30 kph, enhancing the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing. The desired speed from SIDRA analysis is 38.7 kph. Lastly, all lane widths will be decreased to 4 m and the northbound leg of SW Marine Dr. will be decreased to one lane to further reduce driver comfort and vehicular speeds. Aesthetically, the design integrates a visual "gateway" into the campus, complete with Musqueam art, providing users of a sense of arrival and indigenous presence on campus. The team’ engagement strategy has proven to be effective and has been instrumental in shaping a design that not only meets technical and functional requirements but also resonates with the cultural and social fabric of the campus community. The total estimated cost is $3,105,800, calculated based on material costs, hourly rates, and fixed fees. Construction will begin May 1, 2024, with completion estimated to be the September 27, 2024. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report SW Marine Drive & 16th Avenue Intersection Redesign Yu An Chen, Ella De Leon, Malcolm Glumpak, Veronica Holme-Harvey, Aaron Lee, Rebecca Leung, and Daniel Ma University of British Columbia CIVL 446 April 10th, 2024 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | ii Executive Summary This final design report presents the culmination of a collaborative effort between The team and UBC Campus and Community Planning (CCP), marking a significant milestone in the transformative redesign of the SW Marine Drive & 16th Avenue intersection. Central to this vision is the creation of an infrastructure that exemplifies safe, multi-modal transportation, embraces sustainable practices, and enhances the spatial quality of the UBC campus. The final design features a shifted intersection accommodating a stormwater detention pond at the low point of the project scope to reduce cliffside erosion risk and manage water sustainably on-site with little maintenance. Active transportation is promoted through extended trails, cross- ride crossings, and realigned bike lanes – all converging to encourage a shift towards more sustainable transit options. The roundabout varies from one to two lanes, depending on the leg to better accommodate specific traffic demands, slow drivers down by introducing some congestion, and decrease crossing distances for cyclists. There will be rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) on W 16th Ave. along with signage warning drivers to decrease speed to 30 kph, enhancing the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing. The desired speed from SIDRA analysis is 38.7 kph. Lastly, all lane widths will be decreased to 4 m and the northbound leg of SW Marine Dr. will be decreased to one lane to further reduce driver comfort and vehicular speeds. Aesthetically, the design integrates a visual "gateway" into the campus, complete with Musqueam art, providing users of a sense of arrival and indigenous presence on campus. The team’ engagement strategy has proven to be effective and has been instrumental in shaping a design that not only meets technical and functional requirements but also resonates with the cultural and social fabric of the campus community. The total estimated cost is $3,105,800, calculated based on material costs, hourly rates, and fixed fees. Construction will begin May 1, 2024, with completion estimated to be the September 27, 2024. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | iii Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... vi 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Overview of the Site and Final Design Objectives .................................................................. 2 2.1 Key Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Key Component ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2.1 Technical Analysis ................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Stakeholder Engagement ........................................................................................ 4 2.2.3 Safety Optimization ................................................................................................ 5 2.2.4 Stormwater Management ...................................................................................... 5 2.2.5 Structural and Geotechnical Design ....................................................................... 5 2.3 Design Criteria and Adherence ........................................................................................ 5 2.4 Community and Environmental Aspects .......................................................................... 6 3.0 Final Design ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Intersection Design .......................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Stormwater Management ................................................................................................ 8 3.3 Transit-Oriented Design ................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Environmental Stewardship ............................................................................................. 9 3.5 Aesthetics and Community Engagement ......................................................................... 9 3.6 Gateway Design ................................................................................................................ 9 3.7 Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 9 3.8 Layout Design Features .................................................................................................. 10 3.9 Dimensions ..................................................................................................................... 10 3.10 Intersection Lighting ....................................................................................................... 11 4.0 Transportation Design .......................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Historical Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Growth Projections ............................................................................................... 13 4.1.2 Summary of Projected Growth Rates and Probability Models ............................. 14 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | iv 4.1.3 Design Implications ............................................................................................... 15 4.2 Transportation Planning Analysis ................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Layout Design Justifications .................................................................................. 16 4.2.2 Traffic Model Parameters ..................................................................................... 17 4.2.3 Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................................................. 19 4.2.4 Traffic Model Simulation – Sidra Software ........................................................... 19 4.2.5 Discussion of Results ............................................................................................. 19 4.3 Updated Active Transportation Facilities ....................................................................... 20 4.4 Traffic Control Devices ................................................................................................... 22 4.5 Tie-In Work ..................................................................................................................... 23 5.0 Drainage Design .................................................................................................................... 24 6.0 Gateway Design .................................................................................................................... 27 7.0 Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 30 7.1 Construction Phase Plan ................................................................................................ 30 7.2 Schedule Overview ......................................................................................................... 31 8.0 Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................................ 31 8.1 Construction Costs ......................................................................................................... 31 8.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs................................................................................. 32 9.0 Consultation Plan .................................................................................................................. 33 10.0 Project Management Documentation .................................................................................. 34 10.1 Traffic Management Plan ............................................................................................... 34 10.1.1 Phase 1 .................................................................................................................. 35 10.1.2 Phase 2 .................................................................................................................. 36 10.1.3 Phase 3 .................................................................................................................. 37 10.1.4 Phase 4 .................................................................................................................. 37 10.2 High Level Risks .............................................................................................................. 38 11.0 Work Breakdown Structure .................................................................................................. 39 References .................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix A: Traffic Analysis Calculations ..................................................................................... 41 Appendix B: Sidra Software Report .............................................................................................. 46 Appendix C: Drainage Design Calculations ................................................................................... 48 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | v Appendix D: Gateway Design Calculations ................................................................................... 52 Appendix E: Schedule .................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix F: Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................ 58 Appendix G: Detailed Design Drawings ........................................................................................ 62 List of Figures Figure 1: 3D Render of Intersection ................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2: Ariel View of Intersection (CIVL 445 2023W Project 3, 2023) ......................................... 3 Figure 3: Updated Design Process .................................................................................................. 4 Figure 4: 3D Render of the Final Design ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Intersection Growth Projections 2050 ........................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Probability Simulations 2050 ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Overview of Final Design ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 8: LOS Targets for Specific Modes of Transportation and their Location.......................... 18 Figure 9: Comparing Pedestrian Path of Existing and Final Design for Southbound Movement . 20 Figure 10: Suggested Cross-rides on South Leg ............................................................................ 20 Figure 11: Combined Cross-ride with Zebra Crossing ................................................................... 21 Figure 12: Anticipated Cycling Movements for Left-Turns ........................................................... 21 Figure 13: Suggested Concrete Waiting Area and Yield Markings on Bike Lanes ........................ 22 Figure 14: Reducing to One Lane for Northbound Movement .................................................... 23 Figure 15: SW Marine Dr and Stadium Rd Intersection Redesign ................................................ 23 Figure 16: Hydraulic Flow Paths of the Surrounding Area ............................................................ 24 Figure 17: Aerial View of Drainage Sub-Areas and Pipeline Layout ............................................. 27 Figure 18: Rendering of Gateway Design...................................................................................... 28 Figure 19: Construction Phase Plan .............................................................................................. 30 Figure 20: Construction Schedule Overview ................................................................................. 31 Figure 22: Consultation Roadmap (Yaworsky, Plenary 5, 2023) ................................................... 33 Figure 23: Phase 1 TMP ................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 24: Phase 2 TMP ................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 25: Phase 3 TMP ................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 26: Work Breakdown Structure ......................................................................................... 39 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | vi List of Tables Table 1: Expanded Design Criteria and Adherence ........................................................................ 6 Table 2: Basic Layout Dimensions (in meters) .............................................................................. 10 Table 3: Design Lighting Illuminance Requirements ..................................................................... 11 Table 4: Current Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................... 12 Table 5: Future Traffic Analysis ..................................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Calculated Parameters for Traffic Model ........................................................................ 13 Table 7: Updated Rationale of Design Features of Final Design ................................................... 17 Table 8: % of Road Usage per Vehicle Type .................................................................................. 18 Table 9: SIDRA Modelling Results ................................................................................................. 19 Table 10: Drainage Pipeline Configuration ................................................................................... 26 Table 11: Construction Cost Summary ......................................................................................... 32 Table 12: Operating and Maintenance Cost Summary ................................................................. 33 Table 13: Phase 1 Vehicle Movements ......................................................................................... 36 Table 14: Risk Level Matrix ........................................................................................................... 38 Table 15: Risk Level Scoring .......................................................................................................... 38 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 1 1.0 Introduction With the transition from the preliminary design to the detailed design, this report delineates the intricate journey of refining the intersection design to meet the goals set by UBC Campus and Community Planning. The team’ design strategy is rigorously informed by a comprehensive traffic analysis, which has honed the understanding of the current and future needs of the UBC community. This data-driven approach ensures that every aspect of the design is grounded in practicality while aspiring to visionary ideals. Figure 1: 3D Render of Intersection In the following pages, the multifaceted design elements are elaborated on that converge to form this final design (Figure 1). From the stormwater management system to the community-centric gateway, each component is a deliberate stroke in the canvas of UBC's future. Furthermore, through meticulous cost analysis, resources are optimized to deliver value without compromising quality. The streamlined construction schedule ensures timely execution, driven by proactive project management and a dedication to meeting deadlines. With a focus on minimizing ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 2 disruption, the construction plan employs innovative methodologies to seamlessly integrate the project into the campus landscape. Summary Table Name Contributions Yu An Chen Stormwater Design (Modeling, Analysis, Calculations, Drawings) Ella de Leon Final Design AutoCAD Drawing, Layout Design Justifications/Dimensions, Transportation Planning Analysis, Updated Transportation Facilities, Tie-in Work, Detailed Editing Malcolm Glumpak Detailed Traffic Growth Analysis, Traffic Data Analysis, Design (Lighting), Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement, Detailed Editing and Intro Report Sections Veronica Holme-Harvey Cost Estimate, Traffic Management and Construction Plans and Drawings, Work Breakdown Structure, detailed editing Rebecca Leung 3D Model, AutoCAD Drawing, Signage design, detailed editing Aaron Lee Gateway/Structural Design (Analysis, Calculations, Drawings) Daniel Ma Final Design AutoCAD Drawing (Roundabout cross-sections, mark-ups), Design Drawings General Notes, Detailed Construction Schedule 2.0 Overview of the Site and Final Design Objectives The SW Marine Dr. and 16th Ave. intersection, a critical juncture, has long required adaptation to meet evolving needs. Despite its historical significance, the intersection has faced challenges, including speeding, compromised pedestrian safety, and a lack of clear markers denoting arrival at UBC. To address these issues, The team undertakes the Redesign of the 16th Ave. and SW Marine Dr. Intersection as part of UBC Campus and Community Planning's initiative. An ariel view of the existing intersection is in Figure 2 below. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 3 Figure 2: Ariel View of Intersection (CIVL 445 2023W Project 3, 2023) 2.1 Key Objectives The primary goal is to promote safe multi-modal transportation, prioritizing biking, rolling, and walking. This objective aligns with sustainability goals, fostering healthier and environmentally friendly commuting options. Our design philosophy is guided by these two key principles. 1. Reducing Impervious Areas and Enhancing Pedestrian Accessibility The design will minimize impervious areas and improve pedestrian accessibility, contributing to a more sustainable and pedestrian-friendly urban environment. This supports the creation of complete streets and an overall increase in livability. As a result of this, travel speeds will be reduced, and active modes of transportation will be encouraged. 2. Integration with UBC Campus Vision 2050 The final design is meticulously crafted to align seamlessly with the UBC Campus Vision 2050. Emphasis is placed on creating complete streets, expanding green spaces, reducing single occupancy vehicle usage, and meeting all client requirements. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 4 2.2 Key Component Figure 3 depicts our overall project process. Please see below for a progress summary of key components. Figure 3: Updated Design Process 2.2.1 Technical Analysis A thorough technical analysis was conducted, leveraging site visits, peak traffic counts, LIDAR information, and GIS data. The proposed design pulls from the three conceptual designs that were previously developed, adhering to design requirements, and considering technical, economical, construction planning, and regulatory aspects. 2.2.2 Stakeholder Engagement Continuous engagement with stakeholders throughout and after the project, including the Musqueam community and nearby residents, is prioritized. The design process integrates their perspectives, ensuring cultural heritage is respected, and community needs are addressed. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 5 2.2.3 Safety Optimization The design prioritizes safety through measures such as reduced speeds by minimizing lane widths, dedicated bike lanes, and signalized crossings. A weighted decision matrix is employed to choose the most optimal design solution. 2.2.4 Stormwater Management Stormwater will be managed by incorporating a detention pond, swales, and green infrastructure to address environmental concerns and aid in mitigating cliffside erosion. 2.2.5 Structural and Geotechnical Design A structural footing is included in the design for the UBC gateway. To ensure safety and longevity, The team will adhere to the NBCC 2020 and CSA A23.3 for the structural design components. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 6 2.3 Design Criteria and Adherence Table 1 below summarizes the design criteria used for the project. Table 1: Expanded Design Criteria and Adherence Criteria Description Non-negotiable Design Criteria Emergency Response Accessibility Recognizing SW Marine Dr. as a provincial disastrous response route, the design prioritizes swift and unimpeded access for emergency services. Seamless Transition to UBC Campus Ensuring a seamless transition from a highway road to an urban environment with clear signals marking entry into the University of British Columbia (UBC). Adherence to Codes and Guidelines Fundamental to the design process is strict adherence to Federal, Provincial, and UBC codes and guidelines, ensuring legal compliance and noting that UBC is governed on Federal lands. Negotiable Design Criteria Cost Considerations With a focus on improving multi-modal transportation and mitigating potential negative environmental effects, cost considerations take precedence among negotiable criteria. Resulting Level of Service (LOS) Addressing the diverse transportation needs of the community, the negotiable criterion of LOS from the final design emphasizes optimizing functionality. Recognizing the intersection's lower volume, the design adapts to ensure an efficient and tailored approach that meets specific site requirements, ultimately resulting in an optimized LOS. Intersection Optimization Rather than rigidly adhering to a single traffic-controlling measure, the approach considers a range of design options, including but not limited to roundabouts, ensuring flexibility in meeting the specific requirements of the intersection and avoiding over-engineering. 2.4 Community and Environmental Aspects In the final design of the SW Marine Dr. and 16th Ave. Intersection, a profound emphasis is placed on community and environmental considerations, acknowledging the intersection's role as a dynamic focal point within the University of British Columbia's evolving landscape. Efforts to continuously engage in meaningful dialogue, including after the conclusion of the project, with the Musqueam community and neighboring residents are fundamental aspects of ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 7 our design process. This inclusive approach will incorporate diverse perspectives into the design, respecting cultural heritage, and addressing the unique needs of the local community. This plan, addressed in Section 10, is our roadmap for stakeholder engagement and ensures ongoing dialogue with the Musqueam community, nearby residents, and other stakeholders. A notable feature within the community and environmental aspects is the incorporation of the UBC gateway sign. This sign serves not only as a welcoming landmark but also as a symbol of the Musqueam presence on campus. Designed by local Indigenous artists, the gateway sign adds a distinctive element that aligns with the rich heritage of the Musqueam people and creates a sense of arrival for those entering the UBC campus. Environmental sustainability is a cornerstone of the final design. Adhering to non-negotiable criteria, the stormwater management plan mitigates cliffside erosion by retaining stormwater on-site. The design reduces impervious areas, avoids tree removal, and maintains the current buffer to the Botanical Gardens, underscoring our dedication to environmental stewardship. 3.0 Final Design The final design (Figure 4) is emerging as the optimal choice due to its notable performance across key evaluation categories. Anchored by the shifted roundabout design, our approach carefully addresses safety, traffic flow, active mode accessibility, stormwater management, transit orientation, environmental impacts, aesthetics, and cost considerations. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 8 Figure 4: 3D Render of the Final Design 3.1 Intersection Design The shifted roundabout design serves as the optimal solution to ensure safety for all road users. It not only reduces vehicular speeds, but also enhances traffic flow through a comprehensive layout. The design prioritizes active mode accessibility, with signalized crossings and dedicated lanes for cyclists, contributing to a safer and more accessible intersection. 3.2 Stormwater Management Due to the shifted design, an advanced stormwater management plan can be seamlessly integrated, aligning with environmental impacts and sustainability considerations. A detention pond, positioned at the bottom of the natural slope, facilitates efficient runoff without compromising the ecological integrity of the site. 3.3 Transit-Oriented Design Considering the transit-oriented decision criterion, the design places an emphasis on facilitating public transportation. The roundabout design eliminates confusion from the current design which ensures a smooth flow for buses and emergency responders, thereby contributing to an efficient transit-oriented intersection. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 9 3.4 Environmental Stewardship Environmental impacts are mitigated through a commitment to stewardship. The design avoids tree removal, reduces impervious areas, and increases the current buffer to the Botanical Gardens. These measures not only preserve the natural aesthetics but also enhance the overall environmental sustainability of the intersection. 3.5 Aesthetics and Community Engagement Aesthetic considerations are intrinsic to the design, with a UBC gateway sign strategically placed at the roundabout center. This element, designed by local Indigenous artists, not only adds to the visual appeal, but also serves as a cultural symbol, fostering community engagement and inclusivity. 3.6 Gateway Design The expansive central area of the roundabout presents a unique opportunity for strategic placement of the artwork, serving as a powerful means to communicate to incoming road users who are entering the UBC Campus —an ancestral land of the Musqueam people. The artwork enhances the visual appeal of the intersection and alerts drivers of the roundabout up ahead. 3.7 Cost-Effectiveness By carefully balancing the decision criterion of cost, the design remains cost-effective while addressing safety, aesthetics, and sustainability. The shifted roundabout design optimizes functionality, ensuring a cost-efficient solution without compromising the quality of the intersection. This is evident in our Class A cost estimate below. In conclusion, the proposed design meticulously addresses the decision criteria, offering a well- rounded, adaptable, and transformative solution for the SW Marine Dr. and 16th Ave. Intersection. It envisions an intersection that not only meets immediate needs, but also contributes to the broader goals of safety, sustainability, and community well-being. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 10 3.8 Layout Design Features Key layout features of the design include minimizing the existing medians so that the extra space can accommodate the realignment of the traffic lanes for the shifted design. This also provides room for the proposed detention pond at the west side of the intersection. In addition, the existing shoulder lane will be converted to a bike lane with buffering space. Furthermore, with the new roundabout layout, cycling facilities were updated with cross-rides (with permission from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure) on all legs of the intersection and newly aligned bike lanes. Additionally, a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon, RRFB, installation and extension of trail path as a paved Multi-Use Path for crossings on 16th Avenue will be included. Lastly, a key change from the preliminary design and the final design is the elimination of the second lane for northbound-north leg movements; this is to achieve a seamless tie-in with the existing infrastructure that is beyond the work of scope. The intersection of SW Marine Dr and Stadium Rd will require a median extension along Stadium Rd and updated road markings (i.e., zebra stripe crossing, stop bar, etc.) to accommodate the shrunken intersection. 3.9 Dimensions Basic dimensions of the proposed design can be found below (Table 2). Table 2: Basic Layout Dimensions (in meters) Bike/Pedestrian Facilities Bike Lane 1.80 Bike Lane Buffers 0.60 Multi-Use Path Width 5.50 Roundabout Dimensions Inner Island Diameter 30.00 Outer Island Diameter 36.00 Outer Edge Diameter 56.00 Road Dimensions Roundabout Traffic Lanes 4.50 or 6.0 Traffic Lanes 3.70 Bike lane and roundabout dimensions were recommended by the British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide from the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. The roundabout traffic lane width changes from 4.50 m for the two-lane portion ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 11 to 6.0 m for the one-lane portion of the roundabout. The traffic lane widths approaching the roundabout will continue to be 3.70 m with the aid of channelization buffering in between the two lanes; widths of channelization buffer markings vary per approach. 3.10 Intersection Lighting Lighting is a critical component in the design of active transportation infrastructure, enhancing the safety, comfort, and aesthetics of pedestrian and cycling paths. The lighting strategy was developed with a keen focus on providing a secure, visually comfortable environment for all users while complying with the British Columbia Active Transportation Design Guide standards. The approach taken to lighting design at the UBC intersection considered several key principles and considerations, as highlighted in the BC Active Transportation Design Guide. The team aims to ensure optimal positioning integrating the lighting seamlessly with the surrounding environment to enhance safety without contributing to light pollution. Following the guidelines, the street lighting components comprise the base, post, and fixture, with considerations for energy efficiency, maintenance, and vandalism resistance. The selected streetlamps are designed with LED technology to minimize energy consumption. Illuminance design for the final design is found detailed below in Table 3. Table 3: Design Lighting Illuminance Requirements Area Description Minimum Average Horizontal Illuminance (Lux) Recommended Designed Illuminance (Lux) Max. Horizontal Uniformity (Avg. to Min. Illuminance) Compliance Walkways and Bikeways 5.0 5.0 10.0:1 Yes Pedestrian Stairs (If applicable) 5.0 N/A (Not applicable to project) 10.0:1 N/A Pedestrian and Cyclist Tunnels (If applicable) 43.0 N/A (Not applicable to project) 10.0:1 N/A Intersections 5.0 (Enhanced to ensure visibility) 10.0 10.0:1 Yes ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 12 Consistent with the recommended illuminance levels for walkways and bikeways in the BC Active Transportation Design Guide, the design ensures a minimum average horizontal illuminance of 5.0 lux across the intersection. This level is maintained to ensure visibility and safety without excessive brightness, adhering to a maximum horizontal uniformity ratio of 10.0:1 to avoid significant light level disparities that could impair visibility or comfort. 4.0 Transportation Design Transportation Design highlights the considerations that were made to target the key project objectives and to justify the key parameters of the proposed design. 4.1 Historical Data Analysis The historical data analysis serves as the cornerstone of the design process, providing crucial insights into the current and projected transportation demands at the SW Marine Drive and 16th Avenue intersection. Through a comprehensive data-driven approach, The team has meticulously examined various factors influencing traffic flow, including population growth projections, mode split trends, future mode probability, and peak hour traffic patterns. The analysis lays the groundwork for a future-ready infrastructure that can adapt to evolving needs. The current and future traffic counts can be seen detailed below in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 4: Current Traffic Analysis Traffic SW Marine Drive 16th Avenue East Bound West Bound East Bound West Bound AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Peak Hour 522 355 240 448 774 402 473 685 Weekday AVG 4498 4076 6008 6830 AADT 3174 2876 4239 4819 Total AADT 15105 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 13 Table 5: Future Traffic Analysis Traffic SW Marine Drive 16th Avenue East Bound West Bound East Bound West Bound AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Peak Hour 700 476 457 853 784 407 479 694 Weekday AVG 6031 7758 6085 6917 AADT 4255 5474 4293 4881 Total AADT 20756 Table 6: Calculated Parameters for Traffic Model Vehicle Traffic Growth Rate (%) North Leg 2.5 East Leg 2.9 South Leg 1.6 Pedestrian Traffic Growth Rate (%) North Leg 5.6 East Leg 5.6 South Leg 5.6 Peak Hour Factor for Vehicles (%) North Leg Left-Turn Movement: 72.2 Thru Movement: 60.1 East Leg Left-Turn Movement: 76.7 Right-Turn Movement: 88.2 South Leg Thru Movement: 81.3 Right-Turn Movement: 82.2 Given parameter of expected speed of 60 kph apply. In Table 6, parameters affecting the traffic model were calculated. Sample calculations can be found in Appendix A. Pedestrian growth rates are predicted to be higher as active transportation facilities will be updated to attract more foot traffic. A sample calculation can be found in Appendix A. The lowest growth rate calculated was used for this model. 4.1.1 Growth Projections Building upon the current traffic analysis, future traffic demands based on population growth projections and mode split trends were extrapolated. Utilizing modeling techniques, such as regression analysis and Monte Carlo simulations, the traffic volumes were forecasted up to 2050 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 14 with a high degree of accuracy and reliability. These projections serve as a crucial foundation for designing infrastructure that can accommodate future growth while maintaining optimal traffic flow and are seen detailed below in Figure 5. Figure 5: Intersection Growth Projections 2050 4.1.2 Summary of Projected Growth Rates and Probability Models The analysis summary provides a detailed overview of the projected growth rates for different modes of transportation to the year 2050. The regression model for population growth, based on historical data for Vancouver, forecasts a steady increase in population to 3,488,149 by 2050. Furthermore, the Monte Carlo simulations estimate the probabilities of growth rates for single- occupancy vehicles (SOV), transit, and pedestrians, accounting for variability and uncertainty in the data, detailed in Figure 6. The findings indicate a higher probability of increased pedestrian and bus traffic, aligning with sustainable transportation initiatives and population growth trends. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 C O U N T (V EH O R P P L) YEAR INTERSECTION GROWTH RATE 2050 North South East Pedestrians ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 15 Figure 6: Probability Simulations 2050 4.1.3 Design Implications The insights gleaned from the traffic analysis directly influence the design decisions for the intersection. From lane configurations to signal timing optimization, every aspect of the design is meticulously calibrated to enhance traffic efficiency, safety, and sustainability. By aligning the infrastructure with projected traffic demands, it ensures that the intersection remains functional and resilient in the face of evolving transportation trends. 4.2 Transportation Planning Analysis The transportation planning analysis consists of providing technical justification by utilizing the results determined from Section 4.1 to provide initial modeling parameters for the SIDRA software analysis and completing a crosswalk warrant. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048 R EL A TI V E G R O W TH ( % X 1 0 0 ) YEAR PROBABILITY MODEL 2050 Pedestrian Growth Probability Transit Growth Probability Vehicle SOV Growth Probability ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 16 4.2.1 Layout Design Justifications Figure 7: Overview of Final Design Figure 7 showcases the updated key design features that will be summarized with its rationale in Table 7, noting changes made from the preliminary design. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 17 Table 7: Updated Rationale of Design Features of Final Design Key Design Feature Rationale Shifting Intersection • Additional space for detention pond • Opportunity to build a scenic intersection to attract foot traffic Changing Horizontal Alignment • Slow down incoming vehicle traffic • Entering roundabout at better viewing angle for roundabout traffic Minimizing Medians • Shorter crossing distance • Extra space for other design features Lane Configurations • The 2nd northbound lane on the north leg was removed to tie in with the merging lane north of the intersection. • Reduction of lanes within roundabout to reduce conflict points and improve traffic flow Updated Active Transportation Facilities • Extended the northeast and southeast trails with a paved multi-use path for the continued journey towards crossing along 16th Ave to tie in previous elements • Cross-ride crossings (with special permission from MOTI) are provided on each leg to accommodate cyclist traffic flow. • Realigned bike lanes to provide space for cyclists or pedestrians waiting to cross • Installation of RRFB on the east leg to provide additional awareness of active modes of transportation Pavement Markings • Channelizing buffer markings for enhanced guidance and speed reduction by visually narrowing the road • Yield lines on bike lanes to indicate incoming traffic has right-of-way for improved safety and speed reduction approaching conflict points • Green conflict zone pavement markings for cross-rides on the north and south legs to alert vehicles approaching the roundabout • Buffer markings between cyclists and vehicles throughout the work of scope 4.2.2 Traffic Model Parameters Historical traffic data from 2021 and 2022 provided by UBC were compared with the recorded 2023 traffic data (completed on October 5, 2023) to determine these calculations. On-sight ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 18 analysis was used to determine the vehicle percentage breakdown and it can be found below (Table 8). Table 8: % of Road Usage per Vehicle Type Intersection Leg % of Road Usage Compared to Total Traffic North Left-Turn Movement Thru Movement Light Vehicle: 95 Heavy Vehicle: 5 Buses: 0 Cyclist: 0 Light Vehicle: 87 Heavy Vehicle: 5 Buses: 0 Cyclist: 9 East Left-Turn Movement Right-Turn Movement Light Vehicle: 70 Heavy Vehicle: 5 Buses: 25 Cyclist: 0 Light Vehicle: 85 Heavy Vehicle: 5 Buses: 0 Cyclist: 10 South Thru Movement Right-Turn Movement Light Vehicle: 95 Heavy Vehicle: 5 Buses: 0 Cyclist: 0 Light Vehicle: 69 Heavy Vehicle: 5 Buses: 25 Cyclist: 1 The desirable level of service, LOS, was determined by identifying the study area as commuter/mobility corridor where transit vehicles are prioritized the highest and cyclist traffic are prioritized second highest (Bigazzi, 2022). Other categories compared to the category of commuter/mobility corridor can be found in Figure 8. Overall, this provides a desired LOS of C. Figure 8: LOS Targets for Specific Modes of Transportation and their Location ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 19 4.2.3 Pedestrian Facilities A crosswalk warrant found in the “Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual for British Columbia (1994)” by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure was completed and can be found in Appendix A. 4.2.4 Traffic Model Simulation – Sidra Software Parameters found in the previous subsection were used for the traffic model in the Sidra Software. Analysis of the software accounts for traffic growth for the Final Design Year of 2050. A summary of key results can be found in Table 9. Table 9: SIDRA Modelling Results Intersection LOS Avg. Travel Speed (kph) Desired Speed (kph) C 38.7 58.3 The SIDRA report can be found in Appendix B. 4.2.5 Discussion of Results Through the traffic modeling analysis process found in the SIDRA software, it is confirmed that the final design passes the LOS required. Furthermore, the desired speed found in the SIDRA software is confirmed to be 58.3 kph, which is within the speed limit on both 16th Ave. and SW Marine Dr. The crosswalk warrant determined that no crossing control was warranted due to the low pedestrian traffic that was recorded during the recorded traffic count. However, because the intersection is a major gateway to UBC’s campus, it was overruled, and a special crosswalk will be constructed. Similar roundabouts nearby use the same system for pedestrian crossings. Additionally, after reconstruction, there is an expected increase in pedestrians due to justifications found in Section 5.2. Therefore, an RRFB system will be installed on the east leg of the intersection regardless of the observed foot traffic. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 20 4.3 Updated Active Transportation Facilities The trails on the northeast and southeast corners will be extended with a paved Multi-Use Pathway, MUP; this newly constructed pathway reduces the distance traveled for journeys crossing 16th Ave. This new path is illustrated in Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparing Pedestrian Path of Existing and Final Design for Southbound Movement Additionally, pedestrian attractiveness will be enhanced as the final gateway intersection will include features such as added vegetation and an artwork design as a part of the welcome sign. Furthermore, the final design incorporates cross-rides at each crossing for every leg of the intersection. This feature required special permission from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure as cross-rides are typically not allowed on provincial roads. Fortunately, this feature, allows minimal interruption for cyclist movements. Figure 10: Suggested Cross-rides on South Leg Reference Photo: Google Maps ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 21 For the north and south legs of the intersection, green conflict zone pavement markings will be included for their cross-rides to alert approaching vehicles. A 3D render of the typical pavement markings and cross-ride of the north and south legs can be found in Figure 10. For the east leg, the cross-ride is combined with zebra stripes as pedestrians are expected to cross at the same location. Due to this combination, the crossing itself is designed to be wider (at 5.0 m) than typical widths for zebra crossings or cross-rides alone. This will allow journeys coming from the trails and MUP to continue more easily. A 3D render of the suggested crossing can be found in Figure 11. Due to the roundabout design, new cycling facilities were required to accommodate cycling movements that are not typical to regular intersections while minimally interfering with a cyclist’s journey. Therefore, the last update on Active Transportation Facilities is the reconfigured bike lanes within the scope of the project. The anticipated cycling movements for left turns are highlighted in Figure 12. The bike symbol pavement marking will face incoming cyclists to suggest the correct direction when crossing along the cross-ride. Moreover, each crossing will have a 2.5-metre-wide concrete waiting area to mitigate any conflicting points of incoming active modes of traffic. Yield pavement markings will be on the Figure 12: Anticipated Cycling Movements for Left-Turns Figure 11: Combined Cross-ride with Zebra Crossing ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 22 bike lanes to indicate which traffic has right-of-way to minimize collisions and to slow down approaching cycling traffic towards the intersection. A 3D render of suggested facilities can be found in Figure 13. Figure 13: Suggested Concrete Waiting Area and Yield Markings on Bike Lanes 4.4 Traffic Control Devices The signage was designed in conformance and reference to the Manual of Standard Traffic Signs and Pavement Markings, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, BC, 2000. Per Section 3.1 of the manual, for signage to be effective it must: fulfill a need, command attention and respect, convey a clear and simple message, and allow adequate time for a proper response. All the signage was designed with the principles in mind. Furthermore, signs will not be contradictory or confusing for the usage of the public. Signage will be designed to fulfill the needs of these five categories per Section 1.3 of the manual: Regulatory, Warning, Information, School/Pedestrian, and Temporary Conditions. The regulatory signage for speed limits will be 50 kph, with warning signage of 30 kph as drivers approach the intersection. As SW Marine Dr is a provincial jurisdiction, the regulatory speed limit will not be below 50 kph. There will be information signage at every roundabout exit, as well as including directions to the nearest hospital. There will be abundant Pedestrian and cyclist signage to provide drivers with sufficient warning and stop distance. Temporary signage is discussed in Section 10.1, as part of the traffic management plan. A drawing of the signage and road markings is enclosed in Appendix G. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 23 4.5 Tie-In Work The MUP extension for the trails is included as a consideration for the tie-in of existing elements of the intersection. In addition to this, the roundabout design will accommodate only one lane for northbound movements on the north leg (this is a key change from the preliminary design to the final design) and can be found in Figure 14. Therefore, additional reconstruction of the roadway along SW Marine Dr north of the intersection must be included as this will provide a seamless transition from existing to new elements. The reconstruction includes converting a portion of the existing second lane (for northbound movements on the north leg) to the suggested bike lanes plus buffer markings; any remaining pavement not required for the bike lane will be removed and repurposed to additional greenery. During this process, the intersection of SW Marine Dr and Stadium Rd will need to be tightened, so the existing median from Stadium Rd will be extended to align with the new bike lanes. The existing sidewalks will remain in the same place. An overview of SW Marine Dr & Stadium Rd can be found in Figure 15. Figure 14: Reducing to One Lane for Northbound Movement Figure 15: SW Marine Dr and Stadium Rd Intersection Redesign ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 24 5.0 Drainage Design The methodology employed in designing the stormwater drainage system involves a strategic relocation of the roundabout to the east, creating space for a stormwater detention pond. This pond promotes stormwater infiltration rather than runoff, mitigating the risk of cliffside erosion. The initial step involved catchment area delineation in QGIS, utilizing the UBC Digital Elevation Model (DEM) projected to UTM 10N for precise area assessments. Utilizing the Saga toolbox, The team enhanced the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) by filtering out noise and subsequently conducted a hydrologic analysis. The results of the flow path analysis can be found in Figure 16. This analysis helped identify the flow path and catchment area, resulting in an idealized total area of 2.07 ha. It is crucial to highlight that this idealized area does not account for regions that are already efficiently drained by the existing infrastructure. As depicted in the figure below, stormwater naturally flows westward toward the cliff. Currently, the drainage system is presumed to direct stormwater toward the road median of 16th Ave. From there, the water is collected along the broader median on SW Marine Dr., gradually infiltrating into the water table over time. Figure 16: Hydraulic Flow Paths of the Surrounding Area ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 25 Continuing the process within GIS, the flow path was calculated from the furthest point away from the proposed detention pond location, considering the change in elevation to obtain the gradient. Subsequently, Manning’s Equation, 𝑉 = 1 𝑛 𝑅 2 3𝑆 1 2 , was applied to determine flow velocity, facilitating the computation of the time of concentration. The Rational Method was employed to determine the maximum discharge, considering an average runoff coefficient of 0.22 for the drainage basin by assuming a 6:4 ratio of asphalt to grassland. IDF curves for the UBC station were obtained using the IDF_CC Tool 7.0. Data used for design calculations can be found in Appendix C. Building upon this information, The team selected 2, 10, and 100-year rainfall events, optimizing the pond size using the Rational Method and intensity events ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours. Assumptions included the direct proportionality of calculated runoff to rainfall intensity, uniform rainfall intensity throughout the storm, the frequency of peak discharge occurrence aligning with the rainfall event, and uniform rainfall distribution over the drainage area. According to the BC Stormwater Planning Manual, peak flows must be bypassed within 24 hours and allow the infiltration practice to meet the 24-hour drawdown requirement. To meet this requirement, the design incorporates layers of fine sand, pea gravel, and river stone, achieving an average infiltration rate of 5 cm/hr. The maximum required volume, identified for the 100- year rainfall event over 24 hours, amounted to 360 m³. Consequently, the design dimensions were established as an elliptical pond that is 24 m in length, 12 m in width, and 1.5 m in depth. Detailed design calculations are enclosed in Appendix C. In adherence to the guidelines outlined in the BC Stormwater Planning Manual, the detention pond's slope is crucially designed to be 1:3 or less, facilitating slope stability and effective stormwater management. With a depth of 1.5 meters, this slope ensures that erosion is minimized, and sedimentation is controlled within the pond. The design incorporates an outer ellipse extending 4.5 meters beyond the inner ellipse to accommodate this slope requirement adequately. Maintaining this gradient is essential for preventing erosion along the pond's banks, ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 26 ensuring long-term stability. Detailed design drawings for the detention pond can be found in Appendix G. A vegetative buffer consisting of native plants such as willow, red osier dogwood, and Pacific ninebark, contribute to the filtration of pollutants and provide habitat support for local wildlife. These plants aid in the breakdown of hydrocarbons from potential fuel spills, thereby improving water quality within the pond. Moreover, careful consideration has been given to pond maintenance requirements to ensure its long-term functionality. Access points strategically located on the east and west sides of the detention pond facilitate sediment removal and periodic inspection of hydraulic structures. To prevent overflow across road surfaces, pipelines are needed to transport the stormwater to the detention pond. The initial steps in designing stormwater pipelines involve a hydrological analysis, where the catchment area is divided into sub-areas. The subsequent step involves pipe sizing using adapted versions of Manning's equation, guiding the selection of appropriate pipe diameters. Concrete is selected as the pipe material due to its low cost and high durability. A sample calculation can be found in Appendix C. A summary of pipe design details can be found in Table 10. Table 10: Drainage Pipeline Configuration Area Number Area (ha) Pipe Length (m) Pipe Diameter (mm) Material 1 0.262 30 203.2 Concrete 2 0.310 32 203.2 Concrete 3 0.169 30 152.4 Concrete 4 0.200 37 152.4 Concrete ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 27 Figure 17: Aerial View of Drainage Sub-Areas and Pipeline Layout In Figure 17 shown above, the catchment area is divided into five distinct areas. Precipitation within sub-areas numbered 1 to 4 will naturally drain towards the point of concentration within each area. The point of concentration is designed to be the lowest point within each sub-area, with 1” bar screen at the pipe intake to catch debris. All pipes transport stormwater to the detention pond by gravity; no pumps are used in the design. The drainage area west of the roundabout requires no pipelines. All precipitation within this area flows towards the infiltration zone of the detention pond, where highly permeable materials are used to maximize infiltration. 6.0 Gateway Design The intersection at SW Marine Dr. and 16th Ave. holds significant cultural and historical importance as the gateway to the UBC Campus and the ancestral, unceded territory of the Musqueam people. The UBC Signage, characterized by a refined twenty-eight-letter design, aims to effectively convey to oncoming road users that they are entering the UBC Campus. The signage is strategically positioned facing the north and southbound legs of the roundabout to alert drivers ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 28 who may be entering the roundabout at speeds above the limit. A render of the planned signage can be found in Figure 18 below. Figure 18: Rendering of Gateway Design The signage itself will be fabricated predominantly from aluminum and will be situated atop a concrete pedestal reinforced with steel rebar, designed to CSA23.3 and NBC2020 standards. Considering the dimensions of each letter and the density of aluminum, a conservative assumption of factored gravity is linearly distributed across the entirety of the structure. The selection of aluminum for signage is grounded in a strategic combination of key benefits. Its lightweight nature facilitates easy handling and installation, ensuring practicality in various signage applications. Simultaneously, aluminum's inherent durability and resistance to weathering make it a reliable choice for outdoor signage, guaranteeing a prolonged lifespan and maintaining a polished appearance despite environmental challenges. Moreover, the low cost associated with aluminum signage, coupled with its recyclability, not only contributes to cost-effectiveness but also aligns with sustainability goals. The material's recyclability underscores a commitment to reducing environmental impact, offering an eco- friendly option for businesses and organizations conscious of their ecological footprint. Concrete has been selected as the preferred material for the structural elements, leveraging the pre-existing roundabout design that incorporates concrete elements. This not only streamlines ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 29 the construction process but also aligns with considerations of lower maintenance costs over the long term when compared to alternate materials such as steel. In tandem with the UBC signage, a secondary platform is proposed at the center of the roundabout. This secondary feature is intended to serve as a platform for the Musqueam people to express their presence on the land through canvas drawings or other symbolic representations, fostering a meaningful connection between the signage installation and the cultural heritage of the Musqueam people. This platform has been designed to bear a superimposed dead load of 5kpa to adequately support any envisioned artwork requested by the Musqueam community. Table 11 summarizes the critical capacity and demand of the First Nations Platform. Table 11: Structural Capacity and Demand Element Component Demand Capacity Capacity / Demand Slab One-way Bending Resistance (KN) 14.2 24.1 0.6 Beam Bending Resistance (KN) 27.9 33.9 0.8 Beam Shear Resistance (KN) 50 299.8 0.17 Column Axial Compression (KN) 278.4 531.3 0.52 Footing One-Way Shear Resistance (MPa) 12 20 0.6 Footing Two-Way Shear Resistance (MPa) 0.68 1.24 0.55 The hydrogeological and geotechnical assessment conducted in 2002 for the Northwest Area of the UBC Campus confirms the presence of surface till in the designated area of interest. Although sand is present at lower elevations, GIS Data validates that the predominant top surface elevation aligns with the till level. Importantly, the project design precludes the necessity for deep excavations to reach sand elevation. The maximum allowable bearing pressure for the till has ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 30 been set at 200 kPa by CSA standards, ensuring the project's compliance with geotechnical requirements, 7.0 Schedule 7.1 Construction Phase Plan It is required that at least one lane is open in all directions throughout construction. To facilitate this, The team has developed a 4 phased construction plan, as seen below in Figure 19 and in Drawing M5 of Appendix G. Figure 19: Construction Phase Plan The list below summarizes the construction that occurs in each phase: • Phase 1: Roundabout and drainage pipes • Phase 2: Exterior vehicle lanes, bike lanes, and detention pond • Phase 3: Interior vehicle lanes ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 31 • Phase 4: Road markings, signs, landscaping, gateway, lighting A detailed traffic management plan explaining how road users will maneuver the intersection during construction is in Section 10.1. 7.2 Schedule Overview Figure 20 below is an overview of the construction schedule with major phase completion milestones. The proposed construction period will last approximately 108 days (about 3 and a half months), starting on May 1 and finishing on September 27, 2024. For a full detailed construction schedule, please see Appendix E. Figure 2020: Construction Schedule Overview 8.0 Cost Estimate 8.1 Construction Costs The team has prepared a class A cost estimate to break down the anticipated construction costs for the project. The final estimated cost for the intersection redesign is $3,106,000 including PST and a 10% contingency. This estimate considers all permitting, project management, traffic ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 32 management, labor, and material costs required to complete the project. The full cost estimate is in Appendix F and a summary is located below in Table 11. Table 11: Construction Cost Summary DESCRIPTION OF WORK AMOUNT Section 1 - General Requirements $ 722,400 Section 2 - Grading $ 943,700 Section 3 - Drainage $ 213,700 Section 4 - Paving $ 606,200 Section 5 - Landscaping $ 32,400 Section 6 - Gateway $ 97,500 Section 7- Signage and Signals $ 145,500 Section 8 - Temporary Roads $ 62,000 Sub-Total $ 2,823,400 Contingency - 10% $ 282,400 Total Cost $ 3,105,800 8.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs The completed intersection redesign will have operating and maintenance costs over the service life. The detention pond and drainage system will require an annual debris cleanout to keep the system clear and fully functioning. Additionally, every year the drainage system will require an engineering inspection for damage and potential repairs. Severe repairs will require updated engineering designs. The RRFB’s will require an annual inspection for electrical issues and require maintenance when necessary. The road surface will require annual maintenance to fix potholes, cracks, and road markings. The vegetation at the intersection will require regular maintenance, with frequent visits in the spring and summer. Additionally, there will be a monthly electricity cost to run the streetlights and RRFB’s. The estimated cost for operation and maintenance is in Appendix G and a summary is located below in Table 12. Overall, The team has estimated an annual operation and maintenance cost of $28,500. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 33 Table 12: Operating and Maintenance Cost Summary DESCRIPTION OF WORK AMOUNT Drainage Maintenace & Inspection $ 7,000 Singal Maintenance & Inspection $ 1,500 Road Maintenance $ 2,000 Vegetation Control $ 13,000 Electricity $ 1,100 Sub Total $ 24,600 Contingency - 10% $ 2,500 Total Cost $ 27,100 9.0 Consultation Plan The success of the SW Marine Dr. and 16th Ave. intersection redesign lies in fostering an inclusive and collaborative design process. The significance of stakeholder input and a commitment to a comprehensive consultation plan that integrates diverse perspectives, especially from the Musqueam community and nearby residents, is acknowledged (as seen in Figure 22). Figure 21: Consultation Roadmap (Yaworsky, Plenary 5, 2023) Building upon the preliminary design's foundation, The team will sustain and expand stakeholder consultation post-project completion. Stakeholders are categorized by interest levels for effective communication throughout and beyond the project lifecycle. In our ongoing engagement, a balance of transparency and cultural sensitivity, particularly with the Musqueam community, acknowledging the importance of their heritage in the project area. •Identify who may have interest •Prepare background information in advance Preparation •Provide information and seek input •Attempt to reach understanding Engagement •Assess concerns and responses •Review and improve Consultation Plan Iteration ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 34 Regularly scheduled meetings, accessible digital platforms, and targeted surveys will form the backbone of the communication strategy, ensuring that feedback is continually gathered and integrated. This dynamic, adaptable engagement process is designed to reflect the collective vision and meet the practical needs of all stakeholders, from residents to daily commuters and environmental groups. Our iterative design approach will integrate community input at every stage, reinforcing the project's commitment to cultural respect, inclusivity, and environmental sustainability. 10.0 Project Management Documentation An excellent project management plan will be necessary to maintain the flow of traffic during construction and increase the efficiency of the detailed design process. 10.1 Traffic Management Plan During construction of the intersection, The team wants to ensure safety and minimize disturbances for all road users; to achieve this, a comprehensive traffic management plan (TMP) was developed. As discussed in section 7.1, the construction will take place in 4 key phases to ensure that at least one lane is open in all directions throughout construction. Detailed traffic management drawings can be found on pages M1-M4 of Appendix G. The drawings illustrate temporary roads, all construction signs, the location of traffic control people, direction of traffic flow, and the construction area. During working hours, The team will have one traffic control person on each leg of the intersection to manage traffic. Additionally, it will be ensured that emergency vehicles will always be able to access the intersection without delays. The site will have a safety trailer and site office for the construction safety officer and site superintendent on the northwest side of the intersection. There will be a temporary storage area south of the site offices. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 35 10.1.1 Phase 1 Phase 1 is the most complex traffic management plan, as it does not use the existing or future intersection design, instead it uses a temporary intersection south of the existing one. This design is the most optimal solution as it allows for construction of the roundabout while minimizing traffic disturbances. The intersection will be managed by 3 traffic control people, one for each direction. Figure 23 below illustrates phase 1 of construction. Figure 22: Phase 1 TMP Table 13 below summarizes the vehicle movements during Phase 1. Cyclists will take the road and make the same movement as vehicles. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 36 Table 13: Phase 1 Vehicle Movements Leg Direction Movement East Right Use existing right turn lane Left Rerouted onto existing right turn lane onto W 16th Ave., and cross at the temporary intersection South Right Use temporary intersection and existing right turn lane Straight Use temporary intersection and is rerouted onto existing southbound lane. North Left Uses temporary intersection and existing right turn lane onto W16th Ave. Straight Uses temporary intersection 10.1.2 Phase 2 Phase 2 will use the newly constructed roundabout to convey traffic. It will be single lane traffic while the bicycle lanes, exterior vehicle lanes, and detention pond are constructed. Temporary roads will be used as the lanes approaching the roundabout. Like phase 1, cyclists will take the road and make the same movement as vehicles. The intersection will be managed by 3 traffic control people, one for each direction. Figure 24 below illustrates phase 2 of construction. Figure 23: Phase 2 TMP ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 37 10.1.3 Phase 3 Phase 3 will use the constructed roundabout and newly constructed exterior approaching lanes to convey traffic. It will be single lane traffic while the interior vehicle lanes are constructed. Cyclists will use the newly constructed bicycle lanes. The intersection will be managed by 3 traffic control people, one for each direction. Figure 25 below illustrates phase 3 of construction. Figure 24: Phase 3 TMP 10.1.4 Phase 4 In phase 4, all roadwork will be complete and road users will use all newly constructed roads. There will still be 3 traffic control people to manage traffic since construction work will continue (road markings, landscaping, and gateway). ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 38 10.2 High Level Risks The project high-level risks are detailed below in Table 14 below. The risk level scores are depicted in Table 15 below. It is crucial to continuously assess and manage these risks throughout the project lifecycle, implementing mitigation strategies and contingency plans as needed. Regular communication with stakeholders and a proactive risk management approach will contribute to successful risk mitigation and project outcomes. Table 14: Risk Level Matrix Risk Level Score Low 1-6 Medium 7-12 High 13-20 Critical 21-25 Table 15: Risk Level Scoring Risk Score Risk Level Regulatory Compliance Changes 19 High Stakeholder Concerns and Consultation 18 High Environmental Impact 15 High Cost Overruns, Construction Challenges 11 Medium Design Optimization 6 Low Utility and Infrastructure Conflicts 5 Low Multimodal Transportation Integration 12 Medium Consultation Plan and Stakeholder Concerns: The complexity of stakeholder engagement, especially with the Musqueam community and nearby residents, poses a risk. Differing opinions or unanticipated concerns may require additional time and resources for resolution. Public reactions to the redesigned intersection, particularly concerning changes to traffic flow or aesthetic elements, could result in community resistance or negative media attention, affecting the project's overall success. As stakeholders are of high importance, the risk level scores 18. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 39 Environmental Impact: Despite efforts to minimize environmental impacts, unexpected ecological challenges or unanticipated effects on local habitats could emerge, leading to project delays or modifications. Due to non-negotiable environmental criteria, the risk level scores 15. Cost Overruns and Construction Challenges: Unpredicted factors, such as unforeseen environmental challenges or changes in construction material costs, may lead to budget overruns, requiring adjustments to the financial plan. Budget and costs must be controlled, risk level scores 11. 11.0 Work Breakdown Structure Figure 26 below shows the work breakdown structure for the intersection redesign, outlining key tasks and subtasks. Figure 25: Work Breakdown Structure SW Marine Dr. & 16th Ave. Intersection Redesign Mobilization Site Trailer Construction Signs Site Preparation Clearing Pavement Removal Organic Stripping Soil Fill Drainage Pond Excavation Geotextiles Riprap Pipes Paving Granular Base Asphalt Pavement CIP Concrete Pavement Markings Gateway UBC Sign Musquam Gateway Vegetation Landscaping & Signage Seeding & Trees Road Signs RRFB's Close Out Cleanup Demobilze Monitoring ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 40 References Bigazzi, D. A. (2022, March 28). Lecture: Multimodal LOS. CIVL 340 Transportation Engineering I. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2019). BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guide. British Columbia, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from Government of British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and- transportation/transportation-infrastructure/engineering-standards-and- guidelines/highway-design-and-survey/tac/tac-2019-supplement/bctac2019-chapter- 0700.pdf British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2020, December). Project Cost Estimating Guidelines. British Columbia Minsitry of Transportation and Infrastrucuture. (2015, January 26). Pavement Structure Design Guidelines. Technical Circular T - 01/15. Colonial Construction Materials. (2022, May 14). What is a Retention Pond? Retrieved from https://colonial-materials.com/2020/05/14/what-is-a-retention-pond/ Infrastructure, B. C. (1994). Pedestrian Crossing Control Manual for British Columbia. UBC Planning. (2020). Stadium Appendix VII - UBC Community Profile - Draft. Vancouver: UBC. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. (2013, October). Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements: A Resource for Researchers, Engineers, Planners, and the General Public. University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Retrieved from Transportation Research Board. Yaworsky, R. (2023, November). Engaging Indigenous Communities. Presentation conducted at CIVL 445, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Email: ron@northraven.ca. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 41 Appendix A: Traffic Analysis Calculations ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 42 Sample Calculation for Vehicle Traffic Growth South Leg – Northbound Traffic Data on SW Marine Dr. (Towards Intersection): • Chosen peak days of the week: Tuesday to Thursday (for 2021 and 2022 data) o Average traffic counts of the chosen days were used. o Chosen peak hours: 3 – 6 PM • 2023 traffic data recorded on Thursday, October 5 from 3 – 6 PM. Table A1: Average Traffic Count from 3 – 6 PM of 2021 & 2022 + their Average Rate of Change Time Oct. 26, 2021 Oct. 24, 2022 Difference Change (%) Avg. Change (%) 3 PM 620 918 298 48.1 4 PM 598 904 206 51.1 46.8 5 PM 607 858 251 41.4 Table A2: Average Traffic Count from 3 – 6 PM of 2022 & 2023 + their Average Rate of Change Time Oct. 24, 2024 Oct. 05, 2023 Difference Change (%) Avg. Change (%) 3 PM 918 565 -353 -38.5 4 PM 904 571 -333 -36.8 -37.1 5 PM 858 548 -310 -36.1 An average between the 2021+2022 and 2022+2023 data gave an overall growth of 4.86% over three years. Therefore, an equivalent rate per year was calculated: 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 = [(1 + 0.04861) 1 3 − 1] ∗ 100 = 1.595 = 1.6% Please note that southbound traffic (away from the intersection) was calculated with the same methodology, but it yielded negative growth rates between 2021, 2022 and 2023. Therefore, for the purposes of realism, it was ignored. Sample Peak Hour Factor Calculation East Leg – Westbound Traffic Data on 16th Ave. (Left-Turn Movement): ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 43 Table A3: 15- Minute Breakdown of Highest Traffic Count from October 5, 2023 Traffic Data Time Left-Turn Traffic Count 5:00 PM 173 5:15 PM 148 5:30 PM 103 5:45 PM 107 Total 531 Peak Hour Factor, PHF, calculated below: 𝑃𝐻𝐹 = 531 173 ∗ 4 ∗ 100 = 76.7% Sample Calculation for Pedestrian Traffic Growth There were no historical pedestrian traffic counts provided from 2021 or 2022 to the recorded traffic count on October 5, 2023. Therefore, observed pedestrian traffic will be compared to the additional pedestrian traffic that will exist after cyclists must dismount and use the crosswalk to continue to their destination. This only affects the southbound-left, northbound-through, and westbound-left travel movements. South Leg – Northbound Traffic Data on SW Marine Dr. (Through Movement): Table A4: 15-Minute Breakdown of Highest Cyclist Count with Corresponding Pedestrian Count from Oct. 5, 2023, Traffic Data Time Pedestrian Count Cyclist Count Total 5:00 PM 0 5 5 5:15 PM 1 2 3 5:30 PM 0 10 10 5:45 PM 0 1 1 Pedestrian count and cyclist count were added up for sum of 19 counts for 5 – 6 PM. Like the sample calculation of vehicle traffic growth, the difference is compared to the original value: 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 19 − 18 18 ∗ 100 = 5.56 = 5.6% ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 44 Sample Crosswalk Warrant East Leg Crossing – Westbound Traffic Data on 16th Ave & NB + SB Pedestrian Count: Parameters: • Traffic Volume (3 PM – Left & Right Turn Movements): 584 veh/hr = 600 veh/hr • Pedestrian Count (3 PM – NB & SB on SW Marine Dr.) = 2 adults = 2 EAUs • Roadway Cross-Section: 4 lanes @ 16 m wide • Signal Progression o Currently: Uncoordinated Signal – Pattern B o Proposed: None – Pattern A • Speed Limit: 60 kph • Population: 11,000 (UBC Planning, 2020) Figure A1: Estimated Crossing Opportunities for a 4 Lane Cross-Section ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 45 With the use of the previous parameters and Figure A1, it is determined that there are approximately 55 to 75 crossing opportunities per hour based on Pattern A and B, respectively. Figure A2: Pedestrian Crossing Control Warrant Chart Based on Figure A2 and only having 2 EAUs for this crossing, it is not warranted to have any kind of crossing control. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 46 Appendix B: Sidra Software Report INTERSECTION SUMMARY Site: 101 [Site1 - Copy (Site Folder: General)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.4.221 New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Design Life Analysis (Final Year): Results for 26 years Intersection Performance - Hourly Values Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons Travel Speed (Average) km/h 38.7 46.3 km/h Travel Distance (Total) veh-km/h 3722.9 17560.4 pers-km/h Travel Time (Total) veh-h/h 96.1 379.3 pers-h/h Desired Speed km/h 58.3 Speed Efficiency 0.66 Travel Time Index 6.27 Congestion Coefficient 1.50 Demand Flows (Total) veh/h 3539 16684 pers/h Arrival Flows (Total) veh/h 3539 Percent Heavy Vehicles (Demand) % 17.2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (Arrivals) % 17.2 Degree of Saturation 1.109 Practical Spare Capacity % -23.3 Effective Intersection Capacity veh/h 3193 Control Delay (Total) veh-h/h 31.24 81.13 pers-h/h Control Delay (Average) sec 31.8 17.5 sec Control Delay (Worst Lane by MC) sec 72.8 Control Delay (Worst Movement by MC) sec 82.8 82.8 sec Geometric Delay (Average) sec 5.8 Stop-Line Delay (Average) sec 26.0 Idling Time (Average) sec 13.8 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) LOS C 95% Back of Queue - Veh (Worst Lane) veh 34.8 95% Back of Queue - Dist (Worst Lane) m 235.5 Ave. Que Storage Ratio (Worst Lane) 0.19 Effective Stops (Total) veh/h 4440 13717 pers/h Effective Stop Rate 1.25 0.82 Proportion Queued 0.80 0.73 Performance Index 204.9 204.9 Cost (Total) $/h 12325.03 12325.03 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total) L/h 528.5 Carbon Dioxide (Total) kg/h 1255.6 Hydrocarbons (Total) kg/h 0.156 Carbon Monoxide (Total) kg/h 1.52 NOx (Total) kg/h 3.831 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab). Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS. Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Control Delay: Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap. Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand effects. In Network analysis, Arrival Flows will be reduced if Upstream Capacity Constraint exists. Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). Site Model Variability Index (Average value of largest changes in Lane Degrees of Saturation from the third to the last Main (Timing- Capacity) Iterations): 5.7 % Number of Iterations: 8 (Maximum: 10) Largest change in Lane Degrees of Saturation for the last three Flow-Capacity Iterations: 3.1% 1.7% 0.9% Intersection Performance - Annual Values Performance Measure Vehicles: All MCs Persons Demand Flows (Total) veh/y 1,698,955 8,008,338 pers/y Delay (Total) veh-h/y 14,995 38,944 pers-h/y ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 48 Appendix C: Drainage Design Calculations ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 49 Manning’s Equation – Overland Flow Velocity 𝑣 = 1 𝑛 × 𝑅 2 3 × 𝑆 1 2 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝑣 = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 − 𝑚/𝑠 𝑛 = 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔′𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑆 = 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 − 𝑚/𝑚 𝑅 = ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 − 𝑚 → 𝑣 = 1 0.2 × 0.30 2 3 × 0.027 1 2 = 0.37 𝑚/𝑠 Peak Discharge 100 year 24 hour – Rational Method 𝑄 = 𝐶𝐼𝐴 𝑍 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝑄 = 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 − 𝑚3/𝑠 𝐶 = 𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑜𝑓𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐼 = 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 − 𝑚𝑚/ℎ𝑟 𝑍 = 360 → 𝑄 = 0.22 × 5.17 × 2.07 360 = 0.0065 𝑚3/𝑠 Pond Area 𝐴𝑖 = 𝜋𝑎𝑏 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 50 𝑎 = 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑚 − 𝑚 𝑏 = 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑚 − 𝑚 → 𝐴𝑖 = 𝜋 × 12 × 6 = 226.19𝑚 2 Maximum Required Pond Capacity 𝑉 = 𝑄𝑡 − 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝑉 = 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑚3 𝑄 = 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 − 𝑚3/𝑠 𝑡 = 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑠 𝐴𝑖 = 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 − 𝑚 2 𝑟𝑖 = 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑚/𝑠 → 𝑉 = 0.0065 × 1440 − 226.19 × 0.00504 × 1440 = 289.28𝑚3 Design Volume 𝑉 = 𝑑𝐴𝑖 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝑉 = 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 − 𝑚3 𝑑 = 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ − 𝑚 𝐴𝑖 = 𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 − 𝑚 2 → 𝑉 = 𝑑𝐴𝑖 = 289.28 × 1.5 = 339.29𝑚 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 51 Pipe Sizing 10” Pipeline 𝑄1 = 𝐴1 𝐴𝑇 𝑄𝑇 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝐴1 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 1 𝐴𝑇 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 → 𝑄1 = 0.262 2.07 × 0.0065 = 0.00082𝑚3/𝑠 Figure C1 26: The Manning Equation for Partially Full Pipe Flow Calculations 𝑄1 = 𝐴𝑝1𝑣1 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒: 𝐴𝑝1 = 𝑤𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 1 𝑄1 = 𝐴𝑝1 × 1 𝑛 × 𝑅 2 3 × 𝑆 1 2 𝑄1 = 2 acos ( 𝑟 − ℎ 𝑟 ) × 1 𝑛 × ( [𝑟2 (2 acos ( 𝑟 − ℎ 𝑟 ) − sin (2 acos ( 𝑟 − ℎ 𝑟 ))] /2 𝑟2 acos ( 𝑟 − ℎ 𝑟 ) ) 2 3 × 𝑆 1 2 𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠: 𝑟 ≤ 86.3𝑚𝑚 → 𝑑 ≤ 172.6𝑚𝑚 → 𝐻𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑒 8" 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 203.2𝑚𝑚 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 52 Appendix D: Gateway Design Calculations ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 53 Column Axial Compression Check: 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑: 5 𝑘𝑝𝑎 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 + 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡: 7𝑘𝑝𝑎 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑: 1.6𝑘𝑝𝑎 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 1.25𝐷 + 1.5𝑆 = 1.25(7 + 5) + 1.5(1.6) = 17.4 𝑘𝑝𝑎 𝑃𝑓 = 17.4𝑘𝑝𝑎 ∗ 16𝑚 2 = 278.4 𝐾𝑁 𝑃𝑟𝑜 = 0.8(α1𝜃𝑐𝑓𝑐𝐴𝑐 + 𝜃𝑠𝑓𝑦𝐴𝑠 = = 0.8(0.812 ∗ 0.65 ∗ 25𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 40000𝑚𝑚2 + 0.85 ∗ 400𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 400𝑚𝑚2) = 531.3 𝐾𝑁 One-way Slab Bending Resistance Check: 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑: 5 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡: 3.5 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑: 1.6 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 1.25𝐷 + 1.5𝑆 = 1.25(3.5 + 5) + 1.5(1.6) = 13.1 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝑀𝑓 = 𝑞 ∗ 𝑙𝑛 2/12 = 13.1 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 ∗ 3.6𝑚2 / 12 = 14.2 𝑘𝑛𝑚 𝛼1 = 0.1825 𝑓𝑜𝑟 25 𝑚𝑝𝑎 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝛽1 = 0.9075 𝑓𝑜𝑟 25 𝑚𝑝𝑎 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝛽1𝐶 = 𝜃𝑠𝑓𝑦𝐴𝑠 𝛼1𝜃𝑐𝑓𝑐′𝑏 = 0.85 ∗ 400 𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 10 ∗ 300𝑚𝑚2 0.8125 ∗ 0.65 ∗ 25 𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 4000 𝑚𝑚 = 19.3 𝑐 = 21.3 𝑚𝑚 𝑐 𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 < 700 (700 + 𝑓𝑦) 0.05 < 0.64 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 54 𝑀𝑟 = 𝜃𝑠𝑓𝑦𝐴𝑠 (𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 − 𝛽1𝑐 2 ) = 0.85 ∗ 400 𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 600 𝑚𝑚2 (205 𝑚𝑚 − 77.3 𝑚𝑚 2 ) = 24.1 𝑘𝑛𝑚 Beam Bending Resistance Check: 𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑: 10 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏 + 𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡: 7𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑: 3.2 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 1.25𝐷 + 1.5𝑆 = 1.25(17) + 1.5(3.2) = 26.9 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 𝑀𝑓 = 𝑞 ∗ 𝑙𝑛 2/12 = 27 𝑘𝑛/𝑚 ∗ 3.7𝑚2 / 12 = 27.9 𝑘𝑛𝑚 𝛼1 = 0.1825 𝑓𝑜𝑟 25 𝑚𝑝𝑎 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝛽1 = 0.9075 𝑓𝑜𝑟 25 𝑚𝑝𝑎 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝛽1𝐶 = 𝜃𝑠𝑓𝑦𝐴𝑠 𝛼1𝜃𝑐𝑓𝑐′𝑏 = 0.85 ∗ 400 𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 10 ∗ 300𝑚𝑚2 0.8125 ∗ 0.65 ∗ 25 𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 4000 𝑚𝑚 = 19.3 𝑐 = 21.3 𝑚𝑚 𝑐 𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 < 700 (700 + 𝑓𝑦) 0.05 < 0.64 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑀𝑟 = 𝜃𝑠𝑓𝑦𝐴𝑠 (𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 − 𝛽1𝑐 2 ) = 0.85 ∗ 400 𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 666 𝑚𝑚2 (115 𝑚𝑚 − 17.2 𝑚𝑚 2 ) = 33.9𝑘𝑛𝑚 Beam Shear Check: 𝑽𝒇 = 𝒒 ∗ 𝒍𝒏/𝟐 = 𝟐𝟔. 𝟗 𝒌𝒏/𝒎 ∗ 𝟑. 𝟕𝒎/ 𝟐 = 𝟓𝟎 𝒌𝒏 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑉𝑟 = 0.25𝜃𝑐𝑓𝑐 ′𝑏𝑤𝑑𝑣 = 0.25 ∗ 0.65 ∗ 25𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 200𝑚𝑚 ∗ 185𝑚𝑚 = 299.8𝐾𝑁 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 55 Footing Effective Depth: 𝑑1 = 𝑡𝑓 − 𝑐 − 𝑑𝑏 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 − 𝑑𝑏 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 2 = 160 𝑚𝑚 − 75 𝑚𝑚 − 25 𝑚𝑚 − 25 𝑚𝑚 2 = 47.5𝑚𝑚 𝑑2 = 𝑡𝑓 − 𝑐 − 𝑑𝑏 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 2 = 160 𝑚𝑚 − 75 𝑚𝑚 − 25 𝑚𝑚 2 = 72.5𝑚𝑚 𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 = (𝑑1 + 𝑑2)/2 = 60 𝑚𝑚 Footing One-Way Shear Check: 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 𝑉𝑓 = 𝑃𝑓 𝐴𝑓 𝐿𝑓 ( 𝐿𝑓 − 𝐿𝑐 2 − 𝑑𝑣) 𝑉𝑓 = 189 𝑘𝑝𝑎 ∗ 0.54𝑚 ∗ ( 0.54 𝑚 − 0.2 𝑚 2 − 0.0.54 𝑚) = 12 𝑘𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑉𝑟 = 𝑉𝐶 = 𝜃𝑐𝜑√𝑓𝑐′𝐵𝑑𝑣 𝑉𝑐 = 0.65 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.21 ∗ √25𝑚𝑝𝑎 ∗ 540𝑚𝑚 ∗ 54𝑚𝑚 = 20 𝑘𝑛 Footing Two-Way Shear Check: 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 𝑉𝑓 = (𝐴𝑓 − 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑙 & 𝑑2 ) ∗ 𝑃𝑓 𝐴_𝑓 𝑉𝑓 = (291600𝑚𝑚 2 − 260𝑚𝑚 ∗ 260𝑚𝑚) ∗ (189 𝑘𝑝𝑎) ≈ 42375 𝑁 𝜏𝑓 = 𝑉𝑓 𝑏𝑜𝑑_𝑎𝑣𝑔 𝜏𝑓 = 42375 𝑁 60𝑚𝑚 ∗ 1040 𝑚𝑚 = 0.68 𝑚𝑝𝑎 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝜏𝑟 = 𝑉𝑐 = 0.38𝜑 ∗ 𝜃𝑐√25 = 0.38 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.65 ∗ √25 = 1.24 𝑚𝑝𝑎 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 56 Appendix E: Schedule ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 1 Construction Schedule: Redesign of W 16th Ave and SW Marine Dr 108 days Wed 5/1/24 Fri 9/27/24 2 Mobilization 3 days Wed 5/1/24 Fri 5/3/24 3 1.0 Transporting Machinery and Site Trailer 3 days Wed 5/1/24 Fri 5/3/24 4 Phase 1 25 days Mon 5/6/24 Fri 6/7/24 5 1.0 Site Preparation 12 days Mon 5/6/24 Tue 5/21/24 6 1.1 Clearing and Grubbing 3 days Mon 5/6/24 Wed 5/8/24 7 1.2 Removal of Existing Works 5 days Mon 5/6/24 Fri 5/10/24 8 1.3 Grading and Compaction 4 days Thu 5/16/24 Tue 5/21/24 9 2.0 Drainage 3 days Mon 5/13/24 Wed 5/15/24 10 2.1 Installation of Pre-Concrete Pipes 3 days Mon 5/13/24 Wed 5/15/24 11 3.0 Paving 12 days Tue 5/21/24 Wed 6/5/24 12 3.1 Laying Down Sub-base Layer 4 days Tue 5/21/24 Fri 5/24/24 13 3.2 Paving with Asphalt 4 days Mon 5/27/24 Thu 5/30/24 14 3.3 Laying Down Concrete Curb and Sidewalk 3 days Fri 5/31/24 Tue 6/4/24 15 4.0 Site Inspection No.1 2 days Thu 6/6/24 Fri 6/7/24 16 5.0 Phase 1 Complete 0 days Fri 6/7/24 Fri 6/7/24 17 Phase 2 25 days Mon 6/10/24 Fri 7/12/24 18 1.0 Site Preparation 11 days Mon 6/10/24 Mon 6/24/24 19 1.1 Clearing and Grubbing 4 days Mon 6/10/24 Thu 6/13/24 20 1.2 Removal of Existing Works 6 days Mon 6/10/24 Mon 6/17/24 21 1.3 Grading and Compaction 5 days Tue 6/18/24 Mon 6/24/24 22 2.0 Drainage 15 days Mon 6/10/24 Fri 6/28/24 23 2.1 Excavation and Grading of Retention Pond Area 9 days Mon 6/10/24 Thu 6/20/24 24 2.2 Laying Down Filter Fabric and Installing Riprap 4 days Fri 6/21/24 Wed 6/26/24 25 2.3 Planting Aquatic Vegetation 2 days Thu 6/27/24 Fri 6/28/24 26 3.0 Site Inspection No. 2 1 day Fri 6/28/24 Fri 6/28/24 27 4.0 Paving 14 days Tue 6/25/24 Fri 7/12/24 28 3.1 Laying Down Sub-base Layer 5 days Tue 6/25/24 Mon 7/1/24 29 3.2 Paving with Asphalt 5 days Tue 7/2/24 Mon 7/8/24 30 3.3 Laying Down Concrete Curb and Sidewalk 4 days Tue 7/9/24 Fri 7/12/24 31 5.0 Phase 2 Complete 0 days Fri 7/12/24 Fri 7/12/24 32 Phase 3 15 days Mon 7/15/24 Fri 8/2/24 33 1.0 Site Preparation 6 days Mon 7/15/24 Mon 7/22/24 34 1.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 days Mon 7/15/24 Tue 7/16/24 35 1.2 Removal of Existing Works 3 days Mon 7/15/24 Wed 7/17/24 36 1.3 Grading and Compaction 3 days Thu 7/18/24 Mon 7/22/24 37 2.0 Paving 9 days Tue 7/23/24 Fri 8/2/24 38 3.1 Laying Down Sub-base Layer 3 days Tue 7/23/24 Thu 7/25/24 39 3.2 Paving with Asphalt 3 days Fri 7/26/24 Tue 7/30/24 40 3.3 Laying Down Concrete Curb and Sidewalk 3 days Wed 7/31/24 Fri 8/2/24 41 3.0 Site Inspection No. 3 1 day Thu 8/1/24 Thu 8/1/24 42 4.0 Phase 3 Complete 0 days Fri 8/2/24 Fri 8/2/24 43 Phase 4 10 days Mon 8/5/24 Fri 8/16/24 44 1.0 UBC Sign Installation 5 days Mon 8/5/24 Fri 8/9/24 45 1.1 Installation of Cast-in-Place Concrete Footing 3 days Mon 8/5/24 Wed 8/7/24 46 1.2 Installation of UBC Sign 2 days Thu 8/8/24 Fri 8/9/24 47 2.0 Musqueam Gateway Installation 9 days Mon 8/5/24 Thu 8/15/24 48 2.1 Installation of Cast-in-Place Concrete Footing 3 days Mon 8/5/24 Wed 8/7/24 49 2.2 Installation of Musqueam Gateway 2 days Mon 8/12/24 Tue 8/13/24 50 2.3 Planting Roundabout Vegetation 2 days Mon 8/12/24 Tue 8/13/24 51 3.0 Signage and Signaling 6 days Fri 8/9/24 Fri 8/16/24 52 3.1 Install Road Signs 2 days Fri 8/9/24 Mon 8/12/24 53 3.2 Install Street Lights and RRFB 4 days Tue 8/13/24 Fri 8/16/24 54 4.0 Site Inspection No. 4 1 day Fri 8/16/24 Fri 8/16/24 55 5.0 Phase 4 Complete 0 days Fri 8/16/24 Fri 8/16/24 56 Post-Construction and Close-Out 7 days Mon 8/19/24 Tue 8/27/24 57 1.0 Cleanup and Demobilization 7 days Mon 8/19/24 Tue 8/27/24 58 Evaluation and Monitoring 23 days Wed 8/28/24 Fri 9/27/24 59 1.0 Final Inspections 23 days Wed 8/28/24 Fri 9/27/24 60 1.1 Inspection No. 1 1 day Wed 8/28/24 Wed 8/28/24 61 1.2 Inspection No. 2 1 day Mon 9/9/24 Mon 9/9/24 62 1.3 Inspection No. 3 1 day Mon 9/23/24 Mon 9/23/24 63 FINISH 0 days Fri 9/27/24 Fri 9/27/24 Construction Schedule: Redesign of W 16th Ave and SW Marine Dr 5/1 Mobilization 5/6 Phase 1 6/7 6/10 Phase 2 7/12 7/15 Phase 3 8/2 8/5 Phase 4 8/16 8/19 Post-Construction and Close-Out 8/28 Evaluation and Monitoring 9/27 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 9 14 19 24 29 4 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 13 18 23 28 2 7 12 17 22 27 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024 October 2024 Task Split Milestone Summary Project Summary Inactive Task Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks External Milestone Deadline Progress Manual Progress Page 1 Project: Team 14 Construction S Date: Mon 4/8/24 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 58 Appendix F: Cost Estimate DESCRIPTION OF WORK UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT SECTION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1.01 Project Management 1.01.01 Project Manager hrs 80$ 160 12,800$ 1.01.02 Project Coordinator hrs 60$ 640 38,400$ 1.01.03 Site Superintendent hrs 100$ 480 48,000$ 1.01.04 Construction Safety Officer hrs 70$ 480 33,600$ 1.01.05 Project Management Fee (5% of Construction Cost) L.S 128,200$ 100% 128,200$ 1.02 Permitting L.S 58,500$ 100% 58,500$ 1.03 Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost) LS 105,100$ 100% 105,100$ 1.04 Traffic Management LS 129,600$ 100% 129,600$ 1.05 Quality Management (4% of Construction Cost) LS 84,100$ 100% 84,100$ 1.06 Environmental Management (4% of Construction Cost) LS 84,100$ 100% 84,100$ SECTION 1 TOTAL 722,400$ SECTION 2 - GRADING 2.01 Clearing and Grubbing m2 10$ 4300 43,000$ 2.02 Removal of Existing Works 2.02.01 Removal of Existing Pavement m2 20$ 14350 287,000$ 2.02.02 Removal of Existing Signs L.S 2,500$ 100% 2,500$ 2.02.03 Removal of Existing intersection Signal L.S 10,000$ 100% 10,000$ 2.03 Soil 2.03.01 Organic Stripping m3 35$ 2800 98,000$ 2.03.02 Soil Fill m3 50$ 2800 140,000$ 2.04 Granular Materials 2.04.01 Select Granular Sub Base m3 70$ 2270 158,900$ 2.04.02 Crushed Base Course m3 90$ 2270 204,300$ SECTION 2 TOTAL 943,700$ SECTION 3 - DRAINAGE 3.01 Soil 3.01.01 Soil Excavation m3 50$ 820 41,000$ 3.01.02 Soil Fill m3 50$ 300 15,000$ 3.02 Precast Concrete Pipes 3.02.01 6" dia circular pipe m 400$ 67 26,800$ 3.02.02 8" dia circular pipe m 600$ 62 37,200$ 3.02.03 Bar Screen each 500$ 4 2,000$ 3.03 Riprap 3.03.01 Class 10 kg Riprap m3 65$ 450 29,300$ 3.03.01 Class 25 kg Riprap m3 80$ 510 40,800$ 3.04 Filter Fabrics 3.04.01 Geotextile m2 25$ 440 11,000$ 3.04.02 Erosion Control Blanket m2 18$ 230 4,200$ 3.05 Plants 3.05.01 Wetland Plants m2 80$ 80 6,400$ SECTION 3 TOTAL 213,700$ Redesign of 16th Ave & SW Marine Dr Intersection Class A Cost Estimate April 4th, 2024 SECTION 4 - PAVING 4.01 Asphalt Mix Aggregate tonne 30$ 2270 68,100$ 4.02 Emulsified Penetrating Primer L 2.50$ 11340 28,400$ 4.03 Tack Coat L 2.50$ 3780 9,500$ 4.04 Joint Sealant L 10$ 170 1,700$ 4.05 Asphalt Pavement (2 lifts) tonne 200$ 2270 454,000$ 4.06 Cast In Place Concrete 4.06.01 Curbs m3 500$ 20 10,000$ 4.06.02 Sidewalk m3 500$ 45 22,500$ 4.07 Pavement Markings L.S 12,000$ 100% 12,000$ SECTION 4 TOTAL 606,200$ SECTION 5 - LANDSCAPING 5.01 Vegetation Seeding m2 2$ 11290 22,600$ 5.03 Trees each 150$ 12 1,800$ 5.04 Roundabout Vegetation L.S 8,000$ 100% 8,000$ SECTION 5 TOTAL 32,400$ SECTION 6 - GATEWAY 6.01 UBC Sign 6.01.01 Cast In Place Concrete Footing m3 500$ 40 20,000$ 6.01.02 Aluminum UBC Lettering each 1,000$ 46 46,000$ 6.02 Musqueam Gateway 6.02.01 Cast In Place Concrete Footing m3 500$ 3 1,500$ 6.02.02 Musqueam Art (Allowance) L.S 30,000$ 100% 30,000$ SECTION 6 TOTAL 97,500$ SECTION 7 - SIGNAGE & SIGNALING 7.01 RRFB each 35,000$ 3 105,000$ 7.02 Road Signs each 500$ 21 10,500$ 7.03 Street Light Relocation L.S 30,000$ 100% 30,000$ SECTION 7 TOTAL 145,500$ SECTION 8 - TEMPORARY ROADS 8.01 Crushed Base m3 90$ 290 26,100$ 8.02 Geotextile Fabric m2 15$ 1420 21,300$ 8.03 Emulsifying Tack Coat L 3$ 2200 6,600$ 8.04 Road Markings L.S 8,000$ 100% 8,000$ SECTION 8 TOTAL 62,000$ Summary of Cost Estimate SECTION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 722,400$ SECTION 2 - GRADING 943,700$ SECTION 3 - DRAINAGE 213,700$ SECTION 4 - PAVING 606,200$ SECTION 5 - LANDSCAPING 32,400$ SECTION 6 - GATEWAY 97,500$ SECTION 7 - SIGNAGE & SIGNALING 145,500$ SECTION 8 - TEMPORARY ROADS 62,000$ SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2,823,400$ Contingency - 10% 282,400$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 3,105,800$ DESCRIPTION OF WORK UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT Drainage System Clearing visit 2,000$ 1 2,000$ Inspection visit 2,500$ 1 2,500$ Repairs each 25,000$ 0.1 2,500$ Drainage Total 7,000$ Signal Inspection visit 1,000$ 1 1,000$ Maintenance each 5,000$ 0.1 500$ Signal Total 1,500$ Road Maintenance each 10,000$ 0.2 2,000$ Road Total 2,000$ Vegetation Control Spring visit 1,000$ 6 6,000$ Summer visit 1,000$ 4 4,000$ Fall visit 1,000$ 2 2,000$ Winter visit 1,000$ 1 1,000$ Vegetation Control Total 13,000$ Electricity Electricity days 3$ 365 1,100$ Electricity Total 1,100$ SUB-TOTAL 24,600$ Contingency - 10% 2,500$ TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COST 27,100$ ANNUAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page | 62 Appendix G: Detailed Design Drawings CONCRETE: CODE: CONCRETE AND REINFORCEMENT WORK SHALL CONFORM IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE CODE AND ALL REFERENCED DOCUMENTS. a. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND DESIGN: CSA—A23.1, A23.2, A23.3. CURING: ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CURED AND PROTECTED FROM ADVERSE CONDITIONS SUCH AS RAIN, WIND, COLD AND HEAT UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF A QUALIFIED MATERIALS ENGINEER AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH CSA A23.1. · WHEN TEMPERATURES REACH ABOVE 25C OR BELOW 5C, EXTRA PROTECTION TO CONCRETE IS REQUIRED. CONTRACTOR TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF A MATERIALS ENGINEER. · PROTECTION TO MASS CONCRETE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 1000MM (3’-4”) THICK IS REQUIRED WHEN TEMPERATURES REACH ABOVE 20C OR BELOW 5C. · MASS CONCRETE ELEMENTS SHALL BE PROTECTED TO LIMIT THE INTERNAL CORE AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL TO WITHIN 20C. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH A MATERIALS ENGINEER FOR MONITORING EQUIPMENT, PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES FOR SUCH ELEMENTS. · UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL CONCRETE BE CAST ON OR AGAINST FROZEN SOIL, FORMWORK OR REINFORCEMENT. MATERIAL: · USE OF HIGH-EARLY-STRENGTH HYDRAULIC CEMENT—TYPE HE, IS PERMITTED AT THE CONTRACTOR’S DISCRETION FOR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING PURPOSES. · MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE SHALL CONFORM TO THE TABLES. SMALLER AGGREGATE SHALL BE UTILIZED IN REGIONS OF CONGESTED REINFORCEMENT, FORMWORK, OR EMBEDDED HARDWARE. · WATER SHALL BE POTABLE, AND HEATED IF NECESSARY FOR APPROPRIATE CURING. · CONCRETE SHALL BE REGULAR WEIGHT. · ADMIXTURES MAY BE UTILIZED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONCRETE SUPPLIER. HOWEVER,REGARDLESS OF THE ADMIXTURES USED, THE CONCRETE SUPPLIER SHALL REMAIN SOLELYRESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING CONCRETE MIXES THAT MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THESE ANDOTHER DISCIPLINES DRAWINGS. · ADMIXTURES CONTAINING CALCIUM CHLORIDE SHALL NOT BE USED. · MIX DESIGNS SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE CONCRETE SUPPLIER. · NON-SHRINK GROUT SHALL BE NON-METALLIC CEMENTITIOUS PASTE WITH A MINIMUM 7-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 50 MPa. TESTING: a. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE TESTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE BY A TESTING AGENCY CERTIFIED BY THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES AND SHALL ALSO CONFORM TO CSA A283. TESTING PERSONNEL SHALL BE CSA-CERTIFIED. b. THE TESTING AGENCY SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE IN ADVANCE BETWEEN THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR. c. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE TESTING AGENCY TO FACILITATE APPROPRIATE TESTING. STEEL REINFORCEMENT: MATERIAL: · SHALL BE RATED FOR 400 MPa YIELD STRESS. · SHALL BE STANDARD DEFORMED BILLET STEEL BARS. · SHALL NOT BE WELDED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED, IN WHICH CASE WELDABLEREINFORCEMENT SHALL BE USED. · SHALL BE FREE OF DIRT, OIL, AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL THAT MAY INHIBIT PROPER BONDING WITH CONCRETE. NON-REINFORCED CIRCULAR CONCRETE PIPE SPECIFICATION: MATERIAL STANDARD: ASTM C14 DESIGNED FOR: TYPE 50 SULPHATE-RESISTANT PORTLAND CEMENT TO CSA-A3000 PIPE SIZES AND SPECIFICATIONS: 6" DIAMETER: · WALL THICKNESS (T): 25MM · WEIGHT: 48KG/M 8" DIAMETER: · WALL THICKNESS (T): 32MM · WEIGHT: 77KG/M COMPLIANCE: ALL MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN ASTM C14. JOINTS SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH FLEXIBLE RUBBER GASKETS MEETING BC STANDARDS FOR WATERTIGHTNESS AND DURABILITY. CONCRETE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF PIPES SHALL BE TYPE 50 SULPHATE-RESISTANT PORTLAND CEMENT ADHERING TO CSA-A3000 STANDARDS, ENSURING DURABILITY AND RESISTANCE TO CHEMICAL DEGRADATION. GENERAL NOTES: 1. READ ALL STRUCTURAL/CIVIL DRAWINGS IN CONJUCTION WITH ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING REFERENCED ELECTRICAL, MECHANCAL, VENDOR DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY PORTION OF WORK SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND SHALL BE THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT MAY AFFECT THE WORK IN ANY WAY. 3. FIELD MEASURE AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO SUIT EXISTING CONDITIONS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP WORK SITES CLEAN AND FREE OF ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS DURING THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LEAVE THE SITE CLEAN UPON COMPLETION OF WORK OF PORTIONS OF THE WORK. 5. CONSULTANT MUST APPROVE ALL DEVIATIONS FROM THE WORKING DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST KEEP AN ACCURATE RECORD OF ALL CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 6. FEATURES OF CONSTRUCTION NOT FULLY SHOWN ARE OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS THOSE NOTES FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS. 7. IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THESE DWGS. AND THE SPECIFICATIONS, CONTACT ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. 8. DO NOT SCALE THESE DRAWINGS. GENERAL NOTES REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR 15, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN APRIL 15, 2024 CLASS: REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: 1 T1 PLAN VIEW OF ROUNDABOUT REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON NOV. 29, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APRIL 15, 2024 CLASS: REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: LEGEND GRASS APL. 15, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A C T2 PLAN VIEW OF ROUNDABOUT (EXISTING) REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: FINAL DESIGN GROUP: 14 EDL, DM, RL PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON NOV. 29, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN APR. 8, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APR. 8, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: APR. 8, 2024 FINAL DESIGN T3 PLAN VIEW OF INTERSECTION REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 EDL, DM, RL PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON NOV. 29, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN APRIL 8, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APRIL 8, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W1 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: APR. 8, 2024 FINAL DESIGN A C LEGEND GRASS T4 PLAN VIEW OF SW MARINE DR & STADIUM RD INTERSECTION REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 EDL, DM, RL PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON NOV. 29, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN APRIL 8, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APRIL 8, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W1 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: APR. 8, 2024 FINAL DESIGN A C LEGEND GRASS 2% GRADE 8.3% GRADE 2% GRADE T5 SOUTH LEG CROSS-SECTION REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON DEC 7, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN APRIL 15, 2024 CLASS: REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: APR 15, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A C A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER 2% GRADE 8.3% GRADE 2% GRADE T6 NORTH LEG CROSS-SECTION REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON DEC 7, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN APRIL 15, 2024 CLASS: REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: APR 8, 2024 A C DETAILED DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER 8.3% GRADE8.3% GRADE 2% GRADE 2% GRADE T7 EAST LEG CROSS-SECTION REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON DEC 7, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN APRIL 15, 2024 CLASS: REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: APR 15, 2024 A C DETAILED DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER T3 PLAN VIEW OF INTERSECTION REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 AL, DM, RL, EL PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON NOV. 29, 2023 PRELIMINARY DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APRIL 15, 2023 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE ARIL 15, 2023 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W1 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: ..\Desktop\logo-2.png ..\..\Screenshots\Screenshot 2024-03-13 at 10.34.11 PM.png APL. 15, 2023 DETAILED DESIGN A C TRANSITION ZONE TRANSITION ZONE 300 m 100 m SPEED WILL DECREASE FROM 60 KPH TO 50 KPH FURTHER SOUTH MARINE DR. (NOT IN EXTENTS) ADDITIONAL DISTANCE AS THIS CURVE MAY RESULT IN REDUCED VISIBILITY ROUNDABOUT 30 km/h ROUNDABOUT 30 km/h ROUNDABOUT 30 km/h 30 km/h 30 km/h 30 km/h TO TRAFFIC IN ROUNDABOUT TO T RA FF IC IN RO UN DA BO UT TO TRAFFIC IN ROUNDABOUT TO MARINE DR TO 16TH AVE UBC FROM MARINE DR TRANSITION ZONE 2 KM TO 16TH AVE WEST 16T H A VE ( WE ST) TO MA RIN E DR (SOUT H) MARINE DR (NORTH) 16TH AVE (WEST) SIGNAGE AND ROAD MARKING PLAN 8 P1 SECTION, ELEVATION, PLAN VIEW OF POND DESIGN REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: FINAL DESIGN GROUP: 14 PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON MAR 13, 2024 POND DESIGN MARCH 13, 2024 DATE MAR. 13, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: P2 PLAN VIEW OF DRAINAGE PIPES REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: FINAL DESIGN GROUP: 14 YC PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR. 8, 2024 DRAINAGE PLAN VIEW APR. 8, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APR. 8, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: S1 Gateway Design REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR. 02, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A. FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APR.02, 2024 DATE APR. 02, 2024 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: 25000 10 00 BUL CONTINOUS 20M @ 500 BLL 93-20M @ 300 BLL 8 - 25M @ 500 BUL 8 - 25M @ 500 10 00 ALUMINUM FINISH 4000 40 00 NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE SHOWN WITH 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 25MPa 2. ALL STEEL REINFORCEMENT BARS HAVE A YIELD STRENGTH OF 400MPa 3. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN MILLIMETERS 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM 30MM CLEAR COVER 5. FOR GENERAL NOTES AND TYPICAL DETAIL SEE S-2 51 2, 48 4000 40 00 20 0 TUL 8 - 25M @ 500 TLL 8 - 25M @ 500 14 20 4000 540 15 0 BEAM SLAB COLUMN FOOTING PEDESTAL ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: 1:2000 1 S.2 PEDESTAL PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1:2000 2 S.2 FIRST NATION PLATFORM ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: 1:2000 3 S.2 SLAB BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT SCALE: 1:2000 4 S.2 SLAB TOP REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT SCALE: 1:2000 5 S.2 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA S2 TYPICAL DETAILS REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR.02, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A. FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APR. 02, 2024 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL445 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: . TYP. COLUMN CROSS SECTION SCALE: 1:50000 4 S.3 10M STIRRUP @ 400 4-15M @ 30MM MIN SPACING TYPICAL FOOTING LAPSPLICE SCALE: 1:2500 7 S.3 TYP. SLAB OVER COLUMN SCALE: 1:5000 6 S.3 VERTICAL COLUMN REINFORCEMENT SEE PLAN FOR SLAB REINFORCEMENT PEDESTAL ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: 1:5000 5 S.3 20 0 CONTINUOUS 2-25M @ 40 CONTINUOUS 4-25M @ 40 TYPICAL FOOTING REBAR LAYOUT SCALE: 1:2500 1 S.3 BLL 7 - 15M @ MIN 500 1400 13201000 2-25M DOWELS AT ENDS SEE PLAN FOR SLAB REINFORCEMENT 10M TIES @ 300 585 80 0 NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE SHOWN WITH 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 25MPa 2. ALL STEEL REINFORCEMENT BARS HAVE A YIELD STRENGTH OF 400MPa 3. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN MILLIMETERS 4. PROVIDE MINIMUM 30MM CLEAR COVER 5. FOR GENERAL NOTES AND TYPICAL DETAIL SEE S-2 30 0 M IN TYPICAL FOOTING VIEW SCALE: 1:12500 3 S.3 540 850 200 30 0 M IN 2-25M DOWELS AT ENDS TYP. PEDESTAL CAST IN ANCHOR SCALE: 1:2500 2 S.3 80 0 PROVIDE 2-25MM @ 100 CAST IN ANCHOR ALONG PEDESTAL AS NEEDED 24 0 REFER TO COLUMN CROSS SECTION FOR VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT BUL 7 - 15M @ MIN 500 40 00 4000 200 20 0 M1 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN - PHASE 1 REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 VH PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR. 2, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APR 2, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APR 2, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY CLIENT: CONSULTANT: LEGEND Construction Area Site & Safety Trailer Storage Traffic Flow W 16th Ave SW M arine Dr SW M arine Dr M2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN - PHASE 2 REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: CLIENT: CONSULTANT: W 16th Ave SW M arine Dr SW M arine Dr LEGEND Construction Area Site & Safety Trailer Storage Traffic Flow DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 VH PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR. 2, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APR 2, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APR 2, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY M3 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN - PHASE 3 REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: CLIENT: CONSULTANT: W 16th Ave SW M arine Dr SW M arine Dr LEGEND Construction Area Site & Safety Trailer Storage Traffic Flow DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 VH PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR. 2, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APR 2, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APR 2, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY M4 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN - PHASE 4 REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: CLIENT: CONSULTANT: DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 VH PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR. 2, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APR 2, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APR 2, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY W 16th Ave SW M arine Dr SW M arine Dr LEGEND Construction Area Site & Safety Trailer Storage Traffic Flow M5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE PLAN REDESIGN OF 16th AVENUE/ SW MARINE DRIVE INTERSECTION DWG NO.: PROJECT: DRAWING TITLE: CLIENT: CONSULTANT: LEGEND Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Site & Safety Trailer Storage SW M arine Dr W 16th Ave SW M arine Dr DESIGNED / DRAWN BY: ASSIGNMENT NO. DETAILED DESIGN GROUP: 14 VH PLOT DATE: ISSUES: REV. NO. DATE REASON APR. 2, 2024 DETAILED DESIGN A. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B. DO NOT MEASURE FROM THIS DRAWING C. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE DESIGNER APR 2, 2024 CLASS CODE CIVL 446 DATE APR 2, 2024 CLASS: CIVL446 2023-24 W2 REFERENCE DWGS: THIS DRAWING IS BASED ON: PROJECT DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY CIVL446 FACULTY
Report
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Undergraduate
UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report
University of British Columbia. CIVL 446
Transportation
Land
Community
SW Marine Drive & 16th Avenue Intersection Redesign
Text