Final Task IVision Report

Silver Line
ITP – The Rapid Bus Rapid Transit

Task I
Visioning
Report

Submitted By:
Wilbur Smith Associates

January 21, 2011

SILVER LINE BRT
ITP – The Rapid

Final
Task I Vision Report

January 21, 2011

Prepared by:

Silver Line BRT
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Summary of Silver Line Reference Documents ............................................................................... 2

3.0 Design Program for Stations and Roadway ...................................................................................... 4

4.0 Stakeholder Meetings Summary ............................................................................................................ 5

5.0 Station Concepts and Station Compotents ........................................................................................ 7

6.0 Bus Operations and Station Locations ................................................................................................ 9

7.0 Existing Traffic Signals and Modifications....................................................................................... 11

8.0 Prototypical Pavement Marking Plans .............................................................................................. 11

9.0 Communications Features and Interfaces ....................................................................................... 12

10.0 Station Platform Concept Layouts ...................................................................................................... 13

11.0 FTA’s Standard Cost Category (SCC) Workbook for Project Cost Estimate ....................... 14

FIGURES

Figure 1 Final Station Concept .................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 Proposed Station Locations ................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3 Final Station Locations ............................................................................................................................ 10

APPENDICES

Appendix A Stakeholder Involvement Meeting Summaries
Appendix B Illustrations of Station Concepts
Appendix C Mapping of Dedicated/Non‐Dedicated Bus Lanes and Station Locations
Appendix D Prototypical Pavement Marking Plans, Roadway Concept Typical Sections and Plans,
and Station Platform Layouts
Appendix E Survey Drawings
Appendix F Design Program – Stations Report
Appendix G Roadway Program Report
Appendix H Bus Operations, Traffic Signals, and Communications Concept Report
Appendix I Cost Estimate Report

Page i

Silver Line BRT
Final Task I Vision Report

1.0 Introduction and Purpose

The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the analysis completed for the Silver Line
BRT Task I Visioning process and provide information to Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) –
The Rapid and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to aid in moving the project forward into
the final design phase. The overall goal for the Task 1 Visioning was to take the design to a
programmatic/conceptual level in order to clarify the elements below which will define the nature
of the project that can be delivered for the budget:

 BRT operations
 specific station locations and BRT integration with general traffic on the streets
 components of the station buildings and platforms including the level of quality of those
components
 communications between the BRT, stations, traffic signals, ITP, and the cities
 confirm there are no fatal flaws to integrate the BRT with the ‘built environment” (meet
ADA requirements at stations and crosswalks and meet roadway design requirements)
 estimate the project cost

Deliverables to illustrate the above will include:

1. 3‐D visualization of the current VISSIM BRT operation analysis at several intersections to
illustrate the BRT operation integrated with general traffic and pedestrians.
2. Prototypical pavement marking plan to illustrate the station locations, lanes for BRT
operation, and changes to the existing general traffic operation.
3. Design Program report for Stations and Roadway and Conceptual Station illustrations of
prototypical stations with catalogue cuts for components (2 or 3 prototypes depending on
location; Central Business District or non‐Central Business District)
4. Communication report conceptualizing how the various components (Automatic Vehicle
Locator, emergency telephone, fare vending machines, Closed Circuit Television, and traffic
signals) will interface.
5. Roadway Concept Plans that meet design requirements integrated with existing.
6. Update FTA’s SCC Workbook for project cost estimates.
7. Written summary of the stakeholder involvement process.

Level of completion of technical work (engineering and architecture)

A. Architectural – Programmatic/Conceptual
B. Traffic and Communication Engineering – Programmatic/Conceptual
C. Roadway Engineering – 10% Level of completion

The Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route runs through three cities; Grand Rapids, Wyoming,
and Kentwood and includes 33 proposed Silver Line BRT stations along a 9.6 mile route running
from the ITP central station to 60th Street on Division Avenue. Refer to Figure 3 on page 11 for
details. The overall vision for the Silver Line BRT is to provide a first class riding experience for
users that is noticeably quicker than regular bus services.

Page 1

Silver Line BRT
2.0 Summary of Silver Line Reference
Documents

2.1 Documents previously developed by ITP
The Task I Visioning of the Silver Line BRT utilized information previously developed in prior
stages of the project. The goal was to pick up the final visioning phase where previous studies left
off and prevent the need for rework. Several documents where provided to the team for
information;

Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Silver Line BRT was completed for The Rapid and FTA
in August 2010. This EA was prepared to disclose potential environmental effects and to provide
an opportunity for agency and public comments to identify mitigation measures that would address
impacts. The EA contains the results of the environmental analyses completed on this project.

Transportation Technical Report
The Transportation Technical Report was completed as part of the EA to document the detailed
analysis of the transportation conditions for the Silver Line Study corridor. The report was
completed in March 2010.

Operating Plan Detail
The Operating Plan Detail document was prepared to outline the proposed route of the BRT and the
high level details of how the system would operate and its interaction with other bus systems. The
document was developed at the request of the FTA and Project Management Office Certification
(PMOC), completed on January 9, 2009.

2.2 Documents Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates for Task I
This team compiled some of the analysis into interim reports that are supplemental to the Task I
Vision Report as listed below;

Design Program – Stations
The purpose of this technical paper was to prepare a design guide, to be applied to developing
station concepts. It is located in Appendix F.

Roadway Program
The purpose of this technical paper was to identify the concept design program for roadway
improvements. This provided a guide for the team to follow when analyzing roadway and non‐
station needs associated with construction of each station. It is located in Appendix G.

Bus Operations, Traffic Signals, and Communications Concept Report
The purpose of this technical paper was to summarize the existing bus, traffic, and communications
operations in the project area including;

 Summarize the Silver Line BRT operation
 Traffic and communication functions anticipated to be required for future operations

Page 2

Silver Line BRT
 Identify the quantity and cost of new infrastructure and/or equipment needed to be
included in the project to provide these functions

This report is located in Appendix H.

Cost Estimate Report
The purpose of this technical paper was to summarize the cost estimating process and to explain
the details of each component of the estimate as it relates to the BRT stations and systems. It is
located in Appendix I.

Survey
Base survey information was collected at each station location for topographies and utilities which
are displayed in Appendix E. It was important to begin analysis of each station and adjoining
roadway conditions based on accurate data. The survey provided coordinates and elevations for
point data at key features, such as curb lines, drainage structures, buildings, and all above ground
utilities within the vicinity of each station. The survey was done approximately 100 ft either side of
the proposed station locations.

Note that the survey does not include legal alignments, ROW, or section corner information.

REGIS Mapping
The Team worked with REGIS to obtain 2009 aerials of the Silver Line BRT corridor which were
incorporated into GIS mapping. The GIS data also included parcel lines which gave the team a high
level understanding of City right‐of‐way (ROW). It is important to note that the parcel lines shown
are not true ROW limits. The Aerial images are displayed in Appendix C.

Page 3

Silver Line BRT
3.0 Design Program for Stations and
Roadway

Design programs were compiled by the team for stations and roadway components to establish a
set of design criteria for detailed analysis. For full descriptions of the station and roadway
programs refer to two technical papers developed by the team, Design Program – Stations, and
Roadway Program as displayed in Appendix F and Appendix G.

The station program details the requirements for all components associated with the shelter and
station platform including the following:

 Station passenger capacity
 Furnishings inside the station shelter
 Station shelter lighting
 Furnishings and utilities on the station platform
 Platform surface
 Platform Lighting
 Safety and security
 Weather protection and roof drains
 Station materials
 Structural design
 Platform height
 Horizontal clearance
 Platform slopes
 ADA clearances
 Minimum sidewalk widths

The roadway program details the design requirements and criteria for all components relating to
roadway and elements outside of the station platform including the following:

 Design speed
 Dedicated BRT lanes
 Lane widths
 Cross sections (number of lanes)
 Horizontal alignment
 ADA compliance
 Horizontal and vertical clearance

The design criteria identified in each design program was used as a base to ensure that each station
and roadway element met local, state, and federal design standards, and that the functionality of the
Silver Line BRT met the anticipated needs of the system.

Page 4

Silver Line BRT
4.0 Stakeholder Meetings Summary

As part of the overall visioning process the team reached out to stakeholders within the project
area and the broader ITP service area in order to receive stakeholder input and communicate
project benefits. Meeting invite letters were prepared by the project team and then sent out to the
stakeholders by ITP staff. The overall approach was to review the BRT program and product with
stakeholders through a series of four meeting sets scheduled in advance to coincide with specific
project “Work Product” events.

Four meetings (conducted in either one or two day periods) were held for each meeting at locations
selected by ITP in the project service area. The purpose of the meetings was to present decisions
made at previous meetings, discuss how those decisions were folded into the project
concept/vision, and receive stakeholder input. The two locations for the meetings were Tommy
Brann’s on south Division Avenue, and The Rapid Central Station. The meeting topics were as
follow:

Meeting Set #1 – Overall BRT Route and BRT Operations, 3D VISSIM traffic model, Station
Program, and Station Locations.

Meeting Set #2 – Conduct Design Charrette centered around development of station
concepts.

Meeting Set #3 – Station Design Concept Development (presented to ITP staff, board and
municipal stakeholders).

Meeting Set #4 – Summary of design concept and overall process to stakeholders.

As part of Meeting Set #2 a 3D traffic simulation was developed using VISSIM to illustrate traffic
and bus operations at a couple of key intersections. Future peak traffic was utilized with
overpopulated buses and pedestrians to illustrate potential conflicts and operation issues under
future peak conditions. The analysis showed that the Silver Line BRT will not result in any
additional adverse congestion or conflicts due to the proposed project.

The following is a general summary of comments received regarding the overall development of the
BRT Stations.

General Shelter Structure Look & Feel
The shelters should be a visually distinctive design which is simple, functional and easy to maintain.
The shelter design should pick up on the ‘iconic’ look and feel already existing in Grand Rapids; in
the ‘Le Grande Vatesse’ and in the rooflines of DeVos Place and the Rapid Central Station. Shelters
shall provide all required operational components while blending in with their surroundings yet
still provide the branding and tall visual element to distinguish the shelter as a BRT station

Weather Protection & Maintenance Concerns
Provide ridership with protection from rain, wind and snow, salt/slush splash & icicles and
maintain clean stations year around. Discharge roof run‐off into the sewer system to avoid ice
forming on the sidewalks.

Page 5

Silver Line BRT
Sustainability Practices & Energy
Take advantage of opportunities to incorporate ‘green’ design principals into the stations to keep in
concert with the Green Grand Rapids initiative.

Neighborhood Communication
Station design should incorporate individual links to neighborhood via design expression, event
announcement and/or artwork

Visual, Audio and Surface Accommodations
Shelters must be all inclusive in providing for riders needs using the latest audio and visual
technology equipment, materials and surfaces.

Advertisement & Naming Rights
Take advantage of any marketing or advertizing opportunities with which funds could be used for
station upkeep.

Bicycle Advocacy & Accommodation
Transit Vehicles and Stations as a leading part of the transportation network can and must
acknowledge the place of bicycles as a viable alternative to the car. Bike lanes, as part of the
‘Complete Streets” movement, are envisioned in the future. All forms of at‐the‐station bike
provisions should be available at appropriate station locations frequented by bicyclist. The plan to
allow riders to bring their bike on the transit vehicle was well received.

Meeting Summaries were prepared for all four meeting sets and are included in Appendix A.
Appendix A contains two lists of stakeholders and/or contacts. The first list was the original
stakeholder list that The Rapid used to notify stakeholders of upcoming meetings. The second list
was compiled from the original stakeholder list and all of those people that attended the meetings.

Page 6

Silver Line BRT
5.0 Station Concepts and Station
Components

Following Meeting Set 2 the consultant team commenced development of the initial station
concepts utilizing the information obtained from the stakeholder meetings along with input
provided by ITP staff at prior meetings. During the development of the station design concepts, the
consultant team held a series of meetings with ITP staff and city staff from Grand Rapids, Wyoming,
and Kentwood. The purpose for the meetings was to guide the station concept development
process and obtain valuable input in order for the team to create the proposed concepts as
accurately as possible. This iterative process allowed the team to get to a preferred concept much
quicker and efficiently and provided the opportunity for the city stakeholders to provide input very
early in the process. The series of meetings held with ITP and city officials are listed below. The
meeting minutes are located in Appendix A. Four draft concepts were prepared initially which
were presented to ITP staff for review and comment. One of these concepts was clearly favored by
ITP staff which was then refined into a more detailed concept. This concept was then brought back
to ITP for further review and comment.

October 20, 2010 ITP Staff
October 26, 2010 ITP Staff
October 27, 2010 ITP Staff and City Stakeholders
October 27, 2010 ITP Board Members and members of public
November 4, 2010 Wyoming and Kentwood City Staff
November 5, 2010 Grand Rapids City Staff

The final station concept shown in Figure 1 is a result of multiple meetings with stakeholders, ITP
staff, and consultant team members. The design reflects the identity of Grand Rapids and meets the
requirements as outlined in the Station Program. All of the concepts developed during this
conceptual development process are shown in Appendix B.

Page 7

Silver Line BRT
Figure 1 – Final Station Concept

Page 8

Silver Line BRT
6.0 Bus Operations and Station Locations

The team assessed the operating needs of the Silver Line – BRT vehicles and the existing and
proposed systems needs. Specific station locations and dedicated lanes were analyzed and all are
discussed in detail in the Bus Operations, Traffic Signals, and Communications Concept Report.
Each of these components is critical to ensuring the Silver Line BRT provides first class and
expedited service.

Dedicated bus lanes are essential to an expedited service and were recommended at every location
unless pavement widths negated additional lanage or if signal operations required shared lanes.
Maps prepared to illustrate dedicated lane locations are located in Appendix C and the back of
Appendix H. The dedicated bus lanes allow only for BRT and regular buses to access the lane. A
preliminary recommendation to provide shared lanes at some signals (Burton, 28th, 36th, 44th, and
54th) was made based on the EA traffic analysis and on field observations by the design team.
Further traffic analysis will be required in the design phase to validate these recommendations.

Each station was located based on the preliminary locations identified in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and adjusted to comply with the design program for stations and roadways. The
team looked at optimizing locations to avoid conflicts with existing driveways and some stations
were relocated downstream of signals that were previously proposed upstream. This is to allow
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) to be affective (see Section 7.0). TSP provides an extended green time
for buses drive through a signal if it is close before the signal turns red. Several busy intersections
were proposed not to include TSP to prevent additional delay to general purpose traffic.

Figure 2 shows the proposed station locations including the changes made from the EA. A few
stations were shifted slightly to locate the station in a better location due to adjacent land use
and/or building locations, while others were relocated entirely to allow better operational
efficiencies for the proposed BRT system. At the south end of the project, it was determined only a
northbound station would be provided on the east side of Division Street just north of 60th Street.
Figure 3 shows the final station locations selected.

Each Silver Line BRT Station will require a set of operating hardware devices:

 Off‐board fare collection
 “Next Bus” signs and audio
 Audio station announcements on the bus
 Ticket vending machine
 Emergency telephone with CCTV camera
 Fare validation device
 Smart card reader
 Passenger information sign and kiosk

Page 9

Silver Line BRT
Figure 2 –Proposed Station Locations

Legend
Proposed BRT Alignment from EA

Proposed BRT Station from EA

BRT Station Relocation

BRT Station Adjustment

BRT Station Removal
Freeway
Major Road
Highway
Railroad

Downtown Inset

Figure 3 –Final Station Locations

Page 10

Silver Line BRT
7.0 Existing Traffic Signals and
Modifications

The design team assessed each signal on the proposed Silver Line BRT route to ensure that Transit
Signal Priority (TSP) would be possible and to identify the type of signals utilized at each location.
OpticomTM is a communications device installed on each signal that allows vehicles installed with a
transmitting devise (On‐board Equipment) to alter the signal timings. Emergency vehicles use this
system to preempt a signal to turn green at any time when approaching. Silver Line BRT vehicles
will be installed with OpticomTM On‐board Equipment to allow signal prioritization which operates
similar to emergency vehicles TSP, only the difference being that the signal cannot be changed from
red, instead the green can be extended until the BRT vehicle clears the signal. Most existing signals
on the Silver Line route have OpticomTM installed with the exception of signals on Ransom which
will need to be installed as part of this project.

The OpticomTM system is currently operational and works great, however technology is moving
toward GPS based systems which would operate similarly to the existing system. If this system is
installed by each of the Cities then the Silver Line BRT would also need to upgrade the On‐board
equipment. At several intersections there are currently no countdown timers for pedestrian
crossings. The design team assumed that up to 50 percent of signals would need to be upgraded to
allow for safer pedestrian movements and to bring the crossings up to current design standards.

The design team feels comfortable that the Silver Line BRT will be able to function as desired with
the existing traffic signals and as new technology is introduced, modifications to On‐board
Equipment will enable the system to continue operating well.

8.0 Prototypical Pavement Marking
Plans

Pavement markings were preliminarily designed at each station location to illustrate how dedicated
BRT lanes will interact with general purpose lanes, and to highlight changes in intersection
operations such as dedicated bus lanes as displayed in Appendix D. The striping plans show
locations of dedicated bus lanes, non‐dedicated lanes and the lane transitions
between them. In addition the plans indicate the general condition of the
roadway pavement and any proposed improvements planned by each of the
cities, of Kentwood, Wyoming and Grand Rapids.

The design team determined that the existing roadway conditions can safely
accommodate the Silver Line BRT system with minor modifications to the
roadway using pavement markings and signage. The dedicated BRT lanes will
be denoted with a six‐inch dashed white line and preferential lane‐use
markings, as shown on the prototypical pavement marking plans. Roadside
signs will also denote the hours of operation of the dedicated BRT lanes.
The prototypical pavement marking plans will be designed in more detail Example of Buses
during the design phase of this project. Only roadside sign

Page 11

Silver Line BRT
9.0 Communication Features and
Interfaces

Functional requirements for communications of station components, BRT vehicles, and the central
office were identified as part of this study and are discussed in detail in the Bus Operations,
Traffic Signals, and Communications Concept Report.

Several key components of the communications system were analyzed as part of this project:

 Technology / Topography ‐ Referred to as the “backbone” of the communications
system and is the node that carries information between the various devices.
 Bandwidth ‐ Defines the capacity of a system
 Availability ‐ Availability of the bandwidth
 Scalability ‐ Account for future needs
 Quality of Service
 Security
 Reliability and Maintainability
 Resilience, Survivability and Redundancy
 Equipment Housing, Environmental Control and Electrical Power

The communications devices needed for the Silver Line BRT are:

 Emergency Telephone
 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
 Fare Validation
 “Next Bus” Arrival Time Sign
 Ticket Vending Machines
 Smart Card Readers
 Passenger Information Signs and Kiosk

The design team determined the communication needs required to allow the the Silver Line BRT
service to become operational and also provided a high level look at integrating the new service
with existing systems. It was identified that the existing Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) software
will need to be upgraded to allow the next bus information to display accurately. Also, the fiber
optic network, needed to carry information between the stations is currently incomplete.
Additional segments of fiber optic cable need to be added for the Silver Line BRT system to be fully
operational.

Page 12

Silver Line BRT
10.0 Station Platform Concept Layouts

Preliminary Engineering was performed at each station location to assess the potential impacts of
constructing station platforms, pads, and shelters. A set of detailed drawings of each station
platform are located in Appendix D.

The concept designs were based on surveyed topography and the REGIS mapping, and complied
with the design criteria as discussed in Section 3.0. The intent of the design effort for the Task I
Visioning was to determine whether station construction at each location was feasible and look at
potential construction issues associated with the platform, pad, and shelter. The following items
were analyzed at each station location:

 Utility impacts based on survey data such as hydrants, power poles
 Manholes
 Grading of the station platform and ADA ramps
 Impacted sidewalk construction
 Station platform location and sizing
 Transition curb to meet 14” elevated platform height
 Concrete bus pad
 Potential tree relocations

In conjunction with the station platform design, roadway concepts were designed by the team to
assure that each station location worked given constraints such as ROW, and physical constraints
(preliminary design plans displayed in Appendix D). The level of detail for the plans was enough
to complete the final visioning phase, to provide a level of comfort on constructability and high
potential construction costs prior to progressing to the final design phase.

Based on the station platform locations, the team designed each bus pad and affected items
surrounding each station as well as handicap accessible ramps to the elevated platform. The plans
show all areas of proposed construction and the relationship to existing roadway features and
ROW. The intent of this design was to avoid any ROW impacts and based on preliminary analysis
this was achieved.

Potential impacts to underground utilities are a significant concern for the local municipalities. At
this time, it is the intent to relocate existing utilities out from under the proposed stations, if
possible. Any utility information shown in the detailed drawings is only from above ground survey.

Page 13

Silver Line BRT
11.0 FTA’s SCC Workbook for Project Cost
Estimate

A detailed cost estimate was completed by the team based on the Task I visioning process design
for the BRT Silver line. For a full description of the estimate and methodology refer to the Cost
Estimate Report located in Appendix I.

The intent of the estimate was to provide a preliminary cost to provide information to ITP and FTA
confirming the project is within budget for a ‘very small starts’, and move the project forward to
final design and the construction phase.

As part of the estimate the team calculated detailed costs for each component of the design
including;

 Stations
 Roadway
 Signal prioritization upgrades to some intersections
 Communications devices
 Operating equipment for buses and stations

Other cost items that were calculated during the EA phase were included in the estimate as place
holders without recalculation.

The detailed costs were summarized into the FTA cost estimating spreadsheet, which also
calculates the year of expenditure costs based on predicted inflation. The team assumed
construction would begin in 2012 for two years and the year of revenue operations would begin in
2014.

The total year of expenditure costs in 2010 dollars is $35.7 million.

Page 14

APPENDICES


Appendix A

Stakeholder Involvement Meeting
Summaries


Proposed Stakeholders for the Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
The Rapid - Grand Rapids, MI
July 2010
Organization Name Phone # email Address Contact
Groups/Associations
Wyoming/Kentwood Chamber of Commerce 616-531-5990 sue@southkent.org 590 32nd Street SE, Wyoming, MI 49548-2345 Sue Bynum, Admin Assistant
West Michigan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 616-452-4027 csanchez@hccwm.org 1251 Century Ave, Suite 200, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Carlos Sanchez, Executive Director
Neighborhood Ventures 616-301-3929 lewism@neighborhoodventures.org 949 Wealthy St SE, Suite 200, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Mark Lewis, Executive Director
Burton Heights Business District
Madison Square Business Dsitrict
Division South Business District
East Fulton Business District 616 776-7333 1041 E. Fulton Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Heartside Business District/Neighborhood Assn 616-855-0435 jenn@heartsidegr.com Jenn Schaub
Division Avenue Business Association (28th to 54th) 616-452-8691 tommy@d-a-b-a.org 4157 Division Ave S., Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Tommy Brann, President
Heritage Hill Neighborhood Association (GR) 616-459-8950 heritage@heritagehillweb.org 126 College SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Mike Clark, President
Garfield Park Neighborhood Association (GR) 616-241-2443 kwoudstra@gpnagr.org 334 Burton SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49507 Kathy Woudstra, Director
Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce 616-771-0322 englehartj@grandrapids.org 111 Pearl Street NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Jeanne Englehart, CEO
Mobil Metro Task Force

GR Downtown Development Authority abessette@grcity.us Ann Marie Bessette
Disabled Advocates of Kent County raebower@gmail.com Rae Bower
Inner City Christian Federation jbradford@iccf.org Jonathan Bradford
Crowe Horwath john.canepa@crowehorwath.com John Canepa
Kent County Administrator daryl.delabbio@kentcountymi.gov Daryl Delabbio
p Consumer Advisoryy Committee
Rapid y @
casey354@comcast.net Caseyy Dutmer
Frey Foundation ferrell@freyfdn.org Frey Foundation, 700 Bridgewater Place, GR MI 49503 Lynn Ferrell
Area Agency on Aging sandragj@aaawm.org Sandra Ghosten-Jones
Locus Development john@locusdevelopment.com John Green
Butterball Farms BTG@brandontgriffin.com Brandon Griffin
GVSU haynesl@gvsu.edu Lisa Haynes
WMEAC rhood@wmeac.org Rachel Hood
CB Richard Ellis Robert.horn@cbre.com Robert Horne
Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce johnstona@grandrapids.org Andy Johnston
Cascade Engineering dirck.lyon@cascadeng.com Dirck Lyon
MI League of Conservation Voters bill@michiganlcv.org Bill Kirk
Kent Intermediate School District ronkoehler@kentisd.org Ron Koehler
Spectrum Hospital mark.lemoine@spectrum-health.org Mark Lemoine
Faith in Motion albertlewis@att.net Albert Lewis
GVSU moyerj@gvsu.edu James Moyer
Jade Pid Ventures mmraz@jadepigventures.com Mike Mraz
RoMan Manufacturing rroth@romanmfg.com Robert Roth
Grand Valley Metro Council stypulad@gvmc.org Don Stypula
Wyoming Deputy City Manager vandurenb@wyomingmi.gov Barb Van Duren
Rockford Construction mvangessel@rockfordconstruction.com Mike VanGessel
Community Leader panchovega13@aol.com Francisco Vega
Banks
Huntington Bank 230 E, Fulton, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Huntington Bank 50 Monroe Ave., Grand Rapids. MI 49503
Chase Bank 200 Ottawa Ave. NW., Grand Rapids 49503 David Frey
Comerica Bank 99 Monroe Ave. NW., Grand Rapids 49546 Joe Davio
Fifth Third Bank 111 Lyon NW., Grand Rapids 49503 President/CEO
City Government
Grand Rapids, Deputy City Manager edelong@grcity.us Eric De Long
Grand Rapids mayor@grcity.us Mayor George Heartwell
Grand Rapids dshaffer@grcity.us Dave Shaffer Commissioner
Grand Rapids rbliss@grcity.us Rosalynn Bliss Commissioner
Grand Rapids jwhite@grcity.us James White, Sr. Commissioner
Grand Rapids jfowler@ci.grand-rapids.mi.us Jay Fowler
Grand Rapids sschulz@grcity.us Suzanne Schultz
Grand Rapids czull@ci.grand-rapids.mi.us Chris Zull
Grand Rapids mdeclercq@ci.grand-rapids.mi.us Mark DeClercq
Grand Rapids greimer@ci.grand-rapids.mi.us Gary Reimer
Wyoming mayor@wyomingmi.gov Mayor Jack Poll,
Wyoming wverhulst@wyomingmi.gov William VerHulst, Commissioner
Wyoming rpastoor@wyomingmi.gov Richard Pastoor, Commissioner
Wyoming dburrill@wyomingmi.gov Dan Burrill, Commissioner
Wyoming sbolt@wyomingmi.gov Sam Bolt, Commissioner
Wyoming cochrant@wyomingmi.gov Tim Cochran
City of Kentwood Planning Director schweitt@ci.kentwood.mi.us Terry Schweittzer
Kentwood mayor@ci.kentwood.mi.us Mayor Richard Root
Kentwood coughlinb@ci.kentwood.mi.us Robert Coughlin, Commissioner
Kentwood brownmi@ci.kentwood.mi.us Michael Brown, Commissioner
Kentwood brinkss@ci.kentwood.mi.us Sharon Brinks, Commissioner
Kentwood verwysr@ci.kentwood.mi.us Raymond VerWys, Commissioner
Kentwood cummingsf@ci.kentwood.mi.us Frank Cummings, Commissioner
Kentwood clantonr@ci.kentwood.mi.us Richard Clanton, Commissioner
Kent County Government - other

Kent County Road Commission rbelknap@kentcountyroads.net Roger Belknap
K
Kent C
County Road
R d Commission
C i i swarren@kentcountyroads.net
@k d Steve Warren
S W
vonkcommish@comcast.net Ted Vonk, Commissioner
toma@iserv.net Tom Antor, Comm.
g.rolls@comcast.net Gary Rolls, Comm.
sandiparrish@hotmail.com Sandi Frost Parrish, Comm.
roger@rockfordambulance.com Roger Morgan, Comm.
tanisart@comcast.net Arthur Tanis, Comm.
sjponstein@netzero.net Stan Ponstein, Comm.
hjvoorhees1@sbcglobal.net Harold Voorhees, Comm.
hirschfamily3@aol.com Bill Hirsch, Comm.
dagee@iserv.net Dean Agee, Comm.
p.hickey@prodigy.net Pete Hickey, Comm.
courtadek@aol.com Keith Courtade, Comm.
Other Institutions
Grand Action john.canepa@crowehorwath.com John Canepa
GVSU bachmeij@gvsu.edu Jim Bachmeier
Saint Mary's Hospital 200 Jefferson Ave. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 President
Grand Rapids Community College GRCC, 143 Bostwick Ave. NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Dr. Steven Ender, President
J W Marriot JW Marriott 235 Lewis, Grand Rapids, 49503 Mr. George Aquino, GM
Amway Corp. Amway Hotel Corp. 7575 Fulton St. E. Ada, MI 49355 President/CEO
Van Andel Institute 333 Bostwick Ave. NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Joe Gavan
Michigan Dept. of Transportation kinde@michigan.gov Eric Kind
Grand Valley Metro Council jay.hoekstra@gvmc.org Jay Hoekstra
MSU Medical College jerry.kooiman@ht.msu.edu Jerry Kooiman
DeVos Place/Van Andel Arena LIke@smggr.com Lynn Ike
The BOB gg@gilmorec.com Greg Gilmore
The BOB kcarey@comcast.net Kieth Carey
Metro Motors steve.metromotors@gmail.com
Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Technical Memorandum
Meeting Set #1
Summary of Stakeholder Engagement Meetings
(August 11 – 12, 2010)
August 25, 2010

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS
1.0 Public Meeting Details
Date of Meeting: August 11
Location: The Rapid Central Station

250 Grandville Ave SW
Grand Rapids
Time: 10:00 am – 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm
Total # of Meeting
Attendees: 13 signed in
Date of Meeting: August 12
Location: Tommy Brann’s

4157 S. Division Ave.
Wyoming
Time: 10:00 am – 1:00 pm
Total # of Meeting
1.1 Stakeholder Invitation
An invitation letter was set to stakeholders on July 27th, 2010. A copy of the invitation letter is
attached.
1.2 Meeting Format

The Stakeholder Engagement Meetings were conducted using an open-house format. Exhibits
were provided to explain the proposed Silver Line BRT system, the process that is being
followed, the benefits of a BRT system, the project history and schedule, and maps to illustrate
bus station locations and potential issues. A handout summarizing the exhibits was provided for
attendees to take home. A copy of the exhibits and handout are attached.
Attendees were encouraged to comment on the proposed station locations and BRT system.
Comments were noted on the large maps of the proposed station locations.
1
1.3 Summary of Comments Received
A summary of the comments received is attached.
1.4 Exhibits
Welcome
Why are you here?
What is a BRT? What are the benefits?
What is the Silver Line BRT? Why is it still being considered?
Silver Line BRT project history and schedule
Stakeholder Engagement: Next Steps
1.5 Meeting Register

The Meeting Registers from the Stakeholder Engagement Meetings held August 11 – 12 are
attached.
2
Stakeholder Invitation
Meeting Handout

Stakeholder Engagement Meeting

August 11‐12, 2010

What is a Bus Rapid Transit? What is the History and Future Schedule of the
Silver Line BRT Project?
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a form of public
transportation that uses buses to provide faster, more 2003 – Alternatives Analysis and Great Transit Grand
Tomorrow (GT2) Study
efficient service than a typical bus line.
2007 – Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative
2009‐10 – Preparation of an Environmental Assessment
What are the Benefits of a BRT?
(EA), EA Public Hearing, and EA approval
2010‐11 – Final Design and Preliminary Engineering
 A faster commute – fewer bus stops, quicker 2011 – Project Capital Grant Agreement
loading/unloading, signal priority 2012 – Construction
 Increased ridership
 Increased capital cost effectiveness What are the Next Steps for Stakeholder
 Increased employment opportunities Engagement?
 Enhanced community cohesiveness
A series of meetings have been scheduled to present
 Enhanced economic development
previous meeting decisions, discuss how decisions tie
 Enhanced transit supportive land development into the project vision, and to receive stakeholder input.
 Improved operating cost efficiency
 Improved environmental goals such as air quality Meeting #2: September 8‐9, 2010
Objective: To foster workshops (charrettes) to
What is the Silver Line BRT and why is it STILL address station design concepts and
communicate overall project
being considered? development process.

The Silver Line BRT will offer an innovative, high
Meeting #3: Early November, 2010 (date TBD)
capacity, higher speed, cost‐effective public
Objective: To provide a summary of station design
transportation solution comparable to a light rail
concepts, BRT and street operations,
system, but at a significantly lower cost.
benefits to riders and The Rapid
The Silver Line BRT is still being considered because: operations, and construction costs.
 The current bus route along Division Avenue has the
highest ridership in the Rapid System. How can I find additional information about the
 BRT is the most cost‐effective way of moving riders Silver Line BRT or supply additional comments?
and non‐riders along Division Avenue to downtown
Grand Rapids. You can visit the project’s website at:
 The project continues to receive strong support www.rapidsilverline.org; email the project team at
from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and planning@ridetherapid.org; or call the project hotline at
the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). (616) 774‐1298.
 The recent Transit Master Plan (TMP) outreach
sessions indicate a continuing public support for the
Thank You for your time and for
project.
visiting us today!
Summary of Comments Received
Silver Line BRT
Stakeholder Engagement Meeting #1
Comment Summary
Location*
1. Central Station
- Grandville Avenue near the Central Station is being rebuilt in 2011. The city is to
decide if angle parking will remain or if it will be converted to parallel.
2. Monroe Avenue/Fulton Street
a. Northbound Station: The property owner has a development plan for this
area. The owner needs to be contacted to discuss the details (Greg
Gilmore.)
b. Southbound Station: Adjust the station location to avoid the loading dock.
3. Monroe Avenue/Lyon Street
a. Northbound Station: Possibly relocate the station south of the pedestrian

cross walk.
b. Southbound Station: The proposed station is located within the drop-off lane
of DeVos Place. There is 15-minute parking located here also.
4. Michigan Street
a. Westbound Station: Michigan Street development and entrance for the

medical school. Potentially relocate this station.
- Both stations on Michigan Street: Stations need to serve as transfer stations for routes
11 & 13. What time? Fare instrument? Weather protected?
- Potentially shift route east to service Lafayette/college.
5. Crescent Street
- Crescent Avenue at Bostwick : make Crescent Avenue three lanes at the « T » with
Bostwick ; Dedicated right and left turn lanes heading west on to Bostwick and a
through lane heading east on Crescent. The parking on the south side of Crescent
(across from the proposed westbound station) would have to be removed.
6. Ransom Avenue/Fountain Street
- Heavy left turns from Lyon on to Ransom during AM peak ; probably heading to
G.R.C.C. parking garage on the west side of Ransom between Fountain and Lyon.
Heavy left turns from Ransom in to G.R.C.C. parking garage during AM peak as well.
7. Jefferson Avenue/Wealthy Street
8. Division Avenue/Logan Street
a. Southbound Station: ICCF would prefer the station be located on Lyon Street
across from the northbound station. This would mean a left turn from Lyon on
to southbound Division.
b. Potentially relocate both stations on Lyon further east, closer to Sheldon. This
would mean potential land acquisition and possible reevaluation of the EA.
9. Division Avenue/Franklin Street
- Recommend running Bus Route #1 Division and #2 Kalamazoo more frequently,

clockwise on the route; split routing.
10. Division Avenue/Hall Street
11. Division Avenue/Cottage Grove Street
12. Division Avenue/Burton Street
13. Division Avenue/Alger Street
14. Division Avenue/28th Street
a. Northbound Station: Curb cut to business; possibly relocate station to the

north side of 20th Street on Division Avenue.
b. Southbound Station: A portion of the proposed station location covers the
driveway of the Walgreens.
- East and west transfers at 28th Street need to be properly accommodated.

- Possible park-n-ride lot for transfers to buses that go down 28th Street (Route #28 28th
Street) and/or shoppers.

a. Southbound Station: Station must not detract from businesses.
16. Division Avenue/43rd Street
- Why is there a station at 43rd and not 44th? 44th Street would be good for transfers
and easier for pedestrians to cross Division because 44th and Division is signalized.
- Park & Ride potential in the southeast quadrant of 54th and Division Avenue
intersection.
a. Northbound Station: Property owner thinks station would be better further
north, away from 60th Street.
- Need to define bus turnaround at end of route.

- Potential parking located north of 60th Street, north of creek, on the east side of
Division Avenue.
- Overhead walkway will it remain (Division & Bellevue)
**Other Comments**
- Disabled Considerations
o Braille Signage
o Accessible Signage
o Audio Messages
o Ticket vending must be ADA friendly
o ADA connection/transfers to other routes
- Need parking along route. Possibly lease from local businesses.
- Will pedestrian movements across Division be accommodated?
- Pedestrians crossing Division stops more access to signal crossings.
- Visibility/availability of public parking?
- Use accessible pedestrian traffic call signals with countdowns.
- Travel time concerns: Local bus = 1 hour vs. BRT = 34 minutes?
*Locations proposed in the Environmental Assessment

Exhibits
Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit
August 11‐12, 2010
W l
Welcome
Q: Why are you here?
A: Because we need your input!
• What is a Stakeholder?
o Anyone who has an investment, share, or interest in the project including property owners businesses, institutions,
and the general public served by the proposed BRT route.
• What is Stakeholder Engagement and why is it important?
o The process of engaging interested and affected parties in dialog to improve decision‐making and accountability of
the project development process.
o Stakeholder engagement is very important because it allows the project team to gather information regarding how
new BRT stations will look and how the system will operate.
• What do we expect from Stakeholders during these meetings?
o To provide input on desires, possible complications, areas of concern, ideas about station design, neighborhood
context, and overall thoughts about the project.
What is a BRT?
What are the benefits?
• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a form of public transportation that uses buses
to provide faster, more efficient service than a typical bus line.
• Benefits of BRT include:
 A faster commute – fewer bus stops, quicker loading/unloading,
signal priority
 Increased ridership
 Increased capital cost effectiveness
 Increased employment opportunities
 Enhanced transit supportive land development
 Enhanced community cohesiveness
y
 Enhanced economic development
 Improved operating cost efficiency
 Improved environmental goals such as with air quality
Swift BRT vehicle and station from Everett WA

Swift BRT vehicle and station from Everett, WA
What is the Silver Line BRT?
Why is it STILL being considered?
“Over
Over four fifths (83%) of residents
four fifths (83%) of residents
• Silver Line BRT will offer an innovative, high capacity, higher speed, cost‐effective
thought transportation public transit solution comparable to a light rail system at a significant lower cost.
improvements are very urgent (37%)
or somewhat urgent (46%).” • Silver Line BRT is still being considered because:
o Current bus route along Division Avenue has the highest ridership in the
Community Study
Rapid System.
Jacokes & associates
Jacokes & associates
November, 2008 o A BRT is the most cost‐effective way of moving riders and non‐riders from
Division Avenue to the area with the highest concentration of employment
and activities in downtown Grand Rapids.
o The project continues to receive strong support from the Federal Transit
( ) g p p
Administration (FTA) and the State of Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT).
o Recent Transit Master Plan (TMP) outreach sessions indicate a continuing
public support for the project.
Silver Line BRT project history
and schedule
2003 2007 2009‐ 2010‐ 2011 2012

2010 2011* * *
Alternatives
Analysis
Final Design Federal
Construction
Approval
Select Locally Prepare
Preferred Environmental Public
FONSI
Alternative Assessment Hearing
(
(LPA)) ( )
(EA)
Preliminary
‐Purpose and Need ‐”Finding of No Engineering
Great Transit ‐Alternatives Significant
Grand ‐Impact Assessment Impact”/Approv
Tomorrow ‐Mitigation al
Study
* Subject to FTA approval of The Rapid’s Operating Plan
Stakeholder Engagement:
Next Steps
• A series of meetings have been scheduled to present decisions made at
previous meetings, discuss how decisions have been folded into the project
vision, and to receive stakeholder input:
• Meeting Set #2:
o September 8th and 9th, 2010
o Design Charrettes – workshops to address station design concepts and
communicate overall project development process.
• Meeting Set #3:
o Early November, 2010
y ,
o Provide a summary of station design concepts, BRT and street Stakeholders during a Design Charrette
operations, benefits to riders and The Rapid operations, and
construction costs.
Meeting Register
Meeting Set #2
Summary of Stakeholder Engagement Meeting
(September 30, 2010)
October 4, 2010
1.0 Meeting Details
Date of Meeting: September 30, 2010
Location: Tommy Brann’s Restaurant

4157 S. Division Ave
Grand Rapids
Time: 9:00 am – 11:00 am
Total # of Meeting
Date of Meeting: September 30, 2010

250 Grandville Ave. SW
Grand Rapids
Time: 1:30 am – 3:30 pm
Total # of Meeting
An invitation letter was set to stakeholders on September 1, 2010. The Rapid followed up with
reminder e-mails to stakeholders each week leading up to the meetings. A copy of the invitation
letter is attached.
1.2 Meeting Format

The Stakeholder Engagement Meetings were conducted using a design workshop or charrette
format. A PowerPoint presentation was made to present the current status of the BRT Project,
provide updates since the first Stakeholder Meeting, and gather feedback based on several
example BRT station pictures and elements. Exhibits were provided to explain updates since
the first Stakeholder Meeting, station program elements, and present example BRT stations,
elements, and signage. A copy of the exhibits and presentation are attached.
1
Attendees were encouraged to provide input on the proposed station elements and design.
Comments were noted on large comment boards during the meeting, and a summary of the
comments are shown below.

The shelters should be a visually distinctive design which is simple, functional and easy to
maintain. The shelter design should pick up on the ‘iconic’ look and feel already existing in
Grand Rapids; in the ‘Le Grande Vatesse’ and in the rooflines of DeVos Place and the Rapid
Central Station. Shelters shall provide all required operational components while blending in
with their surroundings yet still provide the branding and tall visual element to distinguish the
shelter as a BRT station

maintain clean stations year around. Discharge roof run-off into the sewer system to avoid ice

Take advantage of opportunities to incorporate ‘green’ design principals into the stations to keep
in concert with the Green Grand Rapids initiative.


Take advantage of any marketing or advertizing opportunities with which funds could be used
for station upkeep.

‘Complete Streets” movement, are envisioned in the future. All forms of at-the-station bike
provisions should be available at appropriate station locations frequented by bicyclist. The plan
to allow riders to bring their bike on the transit vehicle was well received.
A comprehensive, bulleted list of all comments received is attached.

The Meeting Registers from the Stakeholder Engagement Meetings held September 30, 2010
are attached.
2
September 1, 2010
Re: Invitation to attend Stakeholder Meeting 2 for the

The Rapid, in cooperation with the cities of Grand Rapids, Kentwood, and Wyoming and the
Federal Transit Administration, is continuing the process of conducting preliminary engineering,
architecture, and coordination for the proposed Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in
downtown Grand Rapids and along south Division Avenue to 60th Street.
The Rapid is moving forward with this early design phase of the BRT in response to the
community outreach feedback received during the recent Transit Master Plan (TMP)
development. It was clear to us that the affected community wants to pursue the continued
evaluation of a BRT along Division Avenue. Additionally, we continue to receive the support of
the Federal Transit Administration for this phase of the proposed project.
You or your organization has been identified as a potential stakeholder in the BRT and,
accordingly, you are being invited to attend the project’s Meeting Set 2 – Design Charrette.
This meeting is intended to bring community members, professional architects and planners,
and decision-makers together to develop bus station concepts for the proposed Silver Line BRT
route.
The objective of this meeting is to present the BRT project goals, the Bus Station Design
Program, and existing information collected along with the advantages and disadvantages of
each station example. Stakeholders will be asked to identify and provide their likes and dislikes
of the station examples, identify opportunities for incorporating those preferences into the
project, and illustrate their preferences into a station vision. Based on input from the charette
participants, the station designers will then submit design options to The Rapid for their review,
consideration, and implementation as appropriate.
For those who attended the initial Meeting Set 1, held on August 11th and 12th, 2010 a one-page
project handout was provided that listed the charrettes as being held 8th and 9th, 2010 at The
Rapid’s Central Station and Tommy Brann’s restaurant. Due to adjustment in the project
development process, the dates of the charrettes have been changed to September 30th. There
will be two opportunities to attend, and stakeholders are invited to attend whichever time best
fits their schedule. The date, times, and locations of each meeting are listed below, and a
tentative meeting agenda is enclosed.
September 30, 2010 - 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM – Tommy Brann’s (4157 S. Division Ave.,
Wyoming). The focus for this workshop will be the Division Avenue corridor south of the
downtown Grand Rapids business district.
September 30, 2010 - 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM – The Rapid Central Station. The focus for this
workshop will be the downtown Grand Rapids business district.
If you are unable to attend either of the meetings, you may still submit your comments and
concerns to the Project Team at planning@ridetherapid.org or call the project hotline at
616.774.1298.
The proposed Silver Line BRT Project will provide enhanced transit access to downtown Grand
Rapids by providing reliable, frequent and speedy transit service along an approximately 10 mile
route that connects The Rapid’s Central Station in downtown Grand Rapids to 60th Street along
the Division Avenue corridor. The project will feature specialized stations with curbside level
boarding platforms, dedicated bus lanes for part of the route, and traffic signal priority for its
transit vehicles. While it will be important to maintain consistent “branding” among BRT stations,
the Rapid is looking for opportunities to include architectural features reflecting the
neighborhoods in which they reside.
We appreciate your involvement and look forward to meeting with you to discuss this very
important project.
Sincerely,
Taiwo Jaiyeoba
The Rapid Director of Planning
Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project
Stakeholder Meeting 2 – Draft Agenda
Date: September 30, 2010
Time/Location: 9:00 - 11:00 am at Tommy Branns

1:30 - 3:30 pm at Rapid Central Station
1) Purpose and Objectives
2) Team Organization
3) Share with the Stakeholders

a. Definitions
b. The Project
c. BRT and Traffic Simulation Animation
d. The Station Program
e. Examples of Existing BRT Stations
4) Work as a Team to Identify Station Elements

a. Station Boundaries
b. Functional
c. Economical
d. Enhance the Neighborhood
e. Recommendations
Presentation
Silver Line BRT
Station Design Workshop
Interurban Transit Partnership – The Rapid
Agenda
Purpose and Objectives
Organization
Share with the Stakeholders
Definitions
The Project
Results of 1st Stakeholder Meeting
Update Since 1st Stakeholder Meeting
BRT and Traffic Simulation Animation
The Station Program
Station Design Framework
Neighborhood Character
Examples of Existing BRT Stations
Work as a Team to Identify Station Elements
Station Boundaries
Functional
Economical
Enhance the Neighborhood
Recommendations
Purpose and Objectives
The Purpose of this Design Workshop:
Project Overview,
Design Program for the Silver Line BRT Stations and Platforms, and
Examples of Existing BRT Stations so that stakeholders, the Rapid, and
designers can work as a team to identify station elements they prefer to include
in the Silver Line that will be functional, economical, and enhance the
neighborhoods
Las Vegas, NV – “Max”

What are the Benefits of BRT?
9 A faster commute – fewer stops, quicker
loading/unloading, signal priority
9 Increased ridership
9 Increased capital cost effectiveness
9 [Add jobs] Increased employment opportunities
9 Enhanced transit supportive land development
9 Enhanced community cohesiveness
9 Enhanced economic development
9 Improved operating cost efficiency
9 Improved environmental goals such as with air quality
Team Organization
The Rapid
Peter Varga
Taiwo Jaiyeoba
Wilbur Smith
Associates
Stakeholders
Ralph Trepal
Todd Davis
Isaac V. Norris
URS
Assoc
Theresa Petko
Isaac Norris
Mark Wrona
Roles and Responsibilities
The Rapid – Owner and Operator of the Transit System in general
and the Silver Line in particular
Stakeholders – The Community and Advisors
Wilbur Smith Associates – Prime Consultant for the Silver Line
Isaac V Norris Associates – Architect for the Stations
URS – Urban Designer for the Stations
San Joaquin, CA – “Metro Express”

Definitions
The Project – The Silver Line which is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
that extends about 10 miles from Central Station via downtown
Grand Rapids to 60th and Division
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Think light rail (not trains) but use
buses
Design Program – Technical requirements for what is in a station
that includes a shelter and a platform
Station Elements – Components of the shelter, platform, and
aesthetics
Functional – Make the station attractive, safe, convenient,
efficient, and comfortable
Economical – Sustainable using quality materials to perform its
function, low maintenance, and not extravagant
The Project
The Silver Line
More service
10 min. peak period
15 min. off-peak
Faster service – 60th St. to
Spectrum
One seat ride
Morning Northbound ~ 28
min.
Afternoon Southbound ~ 26
min.
Existing Conditions
30 min. headways
Travel time 60th St. to Spectrum
via Central Station:
Two seat ride
Morning Northbound ~
50-55 min.
Afternoon Southbound ~
75-80 min.
Results of Stakeholder Meeting #1
Held August 11-12, 2010 at Tommy Brann’s and The Rapid Central
Station
Approximately 24 stakeholders attended
Major comments received:
Why are proposed stations located where they are and how were they
determined (e.g. 43rd St. station)?
How will future development near proposed stations affect BRT system (e.g.
The BOB)?
Will proposed BRT stations accommodate existing bus routes and/or stations
(i.e. transfers)?
Will 60th St. station accommodate a bus turn-around and/or park-n-ride?
Will proposed BRT stations accommodate disabled persons?
Will pedestrian movements along Division Ave. be accommodated?
Updates Since
Stakeholder
Meeting #1
BRT Station Relocations
Crescent St.
Fountain St.
43rd St.
BRT Station Adjustments

Fulton St.
Lyon St.
Logan St.
Franklin St.
Cottage Grove St.
Burton St.
60th St.
BRT and Traffic Simulation Animation:
……..at Division and Franklin

Station Design Framework
Open Shelter design
10- or 14-inch high platforms
(precision docking)
60-foot platform lengths
(optimal)
14-foot platform width (optimal)
Canopy Swift BRT Station (Everett, WA)
Right-of-way limitations
Adjacent land uses
Sustainable
Economical
Specific station design will be
based upon station location
(downtown vs. Division Corridor)
HealthLine BRT Station (Euclid, OH)
Curatiba, Brazil – “Rit” Pittsburgh, PA – “South Busway”
Los Angeles, CA – “Orange Line” Pittsburgh, PA – “West Busway”
Everett, WA – “Swift” Kansas City, MO – “Max”
Las Vegas, NV – “Max” Phoenix, AZ – “Rapid”
Examples of Comparable Light Rail Stations
Houston, TX – “METRORail” Minneapolis, MN – “Hiawatha Line”
Branding / Vertical Element
Kansas City, MO – “Max” Everett, WA - “Swift”

Transit Shelter Equipment
Fare Collection Station Next Bus Message
Bike Storage Examples
Local Signage
Landscape/Streetscape
Integrated Art
Architecture / Design
More Example Stations
Northbound
Monroe
at Louis
Northbound
Monroe
at Louis
Northbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
Southbound
Monroe
at Louis
36th Street
Southbound
36th Street
Southbound
36th Street
Southbound
36th Street
Southbound
36th Street
Southbound
36th Street
Southbound
36th Street
Southbound
36th Street
Southbound
What is important to you?
Consider each Station Element of about 3 example stations and
evaluate how their Station Elements support, do not impact, or
detract from desirable station features
After considering the preference of the various station elements
explore how might it fit into or be modified to a station design for
this project
Los Angeles, CA – “Orange Line” Pittsburgh, PA – “West Busway”
Las Vegas, NV – “Max” Phoenix, AZ – “Rapid”
Example Stations
Examples of Comparable Light Rail Stations
Houston, TX – “METRORail” Minneapolis, MN – “Hiawatha Line”
Next Steps
Silver Line BRT – The RAPID
Stakeholder Engagement Meeting 2
September 30, 2010

The shelters should be a visually distinctive design which is simple, functional and easy to
maintain. The shelter design should pick up on the ‘iconic’ look and feel already existing in
Grand Rapids; in the ‘Le Grande Vatesse’ and in the rooflines of DeVos Place and the Rapid
Central Station. Shelters shall provide all required operational components while blending in
with their surroundings yet still provide the branding and tall visual element to distinguish the
shelter as a BRT station

maintain clean stations year around. Discharge roof run-off into the sewer system to avoid ice

Take advantage of opportunities to incorporate ‘green’ design principals into the stations to keep
in concert with the Green Grand Rapids initiative.


Take advantage of any marketing or advertizing opportunities with which funds could be used
for station upkeep.

‘Complete Streets” movement, are envisioned in the future. All forms of at-the-station bike
provisions should be available at appropriate station locations frequented by bicyclist. The plan
to allow riders to bring their bike on the transit vehicle was well received.
Exhibits
Updates Since
Stakeholder
Meeting #1
BRT Station Removals
and Relocations
Crescent St.
Fountain St.
43rd St.
BRT Station Adjustments

Fulton St.
Lyon St.
Logan St.
Franklin St.
Cottage Grove St.
Burton St.
60th St.
The Station Program
Shelter Building Platform
High visibility and “Branding” Lighting
Lighting Level or Nearly-level Boarding
Roof and Wind Break Way-finding Signage including visually
Fare Collection Machine impaired
Emergency Telephone Route Map and Information Kiosk
Next “Bus” message Trash Receptacle
Benches Benches
Closed Circuit TV Integrated Art
Integrated Art Bike Racks
Security Plantings
Local Signage
Swift BRT vehicle and station from Everett, WA
Example Roadside marker
(lights up at night)
Station Name
Windscreens Leaning rail (on both windscreens)
Next bus arrival sign
of
Station
Elements
Information kiosk
(one on front, one on rear)
Seating
Rail at back of station
(at some stations only)
ORCA smart card readers Ticket vending machines
(one on each end of shelter) (two, side by side)
Meeting Register
Meeting Set #3
Summary of Design Concept Meetings
(October 20, 26, 27, 2010)
Meetings with the Cities of Wyoming, Kentwood
and Grand Rapids
(November 4, 5, 2010)
November 8, 2010
DESIGN CONCEPT MEETINGS
1.0 Meeting Set 3
During the development of the station design concepts, the consultant team held a series of
meetings with ITP staff and city staff from Grand Rapids, Wyoming, and Kentwood. The
purpose for the meetings was to guide the station concept development process and obtain
valuable input in order for the team to create the proposed concepts as accurately as possible.
This iterative process allowed the team to get to a preferred concept much quicker and
efficiently and provided the opportunity for the city stakeholders to provide input very early in the
process. The series of meetings held with ITP and city officials are listed below. The meeting
minutes and the meeting registers are attached. The concepts developed during this process
are also attached.
1.1 Meeting Dates and Locations
Date of Meeting: October 20, 2010

Location: Interurban Transit Partnership – The Rapid Office
Time: 8:45 a.m.
Attendees: ITP Staff
**********************************************
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Attendees: ITP Staff
**********************************************
Time: 12:00 p.m.
Attendees: ITP Staff and City Stakeholders
**********************************************
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Attendees: ITP Board Members and members of public
**********************************************
Date of Meeting: November 4, 2010
Location: City of Wyoming Engineering Dept.
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Attendees: Wyoming and Kentwood City Staff
**********************************************
Date of Meeting: November 5, 2010
Location: City of Grand Rapids Traffic and Safety
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Attendees: Grand Rapids City Staff
1
Meeting Minutes
ITP - The Rapid Silver Line BRT
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
FROM: Wilbur Smith Associates
DATE: October 20, 2010
SUBJECT: Station Design Concept “E” Meeting Minutes
PROJECT: Silver Line BRT Project
Date/Time: October 20, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.

300 Ellsworth Avenue SW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Attendees:
7 Members of the Rapid staff (Peter, Conrad, Alan, Brian, Nick, Jennifer, Robin), Gary Scheuren, Todd
Davis, WSA, and Isaac Norris, IVNA
The following represents our understanding of the key points of discussion at the meeting with The Rapid
and other members of Project Team. Isaac presented revised station design Concept “E” in order to
obtain comments from the Rapid staff in advance of the upcoming board meeting. In general, the concept
was well received and the Rapid staff likes the overall concept. The following comments were made with
regard to the concept.
Comments:
1) Will the concept fit within the right-of-way and will the leaning pillars have any effect on
right-of-way? The back edge of the pillar will have to be moved forward to keep the leaning
pillar out of adjacent properties.
2) How much space is needed for pedestrians to pass by the station? In the downtown area the
clearance requirement is 6 feet.
3) A little concern over the metal supports for the benches as the Rapid would like to see
something solid under the benches to prevent cold air from blowing around the feet of riders.
4) Make sure Silver Line logo on vertical pillar remains above roof line of station.
5) There was some discussion about the need for the shelter roof to extend over the bus at the
stop. The Team will modify this concept to show a roof at the appropriate height and
extension to illustrate the issue. Is not a big concern though.
6) The station needs to have “The Rapid” logo someplace on the shelter. It was suggested that it
be etched on the glass ends of the shelter.
8164 Executive Court, Suite A – Lansing, Michigan 48917 517.622.2500 Fax: 517.622.2525
7) The name of the station of needs to be added to the concept. For now, place it on the back
beam facing the street.
8) ITP will provide Isaac with the actual colors for the Silver Line so he can use them in the
concepts.
9) A concern was raised about making sure there was adequate space for riders to move around
in front of the benches as riders get onto the transit vehicle.
10) Some discussion occurred regarding the location of the cameras within the shelter. Could be
placed near the Next Bus sign, or in the brow of the shelter.
11) If the fare machine is located at one end of the shelter, is there a preference to which end it
should be located from a rider’s point of view?
12) Where are the opportunities to incorporate neighborhood context or local art?
13) Would like to see option with a clear glass roof instead of the green color.
14) Need to add in some curves to the design somewhere to link to the overall theme of the
“Rapid”. The roof line was discussed as a potential location.
15) Can heat bars be provided in the shelter for use during the winter?
16) No paint should appear on the pillars below approximately 5-6 feet due to wear and tear
(scratching). Make the pillars stainless steel up to at least this point.
17) Some discussion about using concrete for the pillars up to this point as well.
18) Need to incorporate bike racks on the platform.
19) Remove bench near fare machine. Only two benches should be needed.
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
SUBJECT: Station Design Concept “E” Refinement Meeting Minutes
Date/Time: October 26, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.

Attendees:
6 Members of the Rapid staff (Peter, Conrad, Brian, Nick, Jennifer, Robin), Gary Scheuren, Ralph Trepal,
WSA, Todd Davis, WSA, and Isaac Norris, IVNA
and other members of Project Team. Isaac presented the revised station design Concept “E” in order to
obtain comments from the Rapid staff for final refinements needed for the next day’s board meeting. The
following comments were made with regard to the concept. It was agreed that the Team would make the
final modifications to Concept “E” and rename it Concept “F” for presentation to the board.
Comments:
1) Rename example from Michigan Avenue – “Station Name”

2) Do not want step up to platform from sidewalk, make same height.
3) Peter sees three types of stations: prototypical (no space limitations), mid-size due to minor
space limitations, and smaller station due to limited space or location.
4) Recommend showing smaller station first, then larger.
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
SUBJECT: Presentation of Station Design Concepts to the BRT Stakeholders and ITP Staff
Date/Time: October 27, 2010 at 12:00p.m.

Attendees:
5 Members of the Rapid staff (Peter, Conrad, Brian, Meegan, Taiwo)

Gary Scheuren
Ralph Trepal, WSA
Todd Davis, WSA
Isaac Norris, IVNA
Mark Wrona, URS
6 Stakeholders (Chris Zull, Terry Schweitzer, Tim Cochren, Eric Pratt, Jay Fowler, Suzanne Schulz)
and other members of Project Team.
Comments:
1) At 36th Street there is concern over the station blocking the vision of drivers pulling out of the
parking lot and onto Division.
2) Both Jay and Eric like the vertical element which has been integrated into the structure.
3) Suzanne would like to see the design details for the stations once they are prepared.
4) Chris asked about ADA regulations for ramps (i.e. are hand rails needed?)
5) Are truncated domes/precast cast iron a City standard?
6) Suzanne asked about lighting – 10 foot candles is standard – will they be flush mounted?
7) Tim asked about advertising opportunities
a. Suzanne will have to help with this due to local codes
b. Need to consider new technologies – LEDs, etc.
c. Naming rights are also an option
8) The “Next Bus” sign will have “Next 3 BRT Bus Arrivals” – what about cross-town routes?
9) Chris asked if The Team considered wireless? Ymax?
10) Suzanne discussed how meter boxes are graffiti magnets.
11) Meegan asked how snow removal will be handled.
12) Jay asked if there could be a canopy over the bus.
a. Chris stated it would have to be a 17’ high canopy minimum.
b. The higher the roof, the lower the weather protection it provides.
c. The roof needs to be 18” from the curb edge.
13) Suzanne wants her design team to go out to each station location to help site the shelters on
the platforms.
14) Tim asked about a snowmelt system (currently not in the budget.)
15) Tim asked about maintenance processes at each station and what ITP services will need to be
expanded.
16) Chris asked about management of the station information, communications, cameras, etc.
Will this be active?
17) Terry asked about the canopies having a wave feature
a. Roof glass
b. Seating (benches and glass)
c. Pavement
18) Underground utilities at each station location are a concern.
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
SUBJECT: Presentation of Station Design Concepts to the BRT Board
Date/Time: October 27, 2010 at 4:00p.m.

Attendees:
Ralph Trepal, WSA

Todd Davis, WSA
Isaac Norris, IVNA
ITP Board Members
Members of the Public
The following represents our understanding of the key comments made by the board regarding the station
concepts.
Station Concept Comments:
1) Roof-to-floor glass at the benches may be desired for weather protection.

2) Will the shelters be heated? Will the shelters have a snow melt system?
a. Snow is a safety issue for the handicapped.
3) Can the roof mimic Central Station?
4) Can other colors be used instead of green on the pillar?
5) What is the cost of this system?
6) Everything looks very artistic and it is liked.
7) The concept is clever.
Peter Varga, ITP CEO, asked the ITP board to approve the general concept of the stations. The ITP board
approved.
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
DATE: November 4, 2010
SUBJECT: BRT Meeting with City of Wyoming and City of Kentwood
Date/Time: November 4, 2010 at 2:30p.m.
Location: Wyoming Engineering Dept.

2660 Burlingame Avenue Southwest, Wyoming
Attendees:
Todd Davis, WSA

Isaac Norris, IVNA
Taiwo Jaiyeoba, The Rapid
Russ Henckell, City of Wyoming
Cayles Caceres, City of Wyoming
Tim Cochrau, City of Wyoming
Stephen Kepley, City of Kentwod
Terry Schweitzer, City of Kentwood
Patrick Hughes, City of Kentwood
The following represents our understanding of the key points of the meeting with both the City of
Wyoming and Kentwood.
Key comments and questions:
• Russ asked how many seconds will the green phase extend with the signal priority?
Concerned this may mess up other signal timing. Answer: this will not mess up overall
timing at signals as the signal will adjust the phase times to stay on the same overall timing
for that signal.
• The current Wyoming Opticom system is not maintained.
• Depth of platform question – 42” depth requirement for concrete platform.
• Snow plow equipment will need to be able to get under the canopy on the sidewalk – 10’
clearance needed
• Shelter roof edge needs to be 18” from back of curb (24” from face of curb).
• Utility relocation under the platform – who will be paying for that relocation? Utilities
should not be located under structures.
• Five feet of sidewalk clearance is required.
• How will platform drainage be handled?
• Can both cities provide the team with utility plan information? Carlos and Patrick are contact
persons. WSA will send them letters requesting information.
• Property line setback for canopy roof will be case by case if a building is adjacent; otherwise
okay to go to property line.
• Discussed curb drainage – integrated curb w/grate as potential solution.
• Question regarding shelter roof drainage – ice build-up, leaves, etc. Gravity may not be
enough.
• Will need to coordinate the construction schedule on Division with other projects scheduled
for the corridor.
• Who is responsible for station maintenance? A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is
being worked out between ITP and cities (Grand Rapids, Wyoming, Kentwood) to figure out
these issues.
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
SUBJECT: BRT Meeting with City of Grand Rapids
Date/Time: November 5, 2010 at 9:30a.m.
Location: City of Grand Rapids, Traffic and Safety
Attendees:
Todd Davis, WSA

Matt Wendling, WSA
Isaac Norris, IVNA
Mark Wrona, URS
Eric Pratt, DDA
Chris Zull, City of GR
Rick DeVries, City of GR
Tom Drake, City of GR
The following represents our understanding the key points of the meeting with the City of Grand Rapids.
Key comments and questions:
• Current recommendation is to use Opticom

o Now is the time to go to GPS if needed
o Need to talk with the fire department to determine the correct direction and possible
funding and future plans (the fire department will begin by pursuing grants.)
o Preference is for one system
• Will bikes be allowed on the buses? Yes
• What is the approximate bus dwell time at a bus station? ~ 10 seconds.
• Water, sewer, gas, electric lines all under the sidewalk, thus under the station – what happens
if something breaks?
• Send utility requests to Rick.
• How will the station affect/integrate with the current street lights?
o Moving lights has been an issue in the past due to standards.
o South of 28th Street will be managed by Consumers Energy
• Will there be park-and-ride locations along corridor?
• The canopy needs to be 18” from back of curb (24” from face of curb)
• There is a possibility that a station could run into the location of a street light. Can the station
be modified to incorporate it? Moving a street light has been a challenge in the past.
However, the city is pretty inflexible on moving them. The city is only responsible for
Wealthy to 28th Street. BRT needs to work with independent cities.
• How close can the canopy be to the building face? Some of the buildings might have
canopies, lighting, etc. that could be affected by the bus station.
• How will the stations be powered? Stations will be powered by existing electrical services.
The stations will need fiber optic for communication.
• A cost analysis will need to be performed for an electric snow melt system. If there isn’t a
snow melt system for the stations, snow could be an issue and problem for riders.
• Dedicated lane issue: The city has a strong concern with regulation compliance. Minimizing
operating hours could be a solution. The city is currently looking into it. Eastbound
Michigan is fine, westbound Michigan should be shared.
• Burton Street NB should be dedicated, not shared as currently shown.
• 28th Street NB should be dedicated although there is a concern that the most congestion
occurs there. WSA followed what was in the EA.
• LOS D by movement NOT by intersection.
Meeting Register
Design Concepts
Meeting Set #4
Summary of Stakeholder Engagement Meeting
(December 7, 2010)
December 8, 2010
1.0 Meeting Details
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2010

250 Grandville Ave. SW
Grand Rapids
Time: 10:00 am – Noon
Total # of Meeting
An invitation letter was set to stakeholders on November 22, 2010. The Rapid followed up with
reminder e-mails to stakeholders each week leading up to the meetings. A copy of the invitation
letter is attached.
1.2 Meeting Format

The Stakeholder Engagement Meeting was conducted using a presentation style format. A
PowerPoint presentation was made to present the current status of the BRT project, provide
updates since the last Stakeholder Meeting, to review previously make public stakeholder
comments, present the preferred station design concept, and answer questions regarding the
project and proposed design. A copy of the presentation is attached. The meeting minutes are
also attached.

Stakeholders were encouraged to ask questions or leave written comment. A summary of the
discussion resulting from the questions asked and the written comments is attached.

The Meeting Register from the Stakeholder Engagement Meeting held December 7, 2010 is
attached.
1
Presentation
Silver Line BRT Project
Interurban Transit Partnership – The Rapid
Agenda
Introductions
What we’ve done since we last met
The Visioning and Preliminary Design
Process
Station Concept Development - What we
heard from you
Station Concepts
Next Steps
What we’ve done since we last met
Station Concept Development
Iterative
Process with The Rapid
Incorporated comments from stakeholder
meetings
Coordinated with municipalities (Grand Rapids,
Wyoming, and Kentwood)
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Concept Evaluation
ITP Board Meeting

The Visioning and Preliminary
Design Process
Stakeholder meetings
Design Program for Station and Roadway
Traffic Simulation
Bus Operations Report
Survey of Station Locations
Prototypical Pavement Marking Plans
Communication Features and Interfaces Report
Detailed Cost Estimate
Station Platform and Pad Preliminary Design
Station Concept Development –
What we heard from you
Comments on 8 areas of station design:
General shelter structure appearance
Weather protection and maintenance
Sustainability practices and energy efficiency
Integration of station with neighborhood/Art
Visual, audio and surface accommodations
Advertisement & naming rights for stations
Bicycle accommodation/ADA compliance
Station supporting elements

Let’s Revisit the Station Design
Framework
Open Shelter design
10- or 14-inch high platforms
(precision docking)
60-foot platform lengths
(optimal)
14-foot platform width (optimal) Swift BRT Station (Everett, WA)
Canopy
Right-of-way limitations
Adjacent land uses
Sustainable
Economical
Specific station design will be
based upon station location HealthLine BRT Station (Euclid, OH)
(downtown vs. Division Corridor)

Preferred Design Conceptually
Approved by the ITP Board
Station Design Option A
Station Design Option B
Station Design Option C
Option C
Station Design Option D
Option D
Station Design Option E
Station Design Option F
Logan Street Station Southbound
Station Design Option F – Front
Elevation
Station Design Option F – Side
Elevation
Station Design Option F – Top
View
Station Design Option F -
Perspective
Sample Stations – Plan Views
Louis Street Station Northbound
Next Steps:
Board informational presentation December 8, 2010
Board consideration of conceptual A & E in January
2011
Questions?
Meeting Minutes
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
DATE: December 7, 2010
SUBJECT: Stakeholder Meeting #4 Minutes
Date/Time: December 7, 2010, 10:00 am - Noon
Attendees: See attached sign-in sheet
The following represents key comments and discussion from the meeting:
• Will fare machine and bike racks be at consistent locations at each station? Would like
consistency for ease of use. This has not been determined yet.
• Station looks more aesthetic when shorter. Worried about shelter being a barrier for adjacent
businesses.
• Likes idea that back of station is clear and sidewalk is open at rear.
• Have we considered a step at mid-point to allow access to the station? A: Can still be
considered.
• What happens to platform if station is reduced in size, can we keep raised platform (14”) to all
three doors of bus? A: Yes, optimal to allow access to all three doors even if station is
shorter.
• What consideration has been given to landscaping? A: Not much to date, but will engage
public more in design phase.
• Where is voice audio coming from at station and bus? A: Sound is at station and front door of
bus currently. Other door sound can be discussed.
• What intentions does Team/ITP have to work with local businesses to account for future
development? A: Some discussions have already occurred and more meetings will be held
during the subsequent design phase.
• Recommends reaching out to all businesses on upcoming development which may have an
effect on station locations.
• Please explain weather proofing systems for stations.

1) Canopy to catch water and drain down station column.
2) Windscreens for protection on either side depending on wind direction.
3) Snow – still discussing potential for snow melt system.
• 43rd Street station didn’t have crossing signal/light, how has team addressed this? A: Still
unresolved – this is documented and will be addressed in next phase.
• Looking at glass on either end of station:

1) Potential issue with sun glare – may be hard to see glass
2) Issue of cane under glass with user walking into glass
A: These issues will be looked at in final design – may need to add color to glass
• Have we considered rain barrels? A: It has been considered, but not resolved at this time.
• Recommend working with the downtown alliance for maintenance responsibilities – may use
water for other things.
• Is solar power being considered? A: It has been considered, but not resolved at this time.
• Monroe and Lewis – look at pedestrian crossing at this location.
Two written comments were received at the meeting:
Comment 1 - What is the anticipated pedestrian capacity on the platform? And if a bus pulls up
and I’m in line to get the ticket, does the bus wait or do I have to wait for the next bus? A: Bus
will wait.
Comment 2 - The site planning for our Wealthy Jefferson Development initiative is on a fast track
right now. The first construction is likely going to commence in June. We would like very much
to incorporate in our site planning the presence of the BRT stations. It would be very good for our
planner to get together with you ASAP.
A visually impaired discussion was held after the meeting between the consultant team and The Rapid.
The following represents the key points of the discussion:
• Very important to locate fare machines in consistent locations for easy access
• A concrete curb around glass screen would help guide visually impaired around
• Need a push button to activate next bus audio
• Keep landscaping heath low to avoid blocking station
Meeting Register
Contact List - Compiled from Stakeholder Lists and Meeting Attendees
Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project
Contact Information for Team Members
Last Name First Name Organization Telephone Email Project Role Mailing Address Room (if applicable) City State Zip Fax
Design Team
Albaugh Lawrence Williams & Works (616) 224-1500 albaugh@williams-works.com 549 Ottawa Ave NE Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 224-1502
Connor Marlene Wilbur Smith Associates (413) 539-9005 mconnor@wilbursmith.com Transit Ops and Coordination 900 Chapel St Suite 1400 New Haven CT 06510 (203) 624-0484
Davis Todd Wilbur Smith Associates (517) 622-2503 TDAVIS@wilbursmith.com Project Director/Public Involvement 8164 Executive Dr Suite A Lansing MI 48917 (517) 622-2525
Dega Vinod Wilbur Smith Associates (614) 888-9440 VDEGA@wilbursmith.com Traffic/Traffic Control 1105 Schrock Rd Suite 200 Columbus OH 43229 (614) 888-6021
Goodreau Steve Wilbur Smith Associates (216) 875-2000 SGOODREAU@wilbursmith.com QA/QC 55 Public Square Suite 600 Cleveland OH 44113 (216) 875-2001
Holeman Eric Wilbur Smith Associates (773) 251-5001 eholeman@wilbursmith.com 801 Warrenville Rd Suite 260 Lisle IL 60532 (630) 434-8163
Hunter Matt Wilbur Smith Associates (517) 622-2508 mhunter@wilbursmith.com 8164 Executive Dr Suite A Lansing MI 48917 (510) 622-2525
Kelsch Sean URS Corporation (616) 574-8500 sean_kelsch@urscorp.com Site/Civil/Urban Design 3950 Sparks Dr SE Grand Rapids MI 49546 (616) 574-8542
Koenig Jim Wilbur Smith Associates (616) 622-2510 jkoenig@wilbursmith.com 8164 Executive Dr Suite A Lansing MI 48917 (517) 622-2525
Lee Truda Wilbur Smith Associates (804) 377-2300 TLEE@wilbursmith.com Scheduler 2112 West Laburnum Ave Suite 100 Richmond VA 23227 (804) 377-2301
Micheaux Theresa Wilbur Smith Associates (517) 622-2500 tmicheaux@wilbursmith.com 8164 Executive Dr Suite A Lansing MI 48917 (517) 622-2525
Norris Isaac Isaac V Norris & Associates (616) 452-3535 isaac.ivna@sbcglobal.net Station Design 1209 Kalamazoo SE Grand Rapids MI 49507 (616) 452-9913
Payseure Barney Clifton, Weiss & Associates (412) 8353957 bpayseure@cliftonweiss.com 524 Plymouth Rd Box 639 Gwynedd PA 19437 (215) 628-3165
Petko Theresa URS Corporation (616) 574-8500 Theresa_Petko@URSCorp.com Public/Stakeholder Involvement 3950 Sparks Dr SE Grand Rapids MI 49546 (616) 574-8542
Siniscalchi Debbie Wilbur Smith Associates (216) 875-2000 dsiniscalchi@wilbursmith.com 55 Public Square Suite 600 Cleveland OH 44113 (216) 875-2007
Talim Sushas Clifton, Weiss & Associates (215) 628-2640 x 25 stalim@cliftonweiss.com 524 Plymouth Rd Box 639 Gwynedd PA 19437 (215) 628-3165
Trepal Ralph Wilbur Smith Associates (216) 875-2000 RTREPAL@wilbursmith.com Project Manager 55 Public Square Suite 600 Cleveland OH 44113 (216) 875-2001
Vogelsang Phillip URS Corporation (616) 574-8500 Urban Design 3950 Sparks Dr SE Grand Rapids MI 49546 (616) 574-8542
Wendling Matt Wilbur Smith Associates (517) 622-2519 mwendling@wilbursmith.com Deputy Project Manager/Const Costs 8164 Executive Dr Suite A Lansing MI 48917 (517) 622-2525
Wrona Mark URS Corporation (616) 574-8500 Mark_E_Wrona@URSCorp.com Urban Design 3950 Sparks Dr SE Grand Rapids MI 49546 (616) 574-8542
Client
DeVries Judy ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514 jdevries@ridetherapid.org 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
Fedorowicz Mark ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514 mfedorowicz@ridetherapid.org Purchasing Manager 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
Jaiyeoba Taiwo ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514 tjaiyeoba@ridetherapid.org Project Manager 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
Kalczuk Jennifer ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514
456-7514 jkalczuk@ridetherapid.org External Relations Director 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
456-1941
Pouget Brian ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514 BPouget@ridetherapid.org Director of Operations 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
Scheuren Gary ITP - The Rapid (517) 582-5192 gary.scheuren@gmail.com Project Controls Consultant 830 N. Harrison Ave East Lansing MI 49504 (517) 332-3390
Schripper Steve ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514 Sschipper@ridetherapid.org Fleet and Facilities Manager 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
Varga Peter ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514 Pvarga@ridetherapid.org CEO 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
Venema Conrad ITP - The Rapid (616) 456-7514 Cvenema@ridetherapid.org Planning Manager 300 Ellsworth Ave. SW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-1941
Stakeholders
Bachmeier Jim GVSU (616) 331-2188 bachmeij@gvsu.edu 1 Campus Drive Allendale MI 49401
Barton Chad (616) 285-6933 cbarton@rockfordconstruction.com 5540 Glenwood Hills Pkwy SE Grand Rapids MI 49512
Bessette Anne Marie Grand Rapids DDA (616) 456-3034 300 Monroe Ave NW Grand Rapids MI 49503
Bower Rae (616) 608-4718 raebower@gmail.com 475 Bruton Forest Ct SE Grand Rapids MI 49546
Bradford Jonathan ICCF (616) 336-9333 jbradford@iccf.org CEO 920 Cherry St SE Grand Rapids MI 49506 (616) 336-9323
Brann Tommy Brann's Restaurant (616) 690-7928 tombrann@branns.com
Bulkowski Dave DAKC (616) 949-1100 dave.b@dakc.org 3600 Camelot SE Grand Rapids MI 49546
Bulkowski Dick Steepletown Center (616) 451-4215 dick@steepletowncener.org 671 Davis Ave NW Grand Rapids MI 49504
Caceres Cayles City of Wyoming caceresc@wyomingmi.gov
Carey Keith kcarey@comcast.net
Champion Mark GRCC (231) 499-6042 mchampio@grcc.edu 143 Bostwick Ave NE Grand Rapids MI 49503
Cockran Tim City of Wyoming cockrant@wyomingmi.gov
D'Angelo Sam (616) 291-1365 samdangelo@hotmail.com 5301 S Division Ave Grand Rapids MI 49548
DeGood Jerry (616) 752-8691 jerrydegood@yahoo.com 2939 Division Wyoming MI 49548
Dressander Ron City of Wyoming (616) 249-3470 dressanr@wyomingmi.gov City Engineer 2660 Burlingame SW Wyoming MI 49509 (616) 249-3487
Duggan Joshua (616) 808-6585 joshuajduggan@gmail.com 619 Hawthorne St NE Grand Rapids MI 49503
Dutmer Casey (616) 534-0581 casey354@comcast.net 5930 Bayberry Farms Dr SW Grandville MI 49418
Earl Jan Heritage Hill Association (616) 459-8950 heritage@heritagehillweb.org 126 College SE Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 459-2409
Fluhartz Bill (616) 820-9425 bfluhartz@charter.net 2653 N 168th Ave Holland MI 49424
Fowler Jay Grand Rapids DDA (616) 456-3034 Executive Director 300 Monroe Ave NW Grand Rapids MI 49503
Graham Jennifer (616) 340-3310 jen.graham@sbcglobal.net 2298 Hidden Knoll Ave SE Caledonia MI 49316
Griffin Brandon (616) 485-0336 BTG@brandontgriffin.com 5021 Ciser Ave SW Wyoming MI 49548
Hartger Richard Cycle-Safe, Inc. (616) 954-9977 rhartger@cyclesafe.com President 478 Arrowhead SE Grand Rapids MI 49546
Hartger Susan Cycle-Safe, Inc. (616) 954-9977 shartger@cyclesafe.com 478 Arrowhead SE Grand Rapids MI 49546
Henckel Russ City of Wyoming henckelr@wyomingmi.gov
Hoekstra Jay GVMC (616) 459-8950 jay.hoekstra@gvmc.org Senior Planner 678 Front Ave NW Suite 200 Grand Rapids MI 49504 (616) 774-9292
Hood Rachel WMEAC (616) 451-3051 rhood@wmeac.org Executive Director 1007 Lake Dr SE Grand Rapids MI 49506 (616) 451-3054
Hughes Patrick City of Kentwood (616) 554-0739 hughesp@ci.kentwood.mi.us
Ingram Moss GRCC (616) 234-3067 mingram@grcc.edu 143 Bostwick Ave NE Grand Rapids MI 49503
Karnip Steve (616) 241-6304 steve.metromotors@gmail.com 3130 S Division Ave Wyoming MI 49548
Kepley Steve City of Kentwood (616) 554-0740 kepleys@ci.kentwood.mi.us City Engineer 4900 Breton Rd SE P.O. Box 8848 Kentwood MI 49518 (616) 698-7118
Kooiman Jerry MSU College of Human Med. (616) 234-2604 jerry.kooiman@hc.msu.edu Asst. Dean for Govt. Relations and Outreach 234 Division North Suite 400 Grand Rapids MI 49503
Kubicek Jim (616) 446-0547 jkubicek@iserv.net 3238 S Division Ave Wyoming MI 49548
Larobardiere Matt City of Grand Rapids (616) 456-3066 mlarobar@grcity.us 509 Wealthy SW Grand Rapids MI 49503
Leach, Jr. James (616) 538-1470 jimjr@hobartgr.com 4064 S Division Ave Wyoming MI 49548
Lewis Mark Neighborhood Venturer (616) 301-3929 lewism@neighborhoodventurer.org 1514 Wealthy #214 Grand Rapids MI 49502
Lockray Tim City of Wyoming (616) 530-7259 Wyoming MI 49548
MacKeigan Richard (616) 742-6189 rmackeigan@smggr.com 130 W Fulton Grand Rapids MI 49503
Mast Harold (616) 262-7268 hamast@comcast.net P.O. Box 8737 Kentwood MI 49518
McCormick Liz GRCC (616) 234-4081 lmccormick@grcc.edu 143 Bostwick Ave NE Grand Rapids MI 49503
Mullen Eric GRCC (616) 234-4164 emuller@grcc.edu Director of Student Activities 143 Bostwick Ave NE Grand Rapids MI 49503
Occhiping Nick WMEAC (616) 451-3051 nocchiping@wmeac.org 1007 Lane Drive S Grand Rapids Mi 49506
Oeverman Jon City of Grand Rapids (616) 456-3066 joeverman@grcity.us 509 Wealthy SW Grand Rapids MI 49503
Pomorski Tim (616) 262-3110 Timtech20@yahoo.com 240 Elwell Wyoming MI 49548
Pratt Eric Grand Rapids DDA (616) 456-3796 epratt@grcity.us Planner 300 Monroe Ave NW Grand Rapids MI 49503
Redmond Steve MDOT (616) 451-3091 redmonds@michigan.gov 1420 Front NW Grand Rapids MI 49504
Reeves Tim Kelloggsville Public Schools (616) 532-1570 treeves@kvilleps.org Middle School Principal 4560 S Division Ave Grand Rapids MI 49548
Schulz Suzanne City of Grand Rapids (616) 456-3646 sschulz@grcity.us Planning Director 1120 Monroe Ave NW Grand Rapids MI 49503
Schweitzer Terry City of Kentwood (616) 554-0710 schweitt@ci.kentwood.us Community Development Director 4900 Breton Ave SE Kentwood MI 49518 (616) 698-8199
Teles Paulo GRCC (616) 234-3754 pteles@grcc.edu Associate Director of Student Activities 143 Bostwick Ave NE Grand Rapids MI 49503
Terbush Ryan GVSU (810) 623-0749 terbushr@gvsu.edu 606 Valley Ave NW Grand Rapids MI 49504
Tilma Tom (616) 560-5705 thomastilma@gmail.com 1635 Hall St SE Grand Rapids MI 49506
VanElsacker Amy (906) 399-3330 vanelsa1@hotmail.com 120 S Division Ave Grand Rapids MI 49503
Vega Francisco (616) 245-5924 PanchVega@aol.com 1317 Giddings Ave SE Grand Rapids MI 49506
Victor Michael Neighborhood Venturer (616) 301-3929 michaelvictor@gmail.com 1514 Wealthy #214 Grand Rapids MI 49502
Warsen Greg Kelloggsville Public Schools (616) 538-7460 gwarsen@kvilleps.org Admin. Superintendent 242 52nd St SE Kentwood MI 49548 (616) 532-1597
Zull Chris City of Grand Rapids (616) 456-4639 czull@grcity.us City Traffic Engineer 300 Monroe Ave NW Grand Rapids MI 49503 (616) 456-3828
Updated 12/29/2010

Appendix B

Illustrations of Station Concepts


Final Station Concept
Final Station Concept

Appendix C

Mapping of Dedicated/NonDedicated Bus
Lanes and Station Locations


Legend
Final Proposed BRT Stations
New Crosswalk Proposed
AU
MP
Existing Bus Stop
CA Parcel Lines (from REGIS)

Lane Assignments During Peak Hours
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
MONROE
Louis St (SB)
Louis St (NB)
S
UI
LO
BRT Base Mapping 0 20 40 Sheet
ER
NT
Louis Street Station
CE
Feet
1 of 17
E
O
NR
Monroe Avenue 1 inch = 40 feet
O
M
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

Parcel Lines (from REGIS)
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
Van Andel (SB)

MONROE
Van Andel (NB)

Van Andel Station Feet
2 of 17
Monroe Avenue 1 inch = 40 feet
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
MICHIGAN
Michigan St (WB)
Michigan St (EB)
BOSTWICK

Michigan Street Station Feet
3 of 17
Michigan Street 1 inch = 40 feet
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
CRESCENT
LYON
RANSOM
G.R.C.C. (SB)
G.R.C.C. (NB)

G.R.C.C. Station Feet
4 of 17
Ransom Street 1 inch = 40 feet
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
LA GRAVE
LIBRARY
Fulton St (SB) RANSOM
FULTON
Fulton St (NB)

Fulton Street Station Feet
5 of 17
Ransom Street JEFFERSON 1 inch = 40 feet
November 3, 2010
GOODRICH
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

ALLEY LAGRAVE
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
GOODRICH
MAPLE
JEFFERSON
Wealthy St (SB)
Wealthy St (NB)
CESS
CESS
SAINT MARY’S AC
SAINT MARY’S AC

Wealthy Street Station Feet
6 of 17
Jefferson Street 1 inch = 40 feet
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

MCCONNELL
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
LOGAN
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
DIVISION
Logan St (SB)
LOGAN
ALLEY DIVISION
Logan St (EB)

Logan Street Station Feet
7 of 17
Division Street and Logan Street 1 inch = 40 feet
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
GRAHAM
DIVISION
Franklin St (SB)
Franklin St (NB)
FRANKLIN

Franklin Street Station Feet
8 of 17
Division Street 1 inch = 40 feet
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
PUTNAM
CANTON
DIVISION
Green St (SB)
GREEN
Green St (NB)

Green Street Station Feet
9 of 17
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
COTTAGE GROVE
DIVISION
Cottage Grove St (SB)
Cottage Grove St (NB)
COTTAGE GROVE
CROFTON

Cottage Grove Street Station Feet
10 of 17
November 3, 2010
ALLEY QUIGLEY
ALLEY BURTON
Legend

ALLEY DIVISION
ALLEY DIVISION Existing Bus Stop
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
BURTON
QUIGLEY
Shared platform with existing bus stop.
DIVISION
Burton St (SB)
Burton St (NB)
ALLEY DIVISION
ALLEY DIVISION
ALLEY BURTON

Burton Street Station Feet
11 of 17
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
BLACKBURN
Shared Lane
SOUTHVIEW
DIVISION Southview St (SB)
SOUTHVIEW
Southview St (NB)
ALLEY DIVISION
44TH
Southview Street Station Feet
12 of 17
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
HONEOYE
28th StN (SB)

DIVISIO
28th St (NB)
28TH
28th Street Station Feet
13 of 17
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
36th St (SB)
DIVISION
36TH 36th St (NB)
WEXFORD
14 of 17
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
FARNHAM
44th St (SB) DIVISION
44th St (NB)
44TH
15 of 17
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
54TH
DIVISION
54th St (SB)
KELLOGG WOODS
54th St (NB)

16 of 17
November 3, 2010
Legend
Existing Bus Stop

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
DIVISION
60th St (NB)

17 of 17
November 3, 2010

Appendix D

Prototypical Pavement Marking Plans,
Roadway Concept Typical Sections and
Plans, and Station Platform Layouts


SHEET
NUMBERS
TITLE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS

1
2
THE RAPID
ROADWAY PLAN SHEETS 3-24
STATION DETAILS 25-43
PAVEMENT MARKING PROTOTYPES 44-48
SILVERLINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
KENT
COUNTY
SUBMITTAL
1/18/2011
COUNTY KEY
PROPOSED SILVERLINE
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
ROUTE
DATE
01/18/11
Surface Transportation
Grand Rapids . Southfield .
SHEET
Traverse City
1
FINAL R.O.W.
AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
VARIES 2’ TO 2.5’
VARIES 9’ TO 12’ 8’ (TYPICAL) 6’ MIN.

BUS PAD STATION SIDEWALK
EXISTING GROUND
14" OR 10" 2% MAX. 2% MAX. VARIES 9’ TO 12’ 8’ (TYPICAL) 6’ MIN.
2% BUS PAD STATION SIDEWALK
AT EXISTING
EXISTING SIDEWALK GRADE
6" SIDEWALK
EXISTING ROAD 10" CONCRETE (TO BE REMOVED
AND REPLACED AS EXISTING GROUND
14"
MODIFIED CURB AND GUTTER
NEEDED) 2% MAX. 2% MAX.
2%
TYPICAL STATION CROSS SECTION
TO APPLY: EXISTING SIDEWALK
6" SIDEWALK
DEVOS PLACE SB STATION EXISTING ROAD 10" CONCRETE (TO BE REMOVED
GRCC NB STATION AND REPLACED AS
GRCC SB STATION MODIFIED CURB AND GUTTER
NEEDED)
WEALTHY NB STATION
DATE: 01/18/11
WEALTHY SB STATION TYPICAL STATION CROSS SECTION
DIVISION AND LOGAN NB STATION TO APPLY:
DIVISION AND FRANKLIN SB STATION LOUIS AND MONROE SB STATION
DIVISION AND GREEN NB STATION
DIVISION AND GREEN SB STATION
DIVISION AND COTTAGE GROVE NB STATION
DIVISION AND COTTAGE GROVE SB STATION
DIVISION AND BURTON NB STATION
DIVISION AND SOUTHVIEW NB STATION
DIVISION AND SOUTHVIEW SB STATION
DIVISION AND 28TH NB STATION
DIVISION AND 28TH SB STATION
WORKED ON BY: JSB

DIVISION AND 60TH STATION

AT EXISTING
GRADE
01/18/11
EXISTING GROUND
14"
VARIES 2’ TO 2.5’ 2% MAX.
2% MAX.
2%
DATE:
6" SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK
AND REPLACED AS
MODIFIED CURB AND GUTTER
NEEDED)
EXISTING GROUND
14" OR 10" 2% MAX. 2% MAX. TYPICAL STATION CROSS SECTION
2% TO APPLY:
LOUIS AND MONROE NB STATION
EXISTING SIDEWALK
6" SIDEWALK DEVOS PLACE NB STATION
MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK NB STATION
AND REPLACED AS
MODIFIED CURB AND GUTTER MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK SB STATION
NEEDED)
DIVISION AND LOGAN SB STATION
TRW
DIVISION AND FRANKLIN NB STATION
TYPICAL STATION CROSS SECTION DIVISION AND BURTON SB STATION
CHECKED BY:
TO APPLY:
FULTON AND RANSOM NB STATION
FULTON AND RANSOM SB STATION
42679_01_TYP.DGN
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
0 3 5 10 TYPICAL SECTIONS
FILE NAME:
DATE CONT. SEC. JOB NO. DESIGN UNIT SHEET NO.
10 SCALE R.O.W CONST.
Traverse City
01/18/11 2
FINAL R.O.W.
60TH ST
SECTION 1 SECTION 36
T5N,R12W T6N,R12W
BYRON TWP CITY OF WYOMING
EX 66’ ROW
FAIR PAVEMENT CONDITION
DATE: 01/18/11
DIVISION AVE FROM 44TH ST TO 60TH ST
CITY OF WYOMING
PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION & BOULEVARD BY THE CITY OF KENTWOOD - 2014
BYRON TWP
MICHIGAN MOBILE
HOME CONNECTION
NEW PAVEMENT MARKINGS GRIFFINS
BASED ON PROTOTYPICAL PLANS TRUCK CAPS
DIVISION AVE
TRAILER/RV SALES
BMW MOTORCYCLES
DIVISION AVE
SEE NEXT SHEET
EX 83’ ROW
EX ROW
EX 83’ ROW
BYRON TWP
100 105 CITY OF WYOMING 110 115
GAINES TWP
CITY OF KENTWOOD
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
CROSSROADS HIGH SCHOOL
AAA AUTO SALES
DW3 ARNOLD’S
TOWNLINE ELEMENTARY MOTORCYCLES
FAMILY DOLLAR AUTO DRIVEAWAY

CITY OF KENTWOOD
01/18/11
EX 60’ ROW
GAINES TWP
DATE:
DEDICATED BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN OUTSIDE LANES
DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIODS
EX 66’ ROW
TRW
CHECKED BY:
T5N,R11W T6N,R11W
GAINES TWP CITY OF KENTWOOD
42679_DIVISION_10000.DGN
60TH ST
KEY MAP
58TH ST
CONSTRUCTION
MAJESTIC ST SHEET
200 600 1000 DIVISION AVE STA 100+00 TO STA 116+00
FILE NAME:
0 400 800 Surface Transportation
SHEET NO.
DATE CONT. SEC. JOB NO. DESIGN UNIT
Traverse City
01/18/11 3
FINAL R.O.W.
56TH ST 54TH ST
PROPOSED RESURFACING BY THE CITY OF WYOMING - 2012

SECTION 36
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING
54TH ST FROM CLYDE PARK TO DIVISION

EX 105’ ROW
PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION & BOULEVARD BY THE CITY OF KENTWOOD - 2014
DATE: 01/18/11
NEW PAVEMENT MARKINGS

BASED ON PROTOTYPICAL PLANS
EX 66’ ROW PROPOSED RESURFACING
BY THE CITY OF WYOMING - 2013
SHELL GAS DIVISION AVE FROM
44TH ST TO 54TH ST
EX 89’ ROW
BROTHER’S MARINE & SUPERIOR TRANSIT HABITAT FOR HUMANITY JANSMA EYE CARE
MORE DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING
100’ BEFORE INTERSECTION
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
EX ROW
EX 100’ ROW
SEE NEXT SHEET
EX 83’ ROW
120 125 CITY OF WYOMING 130 135 140

CITY OF KENTWOOD
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
AAA AUTO SALES
AAA AUTO SALES

MIDWAY RV CENTER MULTIPLE BUSINESSES GOODWILL BIG LOTS
NEW BEGINNINGS
673
673
.41
.82
EX 70’ ROW
01/18/11
DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING
DATE:
W
RO
80’
EX

DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIOD
SECTION 31
TRW
T6N,R11W
CITY OF KENTWOOD
CHECKED BY:
NANCY ST
KEY MAP
54TH ST
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 4
FINAL R.O.W.
T6N,R12W T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING CITY OF WYOMING

DATE: 01/18/11
SHELL GAS
HOME ACRES SILVER BULLET SOUTHSIDE STORAGE CAR WASH
USED CARS B&M AUTO SERVICE SIGNS NOW MUFFLER MAN
EX 125’ ROW
BUILDING SUPPLY AND RENTAL
ROXIE’S ANTIQUES
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
SEE NEXT SHEET
EX ROW
EX 100’ ROW
EX 100’ ROW
CITY OF WYOMING
145 150 155 160 165
CITY OF KENTWOOD
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
BRYCE’S ROADBED MINISTRIES

MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
EXPERT SERVICE
MULTIPLE BUSINESSES WINDOW WORLD DIVISION TURF CITGO
MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
EX 66’ ROW
01/18/11
DATE:
SECTION 31
T6N,R11W SECTION 30
CITY OF KENTWOOD T6N,R11W

CITY OF KENTWOOD
TRW
CHECKED BY:
KEY MAP
52ND ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 5
FINAL R.O.W.
60TH ST HOLLY ST JEAN ST ELWELL ST LEROY ST
SECTION 25
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING

DATE: 01/18/11
EX 50’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
GREAT LAKES KELLOGSVILLE MULTIPLE

BRANN’S CATERING GREAT LAKES EUROSPORTS THE DOCK CAR WASH
AUTO HIGH SCHOOL BRICKCRETE MOTEL BUSINESSES
DIVE LOCKER
DIVISION AVE
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
SEE NEXT SHEET
DIVISION AVE
EX ROW
EX 100’ ROW
EX 97’ ROW
170 175 CITY OF WYOMING 180 185 190
CITY OF KENTWOOD
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
STELTER’S LENTZ LA CORONA

UNCLE FRED’S ELECTRICAL AUTO WORLD BEST BUY
PET GROOMING HOBBY GONE MARATHON GAS ALL NIGHT RECOVERY AUTO SERVICE
PARTY STORE MATERIALS USED CARS
WILD PHOTOGRAPHY
EX 50’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
01/18/11
EX 55’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
DATE:
EX 68’ ROW
TRW
CHECKED BY:
SECTION 30
T6N,R11W
CITY OF KENTWOOD
SLUYTER ST DANIEL ST
KEY MAP
KELLOGSVILLE
MIDDLE SCHOOL
GARLAND ST 48TH ST 47TH ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 6
FINAL R.O.W.
MONTABELLO ST FARNHAM ST 44TH ST MURRAY ST 43RD ST
T6N,R12W T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING CITY OF WYOMING
FAIR PAVEMENT CONDITION EXCELLENT PAVEMENT CONDITION

DIVISION AVE FROM 44TH ST TO 60TH ST DIVISION AVE FROM 36TH ST TO 44TH ST
EX 120’ ROW
PROPOSED RESURFACING BY THE CITY OF WYOMING - 2013 RESURFACED BY THE CITY OF WYOMING - SEPTEMBER 2010
DATE: 01/18/11
BASED ON PROTOTYPICAL PLANS DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 60’ ROW
EX 60’ ROW
WALGREEN’S
BP GAS STATION FIRESTONE

DEALER’S CHOICE ALL SEASONS FIRE DEPARTMENT MULTIPLE BUSINESSES CHASE
GEORGE’S
AUTO BODY AUTO BANK SALON
TRANSMISSION GORDY’S
AUTO
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
CLASSIC FAMILY
SUPERMARKET
DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
SEE NEXT SHEET
HAIR STUDIO PERFORMANCE
EX ROW
EX 103’ ROW
702
705
.95
.10
EX 98’ ROW
195 CITY OF WYOMING 200 205 210 CITY OF WYOMING 215

CITY OF KENTWOOD CITY OF KENTWOOD
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
CASA VIA
EX 107’ ROW
CONEY SOUTH UNITED MULTIPLE BUSINESSES

MOTEL BUEKLER REALTY MULTIPLE GOLDEN
701
.62
ISLAND METHODIST CHURCH MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
BUSINESSES VINACOM BRIDGE PLAZA
ADVANCE
AUTO PARTS
EX 66’ ROW EX 66’ ROW EX 66’ ROW

EX 60’ ROW
01/18/11
RITE-AID
EX 55’ ROW
DATE:
EX 70’ ROW


TRW
CHECKED BY:
SECTION 30
T6N,R11W
CITY OF KENTWOOD SECTION 19
T6N,R11W
CITY OF KENTWOOD
MONTABELLO ST RIDGEWOOD ST
KEY MAP
43RD ST
FARNHAM ST 44TH ST MURRAY ST

CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 7
FINAL R.O.W.
MAPLELAWN ST THURSTON ST BELLEVUE ST 41ST ST FLOYD ST WADSWORTH ST 39TH ST
SECTION 24
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING
EXCELLENT PAVEMENT CONDITION

RESURFACED BY THE CITY OF WYOMING - SEPTEMBER 2010

DATE: 01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 80’ ROW EX 66’ ROW
WASH WORLD
THV BRANN’S
AUTO HOLIDAY
FINANCIALS
DIVISION AVE
BURGER KING AUTO KING SHARP CAR
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
CONSIDER COSTUMES GOLDEN GATE
SEE NEXT SHEET

DIVISION AVE
RESTAURANT
EX ROW
EX 100’ ROW
EX 103’ ROW
705
.94
235 240
220 225 230
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
R&M
FAT MAN’S
LITTLE’S
FISH FRY CASH HOBART MICHIGAN TRAILER S & G IMPORTED JOSE’S RESTAURANT WINDOW TINTING
MULTIPLE DAIRY DEN CUSTOM CYCLES AUTO TOWING
ADVANCE PARIS MOTORS SALES & SERVICE PARTS CAR PARTS
BUSINESSES
MULTIPLE BUSINESSES

CITY OF KENTWOOD
CITY OF WYOMING
01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
DATE:
TRW
CHECKED BY:
T6N,R11W T6N,R11W
CITY OF KENTWOOD CITY OF WYOMING
MAPLELAWN ST BELLEVUE ST
KEY MAP
WALTER AVE
WILBUR ST BURT AVE JANET AVE CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 8
FINAL R.O.W.
JORDAN ST CALHOUN ST COOLIDGE ST 36TH ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
SECTION 24
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING
EX 82’ ROW
EXCELLENT PAVEMENT CONDITION FAIR/POOR PAVEMENT CONDITION

DATE: 01/18/11
RESURFACED BY THE CITY OF WYOMING - SEPTEMBER 2010 PROPOSED RESURFACING BY THE CITY OF WYOMING - 2013
DIVISION AND 36TH SB STATION DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING

EX 50’ ROW 100’ BEFORE INTERSECTION
GODWIN HEIGHTS MULTIPLE

JIM WILLIAM’S LEATHER MULTIPLE BUSINESSES SIERRA’S GENERAL SUBWAY ROMA KFC
MC DONALD’S SCHOOLS BUSINESSES
RESTAURANT RIT MUSIC GODWIN HARDWARE
DIVISION AVE
MOTEL EXPRESS MERCHANDISE MULTIPLE PIZZA

BUSINESSES
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
SEE NEXT SHEET
DIVISION AVE
EX ROW
EX 100’ ROW
EX 100’ ROW
245 250 255 260 265
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW

OLYMPIC KING
PHO BO
GODWIN A DONG GODWIN HEIGHTS MARKET RIBS
UNLIMITED WEPMAN’S TIMMER’S
JONATHAN STEVEN’S AUTOMOTIVE BODY SHOP MARKET SCHOOLS
LAKE MICHIGAN WENDY’S MARKS PHOTO INDIA HOUSE AUTO REPAIR BROKERS SERVICE
BEDDING EMPORIUM
CREDIT UNION & VIDEO
36TH ST FROM DIVISION TO EASTERN

EX 20’ ROW

01/18/11
DATE:
EX ROW VARIES

TRW
CHECKED BY:
SECTION 19
T6N,R11W
CITY OF WYOMING
ABBIE ST HIMES ST
KEY MAP
WEXFORD ST
36TH ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 9
FINAL R.O.W.
35TH ST 34TH ST 33RD ST AVONLEA ST 32ND ST ONEIDA ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
SECTION 13
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING
FAIR/POOR PAVEMENT CONDITION


DATE: 01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 60’ ROW
RICH GAS VALUE 1

KFC GT AUTOS ALL AMERICAN AUTO ADMIRAL GAS STATION FUNERAL HOME
STATION AUTO SALES
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
DIVISION AVE
SEE NEXT SHEET
DIVISION AVE
EX ROW
EX 100’ ROW
EX 101’ ROW
270 275 280 285 290
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
LEE AUTO SERVICE B QUICK

JD BYRIDER DOC’S AUTO CAR WASH CHAN’S
GAS STATION EXPORT CENTER THE LEATHER MERRA MOTORS PRINTING
WILLIAMS CARS KUNG FU
FACTORY
SCHOOL
EX 60’ ROW
EX 60’ ROW
EX 60’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW VARIES
01/18/11
EX 60’ ROW DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING

DATE:
TRW
CHECKED BY:
SECTION 18
T6N,R11W
CITY OF WYOMING
35TH ST FREEDOM ST 34TH ST
KEY MAP
LEMYRA ST
CLEMENTS ST FRONTENAC ST EXCHANGE ST 32ND ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 10
FINAL R.O.W.
MANCHESTER ST BUCKINGHAM ST CELIA ST COLRAIN ST CANTERBURY ST HONEOYE ST 28TH ST
SECTION 13
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING
SECTION 12
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING
FAIR/POOR PAVEMENT CONDITION VERY GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION

DIVISION AVE FROM 28TH ST TO 36TH ST DIVISION AVE FROM BURTON ST TO 28TH ST

EX ROW
VARIES
DATE: 01/18/11
RAILROAD

EX 66’ ROW WALGREEN’S

VALUE 1
IMPERIAL LEASING SCOTTY’S AUTO
COFFMAN GAS STATION 100’ BEFORE INTERSECTION
AUTO SALES YOUNG’S ARMY OPHOFF
AUTO GLASS AUTO FINANCE
NAVY SURPLUS MOTOR SALES
MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
EX ROW
SEE NEXT SHEET

EX 101’ ROW
EX 100’ ROW
WORKED ON BY: JSB

295 300 305 CITY OF WYOMING 310 315
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
EX ROW
AL & BOB’S MULTIPLE BIG RAY’S BELTLINE BAR

SPORTS BUSINESSES QUICK LUBE RENT A CENTER LEE’S MARKET MULTIPLE BUSINESSES VILLA
PIZZA
EX 66’ ROW
01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW DIVISION AND 28TH NB STATION
EX 66’ ROW
RAPIDS
EX 120’
ROW
DATE:
CITY OF WYOMING
CITY OF GRAND
DEDICATED RAPID TRANSIT BUS IN OUTSIDE LANES

SECTION 18 SECTION 18 SECTION 7
TRW
T6N,R11W T6N,R11W T6N,R11W
CITY OF WYOMING CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
CHECKED BY:
WESLEY ST CELIA ST
KEY MAP
COLRAIN ST HONEOYE ST RAILROAD 28TH ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 11
FINAL R.O.W.
CLAIRE ST KEN-O-SHA DR PLASTER CREEK BLVD SOUTHVIEW ST BLACKBURN ST
SECTION 12
T6N,R12W
CITY OF WYOMING
SECTION 12
T6N,R12W
VERY GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION

DIVISION AVE FROM BURTON ST TO 28TH ST
EX 33’ ROW
DATE: 01/18/11
DIVISION AND SOUTHVIEW SB STATION
RAPIDS
EX ROW VAR
IES
CITY OF WYOMING
EX 40’ ROW
CITY OF GRAND
EX 50’ ROW
HERREMA S DIVISION
ABC STORAGE
PLUMBING OUTLET PARAGON LOG CABIN
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
MORALES MOTORS
BOWLING COCKTAIL LOUNGE
SEE NEXT SHEET

EX ROW
EX 100’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
WORKED ON BY: JSB

320 CITY OF WYOMING 325 330 335 340
EX ROW "LITTLE PLAZA" S&H DRY

ROSEMARY RAINBOW MOTEL
QUICK PRINTING SUPERMARKET CLEANING
TOSCANO’S AUTO REPAIR
COMPANY USED CARS
SPORTS BAR
DIVISION AND SOUTHVIEW NB STATION

EX 48’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
01/18/11
DATE:

SECTION 7
T6N,R11W
TRW
CHECKED BY:
EOLA ST MEERSE ST ROSEMARY ST KEN-O-SHA DR
KEY MAP
ALGER ST
SOUTHVIEW ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 12
FINAL R.O.W.
WITHEY ST BAYLIS ST BANNER CT SUTTON ST KIRTLAND ST ANDRE ST CUTLER ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
BURTON ST
SECTION 12
T6N,R12W
SECTION 1
T6N,R12W
VERY GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION

DIVISION AVE FROM BURTON ST TO 28TH ST DIVISION AVE FROM HALL ST TO BURTON ST
DATE: 01/18/11
DIVISION AND BURTON SB STATION

EX 40’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
MAGNUM DURANT
DIVISION AVE
TATOOING ELECTRONIC BURTON HEIGHTS
BETO’S CAT PIMENTEL JALISCO NEW LAGO’S MULTIPLE CUSTOM
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
IRON EAGLE SOUND USED CARS RODRIGUEZ SUPERMARKET MONTEGO BAY MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
DIVISION AVE
AUDIO & MULTIPLE SERVICES LAUNDROMAT MOON STORE BUSINESSES UPHOLSTERY AMY’S MULTIPLE
MOTORCYCLES
SEE NEXT SHEET

ACCESSORIES FASHION BUSINESSES
EX ROW
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
345 350 355 360 365
EX ROW
TIRE GRAND VALLEY

DISCOUNT MULTIPLE BOTTLE POPEYE’S
MORNING MI TIERRA SHOP GR FAMILY SUPERMERCADO HEALTH INTERVENTION MULTIPLE BUSINESSES DENTAL CARE
RESTAURANT BUSINESSES HOUSE TAQUERIA SIERRA
GLORY RESTAURANT SERVICES DOLLAR GUADALAJARA SERVICES
SUPPLY
LOCK SHOP DIVISION AND BURTON NB STATION
01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
DATE:

SECTION 7 SECTION 6
TRW
T6N,R11W T6N,R11W
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
CHECKED BY:
WITHEY ST MELVILLE ST
KEY MAP
BURTON ST
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
ANDRE ST
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 13
FINAL R.O.W.
QUIGLEY BLVD STEWART ST ROSE ST ELM ST GRIGGS ST BROWN ST DICKINSON ST CORINNE ST FOX ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
SECTION 1
T6N,R12W
GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION

DIVISION AVE FROM HALL ST TO BURTON ST
DATE: 01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
GARIBALDI’S
DIVISION AVE
TRAVEL BURTON HEIGHTS YESTER YEAR’S IN THE IMAGE AUTO
FAMILY OUTREACH SHORT STOP RESTAURANT
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
DIVISION AVE
BODY SHOP LOUNGE REPAIR
SEE NEXT SHEET

AGENCY CENTER FOODS
EX ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
380 385 390

370 375
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
YOUTH TIENDA LA LA MEXICANA

QUISQUAYA PEST CONTROL
FAMILY MILLENIUM BAKERY & GROCERY
CENTER CONFIANZA GARAGE
TALK AUTO DETAIL FIRE DEPT
EX 66’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
01/18/11
DATE:
SECTION 6
T6N,R11W
TRW
CHECKED BY:
KEY MAP
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
GRIGGS ST BROWN ST DICKINSON ST
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 14
FINAL R.O.W.
COTTAGE GROVE ST RAILROAD STEVENS ST LA BELLE ST HOME ST RENA ST ZENO ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
HALL ST
SECTION 1
T6N,R12W
GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION

DIVISION AVE FROM HALL ST TO BURTON ST
DATE: 01/18/11
DIVISION AND COTTAGE GROVE SB STATION
EX 60’ ROW
EX 68’ ROW

CONSTRUCTIVE
NEMIC INUDSTRIAL
SHEET METAL
DIVISION AVE
SUPPLY SALVATION ARMY SERENITY
SALON
SEE NEXT SHEET

PRIDGEON BUILDING
AND CLAY
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
FOR SALE
EX 83’ ROW
EX ROW
DIVISION AVE
415
410
EX 66’ ROW
405
400
395
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
EX 80’ ROW
EX 76’ ROW
EX 76’ ROW
EX 70’ ROW
ST VINCENT MULTIPLE
BOY’S MY PLACE CHURCH USED CARS MC DONALD’S AUTO ZONE
DETENTION BASIN DE PAUL BUSINESSES
AUTO REPAIR BAR
PARKING LOT

EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
DIVISION AND COTTAGE GROVE NB STATION
01/18/11
DATE:
SECTION 6
T6N,R11W
TRW
CHECKED BY:
CROFTON ST COTTAGE GROVE ST RAILROAD GARDEN ST
KEY MAP
HALL ST
FAIR ST LA BELLE ST HOME ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 15
FINAL R.O.W.
HALL ST CANTON ST PUTNAM ST SHELBY ST ALBANY ST DELAWARE ST ANTOINE ST DATE NO.
AUTH REVISION
SECTION 36
T7N,R12W
DATE: 01/18/11
DIVISION AVE FRANKLIN ST TO HALL ST

DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING 100’ BEFORE INTERSECTION
EX 68’ ROW
DIVISION AND GREEN SB STATION
EX 68’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
DIVISION AVE
J-N-J
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
BP GAS TIRE SHOP NORTHWESTERN M&N T&W

KFC FISH & CHICKEN
DIVISION AVE
AUTO SUPPLY MOTORS ELECTRONICS
SEE NEXT SHEET

EX ROW
EX 83’ ROW
EX 83’ ROW
WORKED ON BY: JSB

420 425 430 435 440
EX ROW
CHICKEN COOP HOME REPAIR

BIG BABIES GLT SERVICES AUTO REPAIR
BBQ

EX 55’ ROW
01/18/11
DIVISION AND GREEN NB STATION
DATE:
TRW
SECTION 31
CHECKED BY:
T7N,R11W
HALL ST GREEN ST HIGHLAND ST
KEY MAP
DELAWARE ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 16
FINAL R.O.W.
FRANKLIN ST BUCKLEY ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
SECTION 36
T7N,R12W
VERY GOOD
PAVEMENT CONDITION FAIR PAVEMENT CONDITION
DIVISION AVE FROM DIVISION AVE FROM WEALTHY ST TO FRANKLIN ST

FRANKLIN ST TO HALL ST

DATE: 01/18/11
DIVISION AND FRANKLIN SB STATION
73.04’ EX 66’ ROW

EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
AMERICAN
MEDICAL RESPONSE
AMIGOS A TO Z MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
AZUCAR
AUTO SALES NIGHT CLUB RADIATOR SHOP
SEE NEXT SHEET

LIQUOR STORE
DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
EX ROW
EX 83’ ROW
EX 83’ ROW
440 445 450 455 460
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
TEQUILA
NIGHT CLUB PERFIT CORPORATION
AUTO REPAIR BURGER
MEDBIO MULTIPLE FAMILY DOLLAR
KING
DOTTED RIGHT LANE QMED BUSINESSES
PAVEMENT MARKING
100’ BEFORE INTERSECTION DIVISION AND FRANKLIN NB STATION
01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
EX 57’ ROW
NEW PAVEMENT MARKINGS EX 66’ ROW
DATE:
EX ROW VARIES

TRW
SECTION 31
CHECKED BY:
T7N,R11W
FRANKLIN ST HAIFLEY ST
KEY MAP
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
PLEASANT ST BUCKLEY ST
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 17
FINAL R.O.W.
LOGAN ST MC CONNELL ST WEALTHY ST
DIVISION AVE FROM WEALTHY ST TO FRANKLIN ST
DEDICATED BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN OUTSIDE LANES DEDICATED BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN SOUTHBOUND OUTSIDE LANE
DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIOD DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIOD
DIVISION AND LOGAN SB STATION
EX 72’ ROW
EX 50’ ROW
DIVISION AND LOGAN EB STATION EX 66’ ROW

DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
MULTIPLE BUSINESSES MULTIPLE BUSINESSES SHELL GAS MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET

SECTION 31
T7N,R11W
460 465 470
620
600
AUTO PARTS EMPTY LOT EMPTY LOT
DIOCESE OF GRAND RAPIDS
645
645
.33
.73
645 645
.80 .60
SHELDON AVE
DATE: 01/18/11
SHARED BUS RAPID TRANSIT/VEHICULAR WESTBOUND LANE
WEALTHY ST FROM JEFFERSON AVE TO DIVISION AVE

SHARED BUS RAPID TRANSIT/VEHICULAR EASTBOUND LANE
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
DURING MORING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIOD

LOGAN ST FROM JEFFERSON AVE TO DIVISION AVE
DURING MORING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIOD

EX 16’ ROW
EX 16’ ROW
625
605
LAGRAVE AVE
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
LAGRAVE AVE
EX 16’ ROW
EX 16’ ROW
01/18/11
DATE:
SEE JEFFERSON SHEET
PARKING LOT
JEFFERSON AVE
JEFFERSON AVE
EX ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
545 550
630
610
EX ROW
PARKING LOT
TRW
CHECKED BY:
EX 50’ ROW
SHARED BUS RAPID TRANSIT/VEHICULAR NORTHBOUND LANE SHARED BUS RAPID TRANSIT/VEHICULAR LANES
DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIOD DURING MORNING AND AFTERNOON PEAK PERIOD
42679_JEFFERSON_LOGAN.DGN
FAIR PAVEMENT CONDITION VERY GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION
JEFFERSON AVE FROM WEALTHY ST TO LOGAN ST JEFFERSON AVE FROM CHERRY ST TO WEALTHY ST
KEY MAP
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
LOGAN ST WEALTHY ST
200 600 1000 DIVISION, LOGAN, WEALTHY, AND JEFFERSON
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 18
FINAL R.O.W.
GOODRICH ST CHERRY ST
SECTION 31
T7N,R11W
VERY GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION

JEFFERSON AVE FROM CHERRY ST TO WEALTHY ST JEFFERSON AVE FROM FULTON ST TO CHERRY ST
DATE: 01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
WEALTHY SB STATION
SEE FULTON AND RANSOM SHEET

RIVER AMERICAN
SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
JEFFERSON AVE
JEFFERSON AVE
CITY PARKING LOT CANCER
STUDIOS SOCIETY
BUILDING
EX ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
555 560 565
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
ST. MARY’S DOCTORS OFFICE
HOSPITAL
WEALTHY NB STATION
EX 66’ ROW
01/18/11
SHARED BUS RAPID TRANSIT/VEHICULAR LANES
DATE:
TRW
42679_WEALTHY_JEFFERSON.DGN CHECKED BY:
KEY MAP
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
CHERRY ST
200 600 1000 JEFFERSON
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 19
FINAL R.O.W.
WESTON ST FULTON ST LIBRARY ST FOUNTAIN ST
SECTION 30
T7N,R11W
GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION

JEFFERSON AVE FROM FULTON ST TO CHERRY ST RANSOM AVE FROM FULTON ST TO LYON ST

DATE: 01/18/11
FULTON ST FROM JEFFERSON AVE TO RANSOM AVE

635
EX 82’ ROW EX ROW VARIES
FULTON AND RANSOM SB STATION
LA GRAVE AVE
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
GR PUBLIC
SEE GRCC-RANSOM SHEET

GR PUBLIC
LIBRARY
RANSOM AVE
LIBRARY
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX ROW
EX 66’ ROW
60 65
EX 63’ ROW EX ROW

FOUNTAIN
PARK ST ST
FOUNTAIN
ST CECELIA PARK
PLACE CHURCH
CHURCH
MUSIC SOCIETY PLACE
SEE WEALTHY AND JEFFERSON SHEET
FULTON AND RANSOM NB STATION
01/18/11
MULTIPLE BUSINESSES
JEFFERSON AVE

APARTMENT BUILDING
EX 66’ ROW
575
EX 66’ ROW
DATE:
EX 66’ ROW
570
640
565
EX 78’ ROW
TRW
CHECKED BY:
42679_FULTON_RANSOM.DGN
STATE ST FULTON ST
KEY MAP
FOUNTAIN ST
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
200 600 1000 FULTON AND RANSOM
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 20
FINAL R.O.W.
FOUNTAIN ST LYON ST CRESCENT ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
SECTION 29
T7N,R11W
GOOD PAVEMENT CONDITION POOR PAVEMENT CONDITION

RANSOM AVE FROM FULTON ST TO LYON ST RANSOM AVE FROM CRESCENT ST TO LYON ST
SEE MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK SHEET

EX 66’ ROW
BOSTWICK AVE
BOSTWICK AVE
EX 66’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX ROW VARIES 40 45
640
DATE: 01/18/11
RANSOM AVE TO BOSTWICK AVE
EX 66’ ROW

CRESCENT ST FROM
GRAND RAPIDS GRAND RAPIDS
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SEE FULTON AND RANSOM SHEET

GR PUBLIC
LIBRARY GRAND RAPIDS GRAND RAPIDS GRCC SB STATION
SPECTRUM
COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
HEALTH
RANSOM AVE
PARKING RAMP
EX 55’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX ROW
70 75 80
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX 66’ ROW
PARK FOUNTAIN ST EX ROW
PLACE CHURCH
GRAND RAPIDS
PARKING RAMP PARKING RAMP SPECTRUM HEALTH
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
GRCC NB STATION
EX 66’ ROW
01/18/11
EX 66’ ROW
DATE:
TRW
CHECKED BY:
FOUNTAIN ST
42679_GRCC_RANSOM.DGN
KEY MAP
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
CRESCENT ST
200 600 1000 GRCC - RANSOM
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 21
FINAL R.O.W.
SECTION 30
T7N,R11W

MICHIGAN ST FROM MONROE AVE TO BOSTWICK AVE
DATE: 01/18/11
GRAND RAPIDS PRESS
MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK WB STATION NEW PAVEMENT MARKINGS

OLDS MANOR
EX 100’ ROW
EX 100’ ROW
OLDS MANOR GRAND RAPIDS PRESS
SPECTRUM HEALTH
MICHIGAN ST
MICHIGAN ST
EX ROW
EX 106’ ROW
EX ROW VARIES
665 670
WORKED ON BY: JSB

655 660
EX ROW

520
VAN ANDEL
SPECTRUM HEALTH
50
INSTITUTE
EXCELLENT PAVEMENT CONDITION

IMMANUEL CHURCH
CRESCENT ST TO MICHIGAN ST
DEVOS PLACE
MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK EB STATION
LANE PAVEMENT MARKING
BOSTWICK AVE FROM
01/18/11
CITY-COUNTY COMPLEX &
PARKING STRUCTURE
DOTTED RIGHT
DEVOS PLACE
CITY-COUNTY COMPLEX & PARKING STRUCTURE

25
DATE:
SEE DEVOS PLACE SHEET SEE GRCC-RANSOM SHEET
EX 66’ ROW

TRW
42679_MICHIGAN_BOSTWICK.DGN CHECKED BY:
DIVISION AVE BOSTWICK AVE
KEY MAP
CONSTRUCTION SHEET
200 600 1000 MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 22
FINAL R.O.W.
LYON ST BRIDGE ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
SECTION 25
T7N,R12W
FAIR PAVEMENT CONDITION GOOD/FAIR PAVEMENT CONDITION

MONROE AVE FROM LYON ST TO MARKET ST MONROE AVE FROM MICHIGAN ST TO LYON ST
DATE: 01/18/11
EX 102’ ROW
EX 66’ ROW
EX 142’ ROW
DEVOS PLACE SB STATION
SEE LOUIS AND MONROE SHEET
AMWAY GRAND
DEVOS PLACE DEVOS PLACE DEVOS PLACE OLDS MANOR
PLAZA HOTEL
MONROE AVE
MONROE AVE
EX ROW
EX 92’ ROW
WORKED ON BY: JSB

EX 100’ ROW
25 30
20
15
655
EX ROW
MULTIPLE
FIFTH THIRD
BUSINESSES MILLER & JOHNSON
BUILDING
CITY-COUNTY COMPLEX & PARKING STRUCTURE
DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING GRAND RAPIDS PRESS
01/18/11
DOTTED RIGHT LANE PAVEMENT MARKING 100’ BEFORE INTERSECTION
DEVOS PLACE NB STATION
100’ BEFORE INTERSECTION SEE MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK SHEET
EX 66’ ROW
EX 102’ ROW
DATE:
TRW
42679_DEVOSPLACE_MONROE.DGN CHECKED BY:
LYON ST
KEY MAP
MICHIGAN ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
200 600 1000 DEVOS PLACE
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 23
FINAL R.O.W.
CAMPAU AVE PEARL ST LYON ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
SECTION 25
T7N,R12W

MONROE AVE FROM LYON ST TO MARKET ST

DATE: 01/18/11
MONROE AVE
W
EX
O
RO
’R
W
V
A
90
RI
ES
EX
COURTYARD
BY MARRIOT
EX 66’ ROW
THE BOB PARKING RAMP
LOUIS AND MONROE SB STATION
5
COMERICA BUILDING AMWAY GRAND

NATIONAL CITY PLAZA HOTEL
AMWAY GRAND AMWAY GRAND
BUILDING
PLAZA HOTEL PLAZA HOTEL
SEE DEVOS PLACE SHEET
WORKED ON BY: JSB

HUNTINGTON
EX ROW
BUILDING
MONROE AVE
EX 100’ ROW
E
X
66
’
R 10 15
O
W
PARKING LOT
EX ROW
MULTIPLE MULTIPLE
BUSINESSES BUSINESSES
LOUIS AND MONROE NB STATION ROSA PARKS CIRCLE
01/18/11
GRAND RAPIDS
E ART MUSEUM
X
66
’
R
DATE:
O
W

EX 66’ ROW
TRW
CHECKED BY:
LOUIS ST
42679_LOUIS_MONROE.DGN
KEY MAP
MONROE CENTER PEARL ST LYON ST CONSTRUCTION SHEET
200 600 1000 LOUIS AND MONROE
FILE NAME:
SHEET NO.
Traverse City
01/18/11 24
FINAL R.O.W.
NOTE: 1) THIS PROTOTYPICAL PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN SHOWING DEDICATED
BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES DURING PEAK TRAFFIC PERIODS IS AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
OVLY COLD PLASTIC
CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
24" STOP BAR THERMOPLASTIC, 6 INCH
2) DEDICATED BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES WILL BE MARKED WITH 6" WIDE
BROKEN WHITE LANE LINE
BROKEN LANE LINES AND DEDICATED LANE SYMBOLS. THERMOPLASTIC, 4 INCH
12’-6" MARK, 37’-6" GAP
DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LANE LINE
OVLY COLD PLASTIC OVLY COLD PLASTIC

DEDICATED LANE SYM 12 INCH CROSSWALK
MONROE AVE
200’ SPACING 8’ LONG, 2’ GAP

EX
RO
W
S
IE
R
A
V
W
O
R
X
E
EX RO
W
DATE: 01/18/11
E
IN
H
L
C
E
EX
N
N
IT 6 I
A
R
O
L
W
W HT
E
IN 60
IG
H
6+
R
D
A
E
ST
G
T
E
T
B
O
MONROE AVE
D
OVLY COLD PLASTIC
EX 100’ ROW
24" STOP BAR
WORKED ON BY: AVP

8
TS THERMOPLASTIC, 4 INCH
SOLID WHITE LANE LINE
THERMOPLASTIC, 4 INCH
01/18/11
NE
LI
NE
CH
LA
IN
DOTTED WHITE LANE LINE OVLY COLD PLASTIC
DATE:
TE
T6
2’ MARK, 4’ GAP 12 INCH CROSSWALK

HI
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
60
GH
W
7+
ED
RI
A
D
TT
ST
EN
DO
PROPOSED LOUIS AND MONROE NB

RAPID TRANSIT STATION
EX
R
O
W
OVLY COLD PLASTIC
TRW
12 INCH CROSSWALK
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
CHECKED BY:
42679_01_LOUIS_NB_PVTMRKG.DGN
E
X
66
’
R
O
W
PROTOTYPICAL
PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKINGS
LOUIS ST
0 3 5 10 3-LEG INTERSECTION APPROACH (MONROE/LOUIS)
FILE NAME:
= BRT FLOW PATH
TS = TRAFFIC SIGNAL Traverse City
01/18/11 44
FINAL R.O.W.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES DURING PEAK TRAFFIC PERIODS IS
MICHIGAN ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THERMOPLASTIC, 4 INCH
2) DEDICATED BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES WILL BE MARKED WITH 6" WIDE SOLID WHITE LANE LINE
BROKEN LANE LINES AND DEDICATED LANE SYMBOLS. EX 100’ ROW
THERMOPLASTIC, 6 INCH DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LANE LINE
DOTTED WHITE LANE LINE
2’ MARK, 4’ GAP
OVLY COLD PLASTIC,
669
ONLY
EX ROW
PROPOSED MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK WB
PROPOSED MICHIGAN AND BOSTWICK EB
RAPID TRANSIT STATION ONLY
EX ROW
12’-6" MARK, 37’-6" GAP
OVLY COLD PLASTIC

LEFT TURN ARROW SYMBOL
OVLY COLD PLASTIC

OVLY COLD PLASTIC RIGHT TURN ARROW SYMBOL
DATE: 01/18/11
24" STOP BAR
STA 669+75 STA 669+75
WORKED ON BY: AVP

END 6 INCH DOTTED WHITE LANE LINE BEGIN 4 INCH
END 4 INCH SOLID WHITE LANE LINE SOLID WHITE LANE LINE
EX ROW
THERMOPLASTIC, 4 INCH OVLY COLD PLASTIC

DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LANE LINE 12 INCH CROSSWALK
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
OVLY COLD PLASTIC

12 INCH CROSSWALK
01/18/11
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
670
BOSTWICK AVE
DATE:
ONLY
EX 66’ ROW
50 51
TS
TRW CHECKED BY:

42679_05_MICHIGAN_EB_PVTMRKG.DGN
EX ROW
EX ROW
END 4 INCH
OVLY COLD PLASTIC

STA 50+69

BEGIN 4 INCH
STA 50+04
EX 100’ ROW PROTOTYPICAL

OVLY COLD PLASTIC
24" STOP BAR MICHIGAN ST PERMANENT PAVEMENT MARKINGS
= BRT FLOW PATH 0 3 5 10 3-LEG INTERSECTION APPROACH (MICH./BOSTWICK)
FILE NAME:
OVLY COLD PLASTIC, 10 SCALE Grand Rapids . Southfield .
TS = TRAFFIC SIGNAL ONLY Traverse City
R.O.W CONST.
01/18/11 45
FINAL R.O.W.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES DURING PEAK TRAFFIC PERIODS IS
FULTON ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
BROKEN LANE LINES AND DEDICATED LANE SYMBOLS.
EX 82’ ROW
EX ROW
637
OVLY COLD PLASTIC,
ONLY
STA 60+52
END 4 INCH
STA 61+27
BEGIN 4 INCH
DATE: 01/18/11
PROPOSED FULTON AND RANSOM SB

EX ROW
EX ROW
OVLY COLD PLASTIC

12 INCH CROSSWALK
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
ONLY
RANSOM AVE
WORKED ON BY: AVP

OVLY COLD PLATSIC
12 INCH CROSSWALK
TS
EX 66’ ROW
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
60 61 62
01/18/11
DATE:
638
BROKEN YELLOW LANE LINE
12’-6" MARK, 37’-6" GAP
STA 638+10 OVLY COLD PLASTIC,

END 4 INCH LEFT TURN ARROW SYMBOL
DOTTED WHITE LANE LINE EX ROW
EX ROW
OVLY COLD PLASTIC, THERMOPLASTIC, 4 INCH

24" STOP BAR DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW LANE LINE PROPOSED FULTON AND RANSOM NB
TRW
EX ROW
CHECKED BY:
OVLY COLD PLASTIC
12 INCH CROSSWALK
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
42679_10_FULTON_SB_PVTMRKG.DGN
OVLY COLD PLASTIC,
24" STOP BAR
EX 78’ ROW 2’ MARK, 4’ GAP
PROTOTYPICAL
0 3 5 10 3-LEG BOULEVARD INTERSECTION (FULTON/RANSOM)
FILE NAME:
= BRT FLOW PATH
FULTON ST 10 SCALE Grand Rapids . Southfield .
Traverse City
R.O.W CONST.
TS = TRAFFIC SIGNAL
01/18/11 46
FINAL R.O.W.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES DURING PEAK TRAFFIC PERIODS IS LOGAN ST AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
EX 66’ ROW
STA 463+40
END RIGHT 4 INCH
SOLID WHITE EDGE LINE
PROPOSED DIVISION AND LOGAN SB
EX ROW
DATE: 01/18/11
SOLID WHITE EDGE LINE
OVLY COLD PLASTIC
DEDICATED LANE SYM
200’ SPACING
OVLY COLD PLASTIC
DEDICATED LANE SYM
200’ SPACING
DIVISION AVE
DIVISION AVE
462 463
600
EX 83’ ROW
EX 83’ ROW
WORKED ON BY: AVP

12’-6" MARK, 37’-6" GAP
12’-6" MARK, 37’-6" GAP
01/18/11
OVLY COLD PLASTIC
DEDICATED LANE SYM
200’ SPACING
DATE:
EX ROW EX ROW
TRW
CHECKED BY:
42679_14_LOGAN_SB_PVTMRKG.DGN
OVLY COLD PLASTIC,
24" STOP BAR
EX ROW VARIES
PROTOTYPICAL
LOGAN ST
= BRT FLOW PATH 0 3 5 10 3-LEG UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (DIV./LOGAN)
FILE NAME:
TS = TRAFFIC SIGNAL 10 SCALE R.O.W CONST.
Traverse City
01/18/11 47
FINAL R.O.W.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT LANES DURING PEAK TRAFFIC PERIODS IS AUTH DATE NO. REVISION
OVLY COLD PLASTIC 44TH ST

DEDICATED LANE SYM
200’ SPACING
PROPOSED DIVISION AND 44TH SB

OVLY COLD PLASTIC
12 INCH CROSSWALK
8’ LONG, 2’ GAP
OVLY COLD PLASTIC

24" STOP BAR
EX ROW
EX ROW
OVLY COLD PLASTIC

12’-6" MARK, 37’-6" GAP
DATE: 01/18/11
DIVISION AVE
EX 98’ ROW
ONLY
OVLY COLD PLASTIC 203
204
DEDICATED LANE SYM 205
200’ SPACING
WORKED ON BY: AVP

01/18/11
DATE:
OVLY COLD PLASTIC,
ONLY


EX ROW
EX ROW
BEGIN 6 INCH
THERMOPLASTIC, 4 INCH THERMOPLASTIC, 6 INCH
STA 203+81
DOULBE SOLID YELLOW LANE LINE DOTTED WHITE LANE LINE
BEGIN 6 INCH
2’ MARK, 4’ GAP
STA 204+31
TRW
STA 205+31
END 6 INCH
END 4 INCH
CHECKED BY:
75’ GAP
42679_30_44TH_NB_PVTMRKG.DGN
12’-6" MARK, 37’-6" GAP
PROPOSED DIVISION AND 44TH NB

PROTOTYPICAL
44TH ST
0 3 5 10 5-LANE INTERSECTION APPROACH (DIV./44TH)
FILE NAME:
= BRT FLOW PATH
Traverse City
TS = TRAFFIC SIGNAL
01/18/11 48

Appendix E

Survey Drawings


Survey
Silver Line BRT
61
4 .7
7
DOORWAY
BUILDING
COMERICA
Louis Street Station
DOOR
CONC
RET E
POST
VALVE
61
INDICATOR
64
14
. .4
6
422
61 1 2
61 2 .2.6 8
2 .2 3
4
61 61
POST IND VALVE

5 4 .5
.0 2
6 5
CO
611 4 .5
6611 5 .0 4
6 6611 4
NC
44.9.4 4 .6
.6
75 61 33
E
61 61
64 4
RE
14
. .7 61 4 .8
.9 9 661 4 .4 66
U
0 14
999 144
TE
61.3.3 .3
61
3
LANDSCAPING
42.74
2.0
6161 8 61 61
4
4614.
4 .14 .7 .5 4 .8
3 STORY
U
6
BUILDING
2.7 2 61 6
& ’ CU 755
4 .561 6161
4
DOORWAY
1 .4 4 .5
4 .0
GU R
6 3 61 77 61
TT B 611 2 61
LANDSCAPING 4 3
5 .4
LANDSCAPING
.0 61 .9 7
SIGN
61 2 .4.4 6 61 0
61
8 3 .4
ER 2 .3 1 LAN DS 616 61 61
9 61 6161 61 61 46.8
1644161 661
4 .4 4 .1 5
4 4 144
11 .444
4614.
.1
4 .1 4 .44
C APIN
G .1 .8 .3.8 8 2 1
61 61 6.7
4175.3.33 61
U
1 6.4 3 4 4 5 95
64
11
14 .3
4 .7.74 4.2 61 4 .3
M 61
4
. .7 3 41 4 .8 5 61
U
.1 0
766 6161 4 61
SIGN
2 61
4 6 616 61 4 .0 3
.6 61 6141 4 3 .8.3 3 .6 0 .6
ON
61 5 4 66161 4 61 4 61 611 4 .8 4.6.15.2 61 50 2 7
1 .9 R .1 144.4 .4 4 614 .4 8 32 4
2 .0.07 9 .3 61 .9 4
6 O 04 7 4 .46
DOOR
4 .4 6611
2 61
6161 2
BI 4 3 44.7.3
.2 55
2 .56.01 9 61
CONCRETE
4
TU E A
E
2 28.2 V 61 .1 6161
3
LANDSCAPING
2 7
CONC
.5 4 .8
4 .3
E
MI 6161 2 4 8 7
NO E N 2 .9
RET E
CONCRETE
61 .4 65 61 61
2 .4 4 .0
9 66116 1
US UE 4614.
61 331.8.74 .1
61
U
61
100
3 .6 4.22 8 3 .9 61 4
4 .0 BRICK 6 6
2.0
3 61 4
61 61 8
F
3 61 61
.6 3 .9 61 .1 6 6 614 661161 4 6 61 61616114 .1 6166111 3
PARKING METE
66116 0 1414 4 .2
9 61.3 1 44.7 4 .344.2.2.761
F
.78 3
OVERHANG
3613. 61 61
6 .7 .6 .1 61 61 4.1.6
4 0
44.8.8 4 66 4 .2 4 .7
& ’ CU 341.6461 61 3 06611 61 34 .9
61
61 6 4 3 3 3 3 3343.8 6.4611 6661161 9 1 54 1 55 4 .1
U
6.1169.13 .6 616134 .4 7 3 4 .4
2
2IN
8
611 3 6116613 14 32.7 2
711 .3 2 .861 .8
.1 .2 6.4 .0.63 34.7.9.3 9 BRICK 83 7 6611 .9 561 8 5 6113461314444.4.4 61 66116141444.3.34 .8 6 61
3613.
9 361.4 .8 61 61
61
GU R
2 61 2 .7 3 1
13313.9.9 77 558 .8 44 4 661 .0.0.4.530 4 .3 614 .4 4.4 .887 7 631 2 61
.7
2"
1 61 6 1 2 .861
2"
61 616 61 3 .7 .9 2
U
.2 53.35.80 61 134.00000 2
811 641 .80088
2 .8 5 661 3 .3 9 61 61 61 .3.559 .6 0 .34 2 .91 2 4 .3
61 6 61 6 6 .4
861
TT B 87 6 61 3 .7 31.83 61 3 3.3
1 61 6 61 6 143
6
2 .9.32
7 6.8 6 7 .4 1 61 1
2IN
.3.86 61 1 3 .2 3 .7 631.7
2 .6 13 3 .3 66 4.3 6 61 61 8 4 .9 1 4 4 .3 1 5
9 3 .8 4 61 61 2 61 7 112
GAS
.2 61 3 .91 3 661 3 .7 1 3 915 61 2 .3

4 4
2IN
8 .7
ER
2
2"
3 3 61 2 1 3 3 .3 61 26 113 .6 .4 2 .4 .4
BRICK
0 6147.2 3 .9 1 8 .0 6 4 61 3 .0
2IN
9 .8 4
2IN
7 .4 8 616 661 143.0 8

61 2 3 .36 1 3 619 6 61 6
BRICK
3 61 61 616 6.7 4 .3 0 3 .3 .3 3 631 .55 9 6.6 2
.7 61 2 .56132 6 6 6
2"
1431 34 .66 3
6 3 .4 4 103 .2 3 43.2 661 4 661 613 1 3 3 .8 1 3
.4 .0.5 .5.0 5 1
6 3 .6 616661114 31.63 1 3 61.2 641 .7
TRAFF
61 1 .2 143 3 .5 2
8
OVERHANG
611 2 2 4 61 .0.4
OVERHANG
6129681 1 3 61 2613 .644.1.0 1 1633 .6 61 3.7.29 6.81611 1 .0619
.9 61 614 61 9.2 7 .2 9 38.2 3 .20661 .6 4 13
0
2 .7.3 1
8 3 .0 3 .5.4 3 .1 3 61 61 3 3 .6621.1119
6 3.2 631 761 6 1 33 .6 611 3 56 631.2 5 3 .12 6 2 .5
61 7 1 .1 3
61 5.6 18 2 7
61 2 4 0 861 1 3 .5 .5 93
.5 611 3 .607 .6 3 .2 3 .2 .2 8 6 3 .2.6 6 6211.7 .6
2 .8 6 3 8 3 8
5 1 3 2
BRICK
3 .0 .6 61 .23 1 8 2 1.7
.8 9 8
61 .1 5 3 3 .2
8
.2
20.5’ HIGH
3 3 .2 8
7 9
TRAFFIC
0
LIGHT ARM
61 61
2
CO
.5
8
2612.
.5
NC
U
588 2.0’ CURB
10
6
CROSSWALK
RE
BRICK
611 2
Feet
TE61 3 .1.6 3
& GUTTER
PARKING
0
METERS
3 .1 61
61 61 8 3 .2
2 .9 3 1
2 .2 61
6 61 3
3 .3 .2
2 6 MONROE AVENUE
1 inch = 40 feet
6 503+00
6 12
OVERHANG
BRICK
502+00
20
61 6 1 2 .8
LANDSCAPING
BRICK
3 .3 1 3 .3.8 8 7 501+00 BITUMINOUS
3"
20.2’ HIGH
500+00 3 0
TRAFFIC
61 6
LIGHT ARM
3 .31 3
LANDSCAPING
61 7 .3
2
61 9
.8 3 .4
6 4 6
611 2 61
3
BRICK
3 .4.9 9
4 .0
2
BENCH
61 61
3 3 .5 6
.6 3
1 611 3 61
3 .5.0 9 3
61 4 61 .11
BRICK
3 .3 61 3 .5
6 3 .6 9
5
61
3 6
LA 61 .6 61 3 61 61
3 .6 .3 6
8 631.3 3 .3
BRICK
3
ND 61 3 .41 6
61
61
3
BRICK
.7 3 .7 11 3 6
5 .4 1
SC
61 4 61 61
3
3 61 5 3 .7
61 6313..99
.6
U
.7
BRICK
00
4
AP 3 .7 73 .7 2.0’ CURB
7
9 6 6
3613.
.7
BRICK
BI IN 61 1 3
U
TU G 61
788
3 6611 3 .4 .4 3
61
.8
6
33.8.8 3 & GUTTER
96
MI
3 .8 61
3 3 .8 61
NO
61 3 3 .8 61
3 0 61 3
61 .8 3 61 .8 61
US 61
3 61 3 3 .7 3 4 .43 61 61
3
.6 3 61 .8 9 .8 61 61 61 3 .1
2 .8 3 2 61 1 3 2 4 4 .6
BRICK
2 .8 61 .4 .2 9
.8 3 4 9
61
.8 3 66161 63 .6 6 7
0 0
3"
631 61 1 33 .73 .3 13
63 3 .86 .7 99 3 . .7
U
13 61 13
BRICK
755
. 3
BRICK
.8 61 0 .5
3 .7
.7 061 3
U
9
833
9 .2
5 61
4 .5
1
32
61 61 61
3 3 .7
.8 8 61
3613.
8 .8 3 61
.5
U
3
800
96 .3
61 13 0
3 .8 .5
63 6 61
3 6
.4
61641 1 3 .0 61
33.4.4 0 61
4
BRICK
.0
BRICK
BRICK
6012
3613.
.4 5
U
61 2 .9 477
3 .4 9
6
BIT
LOU
61 61
3 3
UM
.7
IS
.7
CONTROL BOX
0 0
STREET LIGHTING
61
IN
3
BRICK
61.6 4
3 .6 61 61
2 3 .0 2 .7
OU
61
3
S TR
.5 61 6 9 0
S
0 21 61 6
CONCRETE
3 1.1361
3
0.0 2.5
61613 612.6.624.76
2612..03 8 3
EET
.5
CROSSWALK
BRICK
533
6611
61 33.4.4
3 .4 50
7 61
61 3 .4
3 .4 1
2
BRICK
WIRES IN THE AREA

61
631
.1
BRICK
261.6
72
7.6
8
NOTE: THERE ARE NO OVERHEAD

2.0’ CURB
& GUTTER
Sheet
1 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
FIRE
LIGHT POLE
F.F.=613.58
Van Andel Station
ORNAMENTAL
DOORWAY
LIGHT POLE
PLACE
DEVOS
ORNAMENTAL
FIRE DOOR
FIRE DOOR
F.F.=613.26
F.F.=613.24
F.F.=613.29
61 61
6611 3 3 .5
DOORWAY
33.4.3 6161 6611 61 .5 5
5
DOORWAY
07
DOORWAY
33.4 33.4 3 .5
.54 .47
OVERHANG
DOOR
7 8 2 61
ORNAMENTAL LIGHT E
ORNAMENTAL LIGHT E
3 .4
ORNAMENTAL
61
3 8
.4
AREA
5
61 61 61
3 61 3 3
ORNAMENTAL LIGHT
.2 .3 .3
E LIGHT
3
AREA LIGHT
AREA LIGHT
8 0 7
AREA LIGHT
AREA LIGHT
.2
AREA LIGHT
AREA LIGHT
AREA LIGHT
7
LIGHT
DOOR
61
3 .2
DOOR
61
8 3 .2
DOOR
9
61
61 3 .2
3 6
6 6"
6"
6"
.1
0 61 61
3 3
AN .0
CONC RETE.1
61 G 61 8 61 8
612 61 2 3 .1
MONUMENT
61
ORNAMENTAL
ORNAMENTAL
2.7.3 2 .3 .8 3 4
2
DOORWAY
95 66 61 61
2 .8 6161
3 DECORATIVE TILE 61 2
72 63 3 2 .82 .8 611122 .1 61 2 .9
1 7 79 2 .4.4.494 66116122 66611 0 61 2 .9 7
8
1333
2 .8 7
BUILDING
.0
61
2 .5.5.5 .0.0 .8 0
OVER HANG
61
SUPPORT
42861 301 6
2. 2 .5 3 .0
7 66161 2
E
57
6"
1223
AREALIGHT
AREALIGHT
.9.5.0 0 66161
AREA LIGHT
95
AREA LIGHT
AREA LIGHT
AREA LIGHT
122.9
AREA LIGHT
6"AREA LIGHT
2 .9
LIGHT
LIGHT
.8.5 61
6091 0 2 .9 61
26.4 6
162 1 7 2 .8 6611
21.4621 8 22.9.8
25.4.8 09 61 61
6212.8
2 2 2
61 61
6
61 61 61 .8 .7 2 .6 2
2 2 .2
61 2 2.7 61 5 61 3 .6
2 .8 4
6"
6"
.1 0 2 .3 8 2 3
OVERHANG
1 8 61
2 .7 61 .7
1
6"
61 2 61 61 61 2 61 7 2 .9
2 .3 61621.82 2 .4 .5 4
66 610.7 2 .4
8 6 2 .7 61 61
611122 5 2 .3 661611 2 9 8 61
62 .36 2 .8 2 .7
4
61 2 .3.3.3
63 0 22.7.7
6.76118 661 61 61 9 2 .5
2 6
F
2 .2 3 99622.31 22 .32 .3 .3
61 6
26 1 66611 5
8 .23 .3 1 2
7 1 2 .21 2 2 .2 61 112222.6.6
9.2 9 2 .6.686
5 61 .1 8 67 61 61 61
2 .2 2 2 2 .3
1 61 .0 8 .5 1
61
7
61 66112.5 2
2 .1 62 2 61 61 .9 61
3 1 2 .0 31 1 2 .3
61 6 3 61 61
61 .9 9 2 .4
61 .0 3 3 61
2 5 .1 .2 3
..008
0 .9 .2
E
8 1 .91
0 32 7 6
5 61
61
611 61 61
61 1 .7 1..6 2 2 .8
1 .7 1 .2 61 61 61 4
1 0 2 2
633
MONROE AVENUE 611 .7 .2 61 61 .7
1 .74 7 2 8
5
1 .8 .3 61 61 61 61
3 3 2 2 2
61
2
.5 .1 .0 2 .5
61 .7
1 2 9 2 .6 1
8
7
BITUMINOUS
516+00
LIGHT POLE
515+00
0
513+00 514+00
ORNAMENTAL
10
Feet
CRO
MONROE AVE
1 inch = 40 feet
20
S SW
61
2
BITUMINOUS
.4 61
5 2 61
.4
ALK
9 2 .1
7
6611
22.2.2
44
61
2 .5 61
6 2 61
2 61
.4 .1 2 61 61
8 2 .1 2 .42 61
1 2 .0
61
2.4 1 9 61
1 611
61 6 .8 1..9
6111 .8 4
1 .9
61
U
2 .2 0 61
933 61
0 611 612
61
0 1..4 611 .6 61 61 61
61 6 2.2.72
611 .5 0 61 2 .2 611 2 61
.3 2 1
466 61 1 .7
2. 2 .1
2 .06 61 2 .161
9
612 .2 8 2 .7 1 .8
611 .7 9 61 0
E
2 8
2 .13 611 661 61 61 61621.1 6 2 .1
19 2 .78
2 .2 22.55.5 6 4
7 2 .2 61
GAS
61 61 2.9.34 122.5
2 62 7 .52 6 1 61 3 58 62
61 .1 61 1 2.1 5 4 12 61 1.6 25 61 61
2 3 61 61 .4
2 .4 61 2 2 .8
61 61 2 .7 .7 0 .7
F
.2 2 .2 .2
2 2 2 2 0 7 2 .6 1
2 62 1 .3 .4 .5 1 5
61
61
12
. 2 3 9 8
.2 .2 61
0 62
12 61
1 2 2
U
233
.2
. .4 61
2 61 61 61 61 61
2 .8
2
U
9 .4 2 .7 7
400
6 .5 2 .6 2 .6 .7 6
9 9 9 7
61 61
2 61
2 61
61
.2 2 .2 .4 2 61
1 6 61 1 .5 61 61
2 3
2 .0
3613.
2 4 .7 .8 61 .0 7
.4 61 5 0 2
STREEL LIGHT U
3
066
.9
GAS
2 .4 61 61 61
2
2 61 61
2 .8 9
5 .6 2 2 .9
2 .7 .8 0 46
2 4 61
61 61
62 3613.
1 2. 61 .1
2612.
.6 .9 2
122
.9
U
U
611
SA
944
5
GAS
GAS
61
61 3 .4
61 3 0
LAWN .1
3 .0 9
5
61 CONCRETE
63
13
. .2
299
SA
61
6
3
6
.1
4
61 61
61 61
3 2 .9
61 3 3 .1 .1 8
3 .2 .1 8 3
4 5
DOOR
DOOR
WIRES IN THE AREA

NOTE: THERE ARE NO OVERHEAD
34.0’ WIDE
OPENING TO
STRUCTURE
LEVEL OF PARKING
MONROE AVENUE
Sheet
2 of 21
12+00
RETAINING WALL
69 6969 8 69
7 .4 7 .4 .1 8 .1
8 006 3
6969 98
7 .27 .1 .0 69 69 69
39 3 7 .8 7 8 .0
.9 3
6 4
LANDSCAPING
6696 6699
69 99888.6.7 868.79.7 6969
Survey
8 .1.7600 854.2 8 .48 .4
2 7 32
6969
8 .68 .6
66
69
69 8 .7 69
8 .3 7 9 .0
BUS STOP SIGN

9 3
COVERED BUS STOP
Silver Line BRT

69
8 .7
69
1 9 .2 69
69 3 69 9 .1
9 .4 9 69 6
0 .3 9
5 .3
4
CONCRETE
70 69
1.5’ CURB & GUTTER

700 .0 69 9 .8
69 7 0 .00 9 .9 8
9 .60 0
8 8
5 .1 8
70
0 .4
23.2’ HEIGHT
1
70 70 7 70
0 .3 70
700 0 .7 70 0 .5
1 00
. 0 .8 2 0 .6 9
.8 1 7
4
U
84
70
OVERHEAD WALKWAY
1 .1 70
4 1 .0
8
Michigan Street Station
70 70
70
70 1 .01 .6 71
01
70 170.270 8 0 . .5
U
1 .313.31 .7
577
4 0706 7
1 .9 0 2
70 6 .0 70
2 .1 3 1
2 .9
8
BUILDING
70
70 2 .5
7070 70 2 .6 6
2 .72 .22 .2 5
70 25 9
70 3 .8
3 .9 0
2
70
3 .7
2
70
70 70 70 730.4
3 .9 3 .9 3 .8
3 .53
7 8 9 7
70
4 .0
9 7070 70
3 .5
3 .5 4 .1
70 5 70
70 7070 7 70 7 7 4 7070
3 .8 3 4 7 0774070 4 .3 70077045 0.3 .4 4 .4
704 .4
05.0 1 4 .5
70 55.0.0 0
4 .7 8.2 7 0 40 5.3 8 0
74
04 .4 .05 32 5.0.1554 .41
56
82
7
13+00
..887005
U
0.03 70
4 .8
7070
70 70 5 4 .85 .4
5 5 13
.3 .2
F
1 2
70
4 .9
LAWN
70
5 7070
7070
4704. 70 70 5 .56 .1
.9 5 .15 4 770 6 .25 .5
2.5 77 70
U
707 5
7070 7
999 6 .0
5 .7
5 .8
5 .55 0.05
5 1
0 8.1 7
LANDSCAPING
CONCRETE
70 7070
8IN 8"
70
70 6 .1
75
05 6 .26 .1
6 2 ..5758 7070 18
.5
U
7070
7 087505.663.15 6 .46 .5
70 5. 40
6 .9 70 7070.774
5 6 .9
5 .96 .44
12
75 0
70
0
7 .2
6706.
70
7 .9 707070 7070 7070
7 7
U
6 .77 .3 7 .46 .8
.7
97 6 .56 .16 .2
3 70 70 941 59 60
7 .4 7 .2
0 1
70
70 7070 70 7 7 .4 70
6 .7 6 .77 .1 .1 2 7 .3
LANDSCAPING
6 16 4 7
70 70
10
70 70 7 .3 7
8 7 .3
.0 .6 9 2
Feet
6 9
CONCRETE WALL
70
70
8 7 .8
BITUMINOUS
LANDSCAPING
.6 4
4 707070
70 7 .87 .47 .3
8 .6 70
70 23 9 70 70 7070
1 inch = 40 feet
7
RETAINING WALL
8 .0 8 .78
LAWN
8 .8 7070 8 .38 .3
7 3 8.1 5 13
MICHIGAN AVENUE
8 .18 .7
20
71 70 8 70 701 8 70 7070 75 7070
7071 .4 8 .37771100 .2 .1 7 .8 7 8 8 .58 .5
0.108 7 70 70
70 4.1.6 4 008.1.1.419 0 .775.2 6 8 .5 17
9 58 006 08 8 .7
LIGHTING CONTROL BOX

70 70 4
9 .2 .4 9 70
.5 4 8 .7 8
1 0
8 .7
8
CONCRETE
70
8 .7
CONCRETE
6
7710 770 70 70
71 09.1.1 7 7711080.9.1 8 .8
70 0 .170419 0 97.40 909.1.092 4 9.
9 .9 4 .7
4 6 .1 2307 7 7070
0 0 9 0 9 8 .58 .5
27
.2 .0 5 5
6 9
71 70 70 707
71 0 .2 9 .7 8 .9 80 9
0 .3 2 7 3 .9 0.3 77071
6 9 .50 .2 7170
51
4IN
71 0 .39 .7
0 .6
70 74
0 9 .9
LAWN 4"
5
E
70 7171
71 71 0 .00 .0
0 .8
97.971 77 87
0 001.6 0 .4717117011 0
70179317.9 71
71 07.019.6 0 .0
0 3.6 711 00 .7.7 0 .2
7171
0
ELEV=26.0’
03.17 8 0 .1.7 86.11 66 0 .30 .3
.4 9 23
71
1 .1 5 71 0 7
71
5 0 .1
1 .5
84
LOWEST WIRE
71
1 0 .8
ELEV=23.9’
0 71 7171
71 7 0 .5
0 .0 0 .0
701.41 8 50
LOWEST WIRE
0 6.00 .0
87
71 71 77111
1 .9 1 .9 1 .8.8 71 71
7 1 98
1 .1 71 71 1 .1
8 1 .0 1 .1
9
7171701.805.4 71 4 5
71 1 .1
7 7
LAWN
71 2 .0 71 11 70
1 0 731711 11711
71 2 .1 5 1 .9 .9 7711 7 0..55 1 .1.2 .2 78 .2
2 .2 7 1 714 2 11 1 171 ELECTRIC (AERIAL) 32 11 9
71 .1.1 0 .6 1 0
71 71 711 1 2 1 .7 77 711 7
1 .8 0 00 1 .7 71 71 71 .4 0
9
3
71
2 .32 .2 .1 6 0 111.3.3 .6171
.1 1 1 .0 1 .2 2 .0
71
.3 3 3 2 4 71
4 71 24 717 4 77
71 1 .7
1.
7171
11
71 1 .3 11
1.
1 .5 .8 5 1 .81 .8
U
71 9 711 .2.117
75
5
U
7 76
1. 39
1 .9 71 .2 6
CONCRETE 8 77111 71 71 711 71 71
U
1 .3 1 2
71 71
98 2 .1 2 .6
2 .4 2 .3 71 7 71 .4.3 9 .0 271 2 .2 .9 9 3 1
9 CROSSWALK 1 .52 71 2 3
8 1 .7
7 1 2 .17 .2 7
14+00
71 91 2 71
71 7171 .0 2 .4 71
71 2 .0 1
LAWN 71 2 2 1 .7 1 .71 .7 7 2 .2
7171 2 .8 71 .2 7 5 38 8
7 33 71 0 2 .2
71711 2 .6 .1.121 2 .4 8
2 .7
2 .7 8 6
43
Sheet
3 of 21
15+
Survey
Silver Line BRT
G.R.C.C. Station SB
MTER
CONCRETE
ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC
73 77330 73
72 7272 72 72
0 .1 0.1.1 0 .2
72 72 4 9 99.7.7 9 .6 9 8
4 .1 .3 .2 31 8 .5 4 4 01
4 6 3 72 72
9 .7 9 73 7
.6 0
(TYPICAL)
0 .2 73 3 0
9
ELEC METER
6 0 .2 .2 6 TREE BOX
72 LANDSCAPING 72 LANDSCAPING 73 2
TRANSFORMERETBETB
72 72
4 .7 72 72 8 8 9 .3 0 .0 73 73
0 6 7 .3 .9 8 7
73 73
0
.7 .4 1 0 0 73 0 .2 0 73 0 .5
0 9 73 73 .1 0 73 7 .4 0 1
0 0 3 .2 0 2 .6
.1 .3 0 .3 4
4 1 2
2IN
ETB 2IN
2IN
73 73 73
LAWN 0 0 0 .6
.1 .2 0
72 73 4 9
72 0
2"
72 72 9
72 8 9 .5 .0
2"
2"
7 .0
PARKING
6 .4 .2 1 6 0
.4 0 2
5
10
Feet
73 73 73
72 72
0 0 .5 0 .6
72 72
8 9 9 .8 .2
72
CONCRETE728
72 6 7 .1 .8 .3 3 5 8
2 .3 .2 7 5 6 3
.2 4 8 73
4 72 1 .4
9
METER
4
10IN
72 .8 73 73
8 4
10IN
0 0
PARKING METER
.2 .4 .6
1 inch = 40 feet
7
14IN
72
10"
PARKING METER
72 7 8 LAWN 5 5 73
6 .2
14"
10"
73
.7 2 6 .8 7 72 72
20
72 1 5
72 728 729 720 73 0 .8
0
727 8.9.4 8.4.95 9.0.51
726 .2 7 0
730 .5
5 .77 6.2.73
72 7 3 72
9
72 0 .59
72 9 72 5 7 .0 9 .5
9
5 .8 6 .8 .8 1 4
1 7
1
514+00 515+00
512+00 513+00
METER
PARKING
METER
PARKING
METER
PARKING
RANSOM AVENUE
BITUMINOUS
73
72 73 72 72 1 .7
72 72
9 0 .0 9 .6 9 .9 2
72
6 7 8 .4 .2 1 6
.2 .4 5 8
4 0 6
72
1 .7
2
Sheet
4 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
G.R.C.C. Station NB
72 72 4
4 .1 .3
4 6
72 L
4 .7 72
0 6 .7
0
72
6 .4
5
72
72 6 .3
2 .2
71 4
3 4
.4
89
45
72 7
6 .7
72 1
726
71 71 72 5.2.77
70 71 71 6 8 0 .4 72 9
6 4 .1 .3 .3 5
.5
1 .7
5 2 7 5 .8
4 8 1
RANSOM AVENUE 512+00 513+00

510+00 511+00
BITUMINOUS
71 71
71 71 3 5 .2
70 0 1 .8 .6 4
8 .1 1 0
.9 0
PARKING
PARKING
1
0
71 71
71
5 6 .6
9 .0 72
CONCRETE .37 7 5 6
70 70 5 2 71 711 871 .2
9
711 5 .4 71 6 .9 .99 4
8 .9
.0 7 5 .8 3 7 .4 2 9 .4 7
70 0 89 7 71
5 2.4 1
70 8 .8 711 0 .6 71 2 .0 71 711 4 .0 4
METER METER
9 .3 6 1 .1 8 4 .5 1 71
721.4 571 2 .6 71 9
PARKING METER
0 71
PARKING METER
7 4 7 7 .9
CLEAN OUT
71 71
CLEAN OUT
71 71 274.5 721.6 7 .0 .2 0
8"
71 1 .2 71 4 71
9
8IN
0 1 .4 2 .5 6 29.6 3 .2 4 2
8"
LAWN
10
8IN
.6 0 1 3 9 .6 7 .5
6
8IN
2 2 72
Feet
8"
8IN
71 71 71 0
8"
LAWN 71 71
2 4 6 7 .7 .4
70
.6 .8 .1 0 7
9 .8
1 .1
5 1 8
9 3
71
4 .3 71 72
CONCRETE 3 71 71 71
7 0
1 inch = 40 feet
.7
U
71 71 5
71 71 5 .0 .7 .7 3
0
1 .1 2 .6 714 .7
9 5 5 6 7
.0 9 9
HANDRAIL
20
HANDRAIL
3 71
71 5 .0 71 .1 3 71
0
5 .1 1 5 .1 5 .6 71 71 72 72
.6 71 71 6
71
5 7 LAWN 9 0 1 .7
0 2 71
771 8 7711 4
.9 .9 .6 .9 2
LAWN 8
3X5
1 .1 .6 166 66.3.3 7
8IN
HANDRAIL
1 2
8"
6
DRAIN
6 .3.3
HANDRAIL
7 .3 535
HANDRAIL
70 71 43
9 5
.7 6 .3
0 4
71
6 .3
4FT
5
DOOR DOOR
METER
PARKING
METER
PARKING
RAMP
CLEANOUTS
PARKING
ROOF DRAIN
HANDRAIL
F.F.=716.35
DOORWAY
Sheet
5 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
Fulton Street Station
-BITUMINOUS PARKING
LOT-
BRICK
PILLAR (TYP.)
65 65
4 4
BITUMINOUS
.5 .4
METER
5 2
PARKING
METER
65
PARKING
4 .0
65 65 8 6 65
3 .9 3
65
4 4
1 .9 655 4 .0
.1 65 65 65 .5
4 3 .9 4
4 4 4 .1 65 4 0
7 .2 4 4 .4
43
2 .2 65 65 9
6
5 4 .3 66455.3
65 7 65
6
3 44.42.3
.7 65 18 4 .4
65
4
65 9 3 .9 65 2 .4
3 4 4 65 7
.6 .1 4
0 65
CONC
.3
F
0 4 65
3
.1 4 65
CONC
8 .1 4 65
PARKING METER
7 .1 65 4
CONC
65 65 7 4 .2
PARKING METER
65 3 65 3 65 .1 7
3 .5 .9 9
CONC
635 4 CONC RETE
.63 65 4
CONC
9.2 65
65 .0 64 6 .0 4
CONC
65 3 .7
CONC
3 .2 65 0 3 9 655 3 5 .0
2 3 .2 65 .3 2 3 .4.9 4 7 65
9 3 .4 65 6 653 .9 6 6
3 3 .5 3 5 655 3 .9 5 3
65 .5 0 65 65 6
7 3 .6
3 .4 1 .5 1 3 .4 3 655 3 .8
65 2 4 .8 2
1 3 .5 3 7
65 .3 8
4 3 .4
4
RANS OM AVENUE 496+00 497+00

495+00
0
BITUMINOUS
10
Feet
1 inch = 40 feet
20
65
3 65
6 .9 5 3 65
65 655 3 .8 6 .8 8 4 .0 65
4 .3 4 3 655 3 .8 6 0 65
4 .0
4 .2 8 4 .3 8 655 3
.9 65 0 4 .1
PARKING METER
65 65 4 4 .4 8 654 65 8 65
4 4 .3 65 5 4.0.53 4 .0 65
.5 5 1
654 .1 656 3
PARKING METER
1 9 .0 4 .65 544 65 4 65 5
65 65 4 65 65 5 .7.5 3 .9 65 .7 9
4 .5 4 4 .5 4 .4 07 .0 7 65 65
10"
7 653 .7
10
0 .4 65 1 5 65 65 3 .8 4 4 .27
6 4 65 4 5 .2 7 .2 6
.5 65 4 .5 6
9 4 .6 6
.6 6
6 655 10"
10
4 .8 65
65 7 4
4 .6
65 CONCRETE .5
4 .6 7
8 65
8 4 .6 65
7 4 .8 65
65 6 4
4 .8 65 65
.9 65 65 2 4 .7 4
6 5 5 6 .4
.3 .1 65 65 9
3 1 4 5
.9 .1 65
0 8
12
65 4 65
5 .6 4
8
LAWN 65 .0 0 .6
14
5 7 65
.4 5 7
4 .0
4
8"
12"
10
14"
65
5 .3
METER
9
10"
PARKING
METER
CONC RETE
CONC RETE
PARKING
65 65
5 5 .0
.4 3
7
Sheet
6 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
Wealthy Street Station
BRICK
2 STORY
BUILDING
LAWN
DOORWAY
CONCRETE
BITUMINOUS
65
2 .6
3 65 65
4 1 .3
.5 6565
2
65 7 1 .40 .9
2 .8 65 6 3654
3 1 5.40 1
BITUMINOUS
65 65 65 0.9 6 .0 2
2 6655 656
.2
65665 65
2
65
4
65 65
4
65 65 65
4
65 1 .5 1 .3
4
22.3.3 5242
.4.6 .3 .6 2 .8 2 2 .3 1 .9
541
.1.8 9 4
44 .411 9 9 .6 1 .5 .1 3 7 66
MAPLE STREET
1 8 2 7 65
1 .0 65
0 0 .9
65 4
65 65 2 .1
65
2 65
2 2 .4 4 .0
.5 7 6
2 65 2 .0 65
16.9 5
65
65
1 1 .0
531
.9 1
65 .5 1
CONCRETE .7 1 .7 9 65
0 1
F
65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 7 3 6565 .2
1 1 1 .9 1 1 65 2 2 65 2 11.4 9
.2 .6 2 .4 .5 1 65 .2 .2 2 65 .4
2 4 65 3 .9 2 0 6 .4 2
65.04 65 41
65 .0
F
65 7 1 7 65 65 9 .4
0 .8 1 .3 .5 1 8 2 65 1 65 61
51 65 6 1 .0
5 1 2 .5 665 .1 3 65 2 2 . .9
1 .4 5 1 6
9 511 2 .2 .2 .0 65
U
9 65 9 .4 8 65 1
4 1
.6.6 65
900
65 .1
0
0 .8 6
65 665 65
15 2 .2
65 656 65 65 652 .2 65 6 65 65 1 .0 0
65 3 65 2 .1522.1.1 1 .7 65 1 652 .0 655 2 65 2 .1 2 .1 3 655 1 5
1 .7 2 .19 1 .7
1651.511.66.5501 1.09 6 66
1 .8
16.7 8 95 666555 3 .7 3 9 1 .69 65
1 .5.3 6 1 .3 5 65 1 .2 4 65 .1
1
521 2 1 1 6 2 1 5 1
1008 .08 5155.111.1.1
.7 111.7.7.7 .6 .3 .2 5 01
8 551 9 6 0
65
BITUMINOUS 476+00
1651.
.2
475+00 CONCRETE
U
474+00 266
10
473+00
Feet
65 65 65 65
6655
1 1 1 1 .2
11.9.9 .9 .7 .5 7
88 4 4 0
1 inch = 40 feet
20
65 65 65 65
1 1 1 1 .9
.1 .4 .7 6
9 7 3
JEFFERSON AVENUE BITUMINOUS

CONCRETE
65 65 65 65 6655 65 65 65
1 65 0
.0 6 65 1 .3 65 65
1 .5 65 1 .7 65 11.7.7 6 6 6 1 .5 1 1 .0 .8
6 655 1 6516 3 651 4 651 65 65 65 97 65 65 65
65 65 .4 4 9
6655 1 .2 2.6
654 65 1 .7 655 1 .7 655 1 .5 65 6551 .4 1
1 1
1 .0 1 6
65 2 1 1
1 .5.0 2 1.25.716 22.1.1 8 2.4.37 65 .580 2 .3 2 .2 0 .3 .8 1 .8 2 .2 2 .7 1 .5 2 1 .56 1 .99
5 .8 .5 2 .4 2
2 65 6.7 8 20 1
2. 2 .5 2 3 1 65 1 1 65 0 0 6 8 1 .9 4 3 9
1 0 65 65 1 .9 2 .1 3
2
U
65 6 .6 7 65 65
50
2 2 2 .4 2 0 65
2
1 .75 1
.4 .5 .5 0 .1
5 .8 2 0 4 7 6 65 65
LAWN LAWN 1 .9 1
8 .8
65 65 6565 65 65 65 9
65 65 2
1 1 2 .3 2 2 .52 2 .3 .2 2 .1
.7 .9 .6
CONCRETE CONCRETE
65
5 8 7 4.5 3 2 1 7
0 2652.
.5
U
522
65
66565 6 65 65 65 6565 65
65 65 65 6565 6655
1 2 2 2 .7
5 2622 5 2
5.72 .7 .7 2 .1 2 .12 22.0.0 2 .0 1 .9 1 .91 .9 2 .0
.8 .0 .3 3 5 6 66 8
2 1 6 1.1 0 97
.5.7752 4 65 7
U
65 2 65 2 .2
2. 62
52 6
12 . .2
12IN
12IN
12IN
U
65
299
65 2 .2
2 .0 1
65
2
65 LAWN 7 LAWN .2 65
2 6
LAWN 2
.1 .1 6565 6
0 4 2 .62 .15 2
1 0.0 8 65 65 2
2 .1 65.0
0 2 .54
5
LAWN
BITUMINOUS
BITUMINOUS
BUS STOP SIGN
WOOD CHIPS
WOOD CHIPS
WOOD CHIPS
Sheet
7 of 21
FIRE SERVICE
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
CONNECTION
DOORWAY
2-3 STORY
DOORWAY
BRICK BUILDING
F.F. ELEV.=644.14
DOORWAY
64
DOORWAY
64
2642.
64 .9 64 3
2 .1
DOORWAY
64
U
3
944
.8 .0 7 3 64
HEIGHT=25.4’
6 2 .4 4
5 .2
3
LOWEST WIRE
64
2 64
BITUMINOUS
.8 4
Survey
6 .1
0
64 6 64 64
3 .34 2 3 .2 2
6 .8 5 4 .4 6
94 64
3 .0 3
64 64 64
POST IND VALVE

1 .1 2 3 3
64
3
6 .4 .8 3 .9 .7
644 3 646 5 8 4 7
CONCRETE
3 .1.1 0 64 64 664644 6464 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 6 64 64
34.43 3 4 64 4 4 4 64 64
4 4 4 5
4IN 6IN
644 3 .4
.9 44.0
4.0.0 4 .14 .1 .3 4 .4 .4 .5 .6 .6 .7 .7 5 .0 4 5 5 .0 5 .1 5 .2 .3
2 .9 9.4 0 9 6 012 54 7 7 9 1 9 9
8X8
9 3 6 7 .0 8 4 5 4
Silver Line BRT

GAS
GAS
OVERHANG OVERHANG
OVERHANGOVERHANG
OVERHANG
OVERHANGOVERHANG
OVERHANG
642
2
OVERHANG
64
.9 64
93 .1 64
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
GAS
OVERHANG
2 64 3 3 .9 64 64 64
.6
64 CONCRETE4.20 4 4
6644 5
64 3 3 .7 6 .6 .9 .0
3 5 64 64 7 1 3
.5
GAS
GAS
33. .
1 3 3
GAS
AERIAL UTILITY LINES
RISER
RISER
7722 64 .8614 .8 2
GAS
3 .7 3 .7
64 2 4
F
6
64
64 64 64 64
4
643 .7 63 6 3
GAS
643 .9 644 644 4
.0 43 .8
GAS
3 .41 .
4 3 .2 3 .76 4.4.22 4 .6 9
0 4 8
222 43.6.229
CURB ONLY
Logan Street Station
461+00 462+00 463+00 464+00

HEIGHT=30.0’
LOWEST WIRE
DIVISION AVENUE
BITUMINOUS
AERIAL
UT ILI
6
644 3 64 64 64 64
3 .7.5 1 64 3 .8 4 4 4
8 3 1 .0 .4 .7
.6 66 5 0 3
7 4433
64 64 .6.6 6464
3 53 3 3
TY LINES
3 .7 64
.9 7
.4.4 64
78 3
7 3 .4 .7
9 9
64 64
64 643
4 .0 3 36.44.52
8 .9 64
9 4 31.6
.0 64 5
1 3 .7
5 6464
64 3 .3
3 .6
3 .9 64 9
67
9 3 .8 4 3
8 .7
1 64
3 .3
7
64
3 .4
4
64
0
3643.
.1 155
6464
3 .63 .1
48
10
64
Feet
4.
65
64
64 4 .2
64 4 .1 0
4 .3 7
1 inch = 40 feet
6
LA
O
20
WN
NC
28
RE
TE
64
4 .1
7
BITUMINOUS
64
4 6
.5 6 64 4 4 4
7 4 64.5 .1
4 .5 4 1 8
8 .3 7
64
4 .5
64 8 64
4 .6 4
4 64.2 2
4
6 664.3
646 4 44.6440.3.2
66 4 8
64 6644 4 644444.7.764 4 4.6.32 0 1
4 .8 4 .8.8 4 .7 34 .5 8
8 36 3 7
HEIGHT=24.6’
64
4 .4
LOWEST WIRE
5
64 64
64 5 .0
5 .2 6
05 .1 9 66444464 4 6
.9 .8 4 4
GUY POLE
3 54.0
.94 6246.6
HEIGHT=18.3’
29 44 42 64 64 5
644.7 .0
64.9 2.6 3
LOWEST WIRE
5 .06 3
5 .0 6
9 GUY WIRES
6464
5 .0
4 .7
7 0
64
64 5 .1
5 .1 9
1
64 64
5 .0 5
64 64 5 .1
66 5 .3 .3 6 6 8
45
64 4455.5.5 4 8 .0
5 .5 10 9
2
E
64
5 .0
64
5
64 6 .2
64 5 3
5 .3
.7 3
3
64
65 64 64
45
.
.5 5 5 .0
.3 0
0
588
GRAVEL
64 646
5 .8 455.6 664 5 6644
0 .60 4 5 .5 3 55.4.2 64
5 .5 06 5 AERIAL UTILITY LINES
8 .0
8
64
6 .2
3 6
644 5
5 .4.4 7
64 64 0
5 .8 5 .7
2 5
64 64
5 .9 5 .8
64
5
9 9 .5
4
64
5 .8
9
HEIGHT=19.3’
BITUMINOUS
64
6 .1
LOWEST WIRE
8
LOGAN STREET
64
64 5 .7
8 .0 9
6
6
64 4 5
6 .2 .8 2
64 1
7 .4
CONCRETE
64
8 .7
0
64
7 .0
64 64 6 64
3 6 6 .3
6 .9 .7 64
8 476 2 6 .5
.3 5
Sheet
3
8 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
Franklin Street Station
65 65
8 7 .1
.0 5
1
65 65 LAWN 65
8 8 .1 6 65
.4 1 .7 65 6 .2
0 65 9 6
7
65 .5 9
.7 8 .0 4
8 7 65
6
65
65 .5 5 .8
7 65 5 5
.0 6
65
65 3 .8 65 65 6 .2
8 .0 1 6 .3 5 .9 5
U
2 65 3 1
6
CONCRETE
65 65 65
7 .4 7 .4 7 .2
65 65 65 .6 2
5 0 6
7 .0 6 .9 6
4X4
6 .6 65 5 6 65 65
65 65 65 0 5 6 5 .9 5 .9
7 7 6 .4 .0
SIG
.0 .0 6 .9 2 3 5
7 5 7 46655 6
6 .3.4 LOWE ST WIRE
65 65 65 71
6 6 6 .6 65 65 6
.9 .6 2 66.3 6 .4 5 6
4 9 56265 AT SAG=22.0’ 655 .4 0
6 .4
SIG
65 .16 7.1
65 3 0
665.0
65 6 65 65
65 6 .4
.36 6 .1 6 .16 6 .0
65 65 65 CONCRETE
6 .5 5
586 5 1 3
6 6 6 .1
.6 .6 .5 2 9
2 0 6 65
CONC
65 6 6 .1
CONC
7
CONC
6 .35 6
.0
656 65 65 65 65 65 4 3
65.45 6 .4
6 .3 6 65 65 65 6 .2 65 6 .0
0 165.3 4 5 .8 65 5 .7 5 .7 5 .9
65 6.9 6
8
65 8 8
6 5 .9 9 5 .8 8 2 65
6
65
.1 9 8
5 .9
.2 5 .4
0 0 2 3
442+00 443+00 444+00
0
10
Feet
DIVISION AVENUE
AT SAG=22.0’
AT SAG=22.0’
1 inch = 40 feet
BITUMINOUS
LOWEST WIRE
LOWEST WIRE
20
65 65 65 65 65 65 65
65 .5 655
5 .8 6 65 5 .7 65 5 .4 65 65 5 .3 .3 655 .3
65 2 655 5 65 5 2 655 5 9
.5 655 .4 9 5 .3
655.4 8 65 5 .32 655.24
65 6 65 6 .2.7 1 6 .6
.2 7
6 .0 2 5 .55 8 53.5 5 .4 4 5 .47
6 .3 655.7 7 1 65 65 5 7 3 5 6
.3 0 6 .35
5 6
6 .1 6 .0
65 65 565 8
6 .3 6 .1 6 .1 65 65 65
65
6
65
2 8 5 5 .7
65
5 5
.0 .0
65 5 .6 .6 .6
65 6 5 .9 0 7 9
2 65 65 3
65 6 .06 0
6 6 9
CONCRETE 5 586 65 .3 .2 CONCRETE
CONC
CONC
.8 9
CONC
9
CONC
.1 6 .2
U
8
CONC
6 4
6
65 655 6 65 65 65 65 65 6 65
6 6
CONC
6 5 65665565 65 65
6 6 .1.0
655 65 .3 .4 .3 .9 555 5 5 5 .9 5 5 6 5 .9
65 .6651 6655 06 6 9 65 8 5 3 65 .6.63.674.6 3 .9 2 .9 7 .0 5
6 .5 6 .5 .4 .4 3 6 65 6 4
66.5.2 0 65 65 6 .0
4 8 LOWEST WIRE 02 65 65 .5 0 6 .0 5 65 6 .5 65 65
65 6 .4 6 .6
SIG
6 .3 6 .4 65 1 66565.1 6 .5 0
0 5 65 6 .2 65 6 6 .1 5 5.79 7 65 6
6 .6
65 7 65 6 .76 605
7
SIG
AT SAG=22.0’ 0 .0 665.1 6 .25 5 65 5 6 .5 6 .8

65 5 65 655 9 6 .7 65 .7 4 1
5.9 65 LAWN 6 6 5.7.74 7 LAWN
6 1 65
65 5 .8 655 5 .7.2 3
6
6 .5 9 65 5 .7 3 .8
4 6656 2 6
65 .1
5 .7
56.7
5 .9 00
5
65 65
6 .6 7 .2
65 0 7
6 .1 BITUMINOUS
4
CONCRETE
65
SIGN
65 65 7 .3
6 .8 6 .9 7
7 4
BITUMINOUS
FRANKLIN STREET
Sheet
9 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
Green Street Station
BLDG
BLDG
BLDG
BLDG
BLDG
"KFC"
1 STORY
BUILDING
65 65
8 6 .5
OVERHANG
.3
BLDGOVERHANG
2 0
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
BLDGOVERHANG
BLDGOVERHANG
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
65 65
4 .9 65 5
1
6565
5 .6
5 .05 .4 1
1.4 3 2
65
6 .2
65 65
65 65 7 .0
65
5 5 65
5 1 7 65 .9 .8 5
.7 .0 8 5
POST
2 5 .9 6 5 .8 65
8 5 6 5 .1
65 55 3
BITUMINOUS
BITUMINOUS
6 .0 .8
65
1 8 6565
5 .9 65 65 5 .25
65 4 65 1.8 0
5
6565 5 .8
65
5
5 .7 5
65
.2 6 65
CONCRETE
8
5 .05 .5 65 1 .7 2 .9 .9 65 5
84 65 5 9 6655
CANTON STREET
1 6
PUTNAM STREET
5 5 .8 .6 55.8.3 65.3 2
.5 7 2 32
LANDSCAPING
3 5 .8
0
BUILDING
LAWN
POST
65
BITUMINOUS
5 65
OVERHANG
.5 65
65
LAWN
5 65 5 .1
2
65
65 .4 5 .7 9 65
3 65 65
5. LANSCAPING
655.4 65 5 6 5 .7 65
5655. 65 0
58.4 5 .4 .6 5 .6
5
.3 6 2
76 4 65
.2
U
65 65655.6 65 6655565 1
.0 5
433 65
65 4 3 5
55 65
5
65 5 .35 2 4 5 .2
44.9 7 .2
5 .5 .4 .3 .3 5 .1 1.0 2 .9 .913 0 7
5 .0
1 1 5 5 1 55 65
4
65 6 4 .8
4
GAS
GAS
GAS
.7 5
GAS
GAS
6
GAS
5 655 5 65
65 65 65 65 65
4 .9.0 1
5
65
5 4 4 4 .9 5 5
.3 .8 .7 .0 .0
65
7 65 .3 1 7 2 7
64
54 4 3 1 DRIVE ENTRANCE CONCRETE 2
. .9 .9
6 65
5
U
999 65 65
CONCRETE 6 6 65 65 4 65 6 65 6565 4 65 65 65 6 65 65 .3
2" 2IN
2" 2IN
65 65
65 5 65 65
65 5
4 .2 5 5 6555 65 5 4 4 .2 655 4 4 4 .8 4 .9 4 655 4 5 .1 .3 9
.9 3
655 .3 .1 .1 4.2
654 .8 65 4 .5 .5
.1 0 4 .3 .3 4 .8.9
2 64
54 9 0 .9 2 3
8 4 .80 8 6 65 4 .19
4 .04
4. 7 8 6 65 .2 63 1 66575 . .3 0 4 .4.9 2
3
65 65 .582 4 .0 5
4 4 .2 7 8 4 .3 44.4.4 65
377
.8 4 .5 4
08
1 4 011 .5
0
3 8 0
65
64
54
65 2.0’ CURB & GUTTER .
5 CONCRETE .4
.0
U
2
411
65 65 65 65 65
5 4 .9 4 4 4 .6 421+00 422+00
419+00 .1 0 420+00 .5 .5 2
2 4 6
10
Feet
1 inch = 40 feet
65 65 656
5
20
5 .6 6555.65
.7 5 5 .65.6
6 42
65
5 .9
1
65 65
6 5 .8
.0 1
3
DIVISION AVENUE
65 65
4 .8 4
65
3 .8 4 .8
65 65 65
3 5 .1 5 5
1 4 .1 .1
6 7 BITUMINOUS
BITUMINOUS
65
65 4 .4
65 665 6
555 5
4 6 6 654 .8 65.0.06 56.05
.4 665 4 655 4 .6 6565 4 .85
7 5 .3 5 .4 7 65 565.024565 75 .0
4 .7365 5 .55 .5 3 5 .7 653 5.055 658
965 4 .86565 4 0 22 5
65 2 .750.6.0 7 5 .1
CONCRETE 65 4 .7
5 .4 6755 .9 65 365 6
5 56.55.5042 5 .5 565 0 5 5 65 65 65
65 5 .3 8
3.9 4
4 .1 65 6 1 9 65 8 .0641.9 .0 65 4 .9 654 .8 65 .6 8
8 65 5 .5
55 7 4 .965 2 4 .78 65 65 65 4 6
65 65 65 65 65 65 4 .665654
5 .7 5 65
9
65 .4 9 5 5 66 5 .6
4 5 5 5 4 656 .1 5 5 4 5 .3 .2 .2 6 5655 5 65
2"
645.2 5 .7 .1 1655 5 .1
.9 .0 .2 .0 .6 4 65659 55.2.27 55 8 65 65 5 .5 1 1 5 2 6 5 55 5.2 .2 2 5 0 5
2IN
0 4 9 7 32 8.2 45.76.25 89 6565 6565 65 .5 .0 2 65 65

3 65555 6 56 65 5 .36 .4
5 5 65 65 5 .7 9.84 2 65
5 .8 2 5 5
65 .6 656565 6 .0 6
65 655 .55 .5 5 .08 3 5 .2 7 5 .40 CONCRETE .7 5 .3
.6 .8 5 3 5 .655.1.1 5 5
0 21 .1
3IN
4 65 4 .7.2 3 5 45.2546.2.8
4
5 .4
466 6 65.56 1
3"
.3 2 .7 82 5 .00 8 1
0 3 9 65 65 0 65
FLOWERS 0
7
4 .2 65 8 3 5 5
65 5 5 .8
5
5 5.75
5 65 .3 .3 5 .3 4 .2 0.2 1
65 4 .4
4. 9 8 7 8
4 .3 8 65
U
65 5
48
8 .0
4 .2 65 65 5 65 65 65 65 65
5
65 65
7 5 5 5 5 .7 5 5 .4
BLDG OVERHANG
BLDG OVERHANG
65 4 .8 4 .9 .0 .5 .6 .7 9 .4
BLDG OVERHANG
65 4 .5 4 5 6 7 6 2 8 65 96
65 5 .4 5 5
4 .5 1 6 .1 65 8 .5 1
6 3 65 5 .8
6
BLDG OVERHANG
LANDSCAPING .0 4 65
5
2 65 .7
4
66554.2654.5 65
64 6 65 5 .8
5 44 8 65 .0 6 65 7
65 . 5 .8 6 .1 6 65 65
4
65 .008
1 65 5 .1 5 5
.3 4 .0 8 5 65 8 .9 .9
0 .9 3 7
8 3
6 .1 65
LAWN
65 8 6 .3
5 .1 0
3 65
65 65 65 65 65 5 .8 65
4 .6 4 .2 4 65 5 5 65 65
6
22
8 9 .6 4 .7 .7 5 9 65 6 .2
3 .6 65 2 7 .8 6 .2 7
9 4 4 .2 65 4
.3 2 6
LAWN
.1
SIGN
65465 4
LAWN
4 .14 .6
8IN 8"
BUILDING
1.5 STORY
73 65 6
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
5 .0 5 5 65 65 65 65
.2 5 5 6 65
65 065 0 5 .2 .3 .6 .3 6 .3
5 .2 5 .3 7 1 9 6 9
0 1
BITUMINOUS
OVERHANG
BITUMINOUS
GREEN STREET
Sheet
10 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
65
6 .4
210
21
65 665
675 5 77
.2
7 .27 .0
.0 0
0
SI9
8
397+00
Cottage Grove Street Station NB
396+00
LOWEST WIR
SAG=17.1’
E AT
E S
LO SA
W G=
W
65
2
65
IR
65 65 8 .0
65 665 7 .8 658 7
67 .5
E
65 578.7 3 8.0.56
6 7 .0
T 1.7’
65 655 75 .25
65 6 7 .0 6 655 7 8 7 .9.4 7 5 0
6 655 6 3 5 6 .0 2
AT
65 65 6 .9 7 .5 7
6 .7 65 6 2 7 .4.9 3 .9
4 7 65 65 65
65 6 .565 655 6 4 7 .8
.3 5 5 65 8 8 65
8 8
656 4 6 .3 7 65 .1 65 .0 65 .2 .4
7 .1.6 6
0 7 1 8
2"
7 1
F
6.4.92 9 7 65 65 7 .7 .9 65 .2 8
U
7 65 7 65 .5 2 7 0
0
7 .5 7 7 .8 3 8 .9 LAWN 65
.3 65 .7 1
2"
65 8 1
2"
8
2
65 7 65 6 65
65 65 7 7 8 .5 7 8 .8
U
.5 .0 2
2
.1 .5
2"
66.4 6 .9 65 3 3 65 65 65
7 9 7 7 5 8
2
5665
46 65 2 .3 65 .9 8 .3 .5 6565
.8 8 6 7
2"
6 .9 LAWN 7 8
2
66655 .3 9 .09 .0
.8
2
5666 8 7 65 0 65
65
7 8 CONCRETE 65 55
.4.4.56
9752 6 65 6 .8 65 7 .8 65 8 .9
7 .6 0 65 5
.3
U
.7 6 .8 8
1 0 65 6565 86.05 65
8 8
65 1 9 8 .1
8 .38 .4 86.3 .5 .7
6 .46565
6 66 65 65 65 0 22 1 3 1 AERIAL UTILITY LINE
65 7 8 .0 8
6565 65 25 6 .4.4 4.5652 7 .9 1 .0
6 65 6 5
10
6 .76 656 .9 65
65 65 CONCRETE 7 .7 0
65
8
5.7 5 6.3.8 8 .7 1
6 7 8
Feet
6 .4 4 .6 .8
7 .1
6 5 65 5 4
1 8
AERIAL UT 65
65
7
65665 5 7
7 .7 .5
0
6
ILITY LINE
.5
6
7 .4 75.7 65
66 9
7 .8.7 5 5 65
FO
4 65 9
6"
6"
65 565577.46.45 26 65 9 .1 8 .9
65 7 .47 .3457 .5 9 .2 .4 0 9
6 AERIAL UTILITY LINE 5 0
65 6565.2 0 65 8 9 2 65
1 inch = 40 feet
6 .3 6 6 7 .5 8 65 LAWN LAWN
3 .2 0.7 5 1 65 .7 0 65
8 8 65
65
9
.9 .9 .4
20
65 8 .7 8
65 65 8 1 9 2 .9 2
65
7 8 .3 9
7 .9 65 .2 LAWN 3
.8 0 9 1
5 .3
U
65
7 .9 6
3
65
9 .3
65 5
BITUMINOUS
9 .0
4
SAG=16.4’
LOWEST WIRE AT
SAG=17.7’
LOWEST WIRE AT
LOWES
SAG=20
SAG=20.1’
.1 ’
T WIRE
LOWEST WIRE AT
AT
65 65
685.5 8 .6
8 8.5 6
9
Sheet
11 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
Cottage Grove Street Station SB
1 STORY
BUILDING
BRICK & STEEL
F.F.=658.26
DOOR
65
66 6 .4
1 .4 210
5
21
0
65
66 8 .7
0 8 65 65
.7 8 65
7 7 .3
6565 6
9 65 .2 .9 6 .25 6
DOOR 36
66 9 6 9 5 6 .7
0 .6 .8 65 5 8 .3 0
8 9
6"
6
8 65
.6
6"
65 3 9 .2
9 0 65
6"
.9 65
.78 CONCRETE
9
6"
7 .2 3
65
6"
LAWN LAWN 8
10
4 65
LAWN
.4
6"
65
66 9 8 8 .3 65 65
6"
65
Feet
6
1 65 .3 8 5 8 675
.1 4 .4 .1 .2
6
7 66 9 .7 9 0 7 .27
0
SI9
1 665565 8
SAG=2
.1
6
2 6565 65 65 66.7.86 5.3
5.0’
CONC
CONC
6
76.8
7 .8 6 .9 6 .866 23 67.3
6
556
LOWE
65 57 9 3 6.5 9
8 65 4.63
6
65
9 .7 8 .56
SIG
9 0
ST WIR
65 .4
9 .2 7
E AT
66 0 5 65
1 inch = 40 feet
66 0 .7
66 0 .2 5 6 .9 65
1 .8 2 65
7
653 6 .5
.3 1
20
6565
2 65
65
8 65 65
8 7 .67 .6 65 6 .0 65 65 6 .9 7
65 9 .6 8 .1 76 7 655 61 6 .9665.6 3
.4
U
9 .0 1 65 9 65
7
6 .7.9 4 6 63
66
CONCRETE .6 5 1 65
.9 665.2 6
6 .6
66 0 .1 65 65 65 65 8 .1
7 .9
5 6 6 4
66
1 0 36 65 8 8 .4 8 .1 65757.0
.6 8 .8 8 .3 0 36 .0
3"
59
.2 9 635 .9 5 2 6 4 7 65 65 5 76.555 7
.5
3"
65 .3 656 .910
66 9 9 7 655 7 7 7 .06 77 .0 9
3"
662 0
66 .9 .5 9 6 .9 .1
3
655 8 .3 6 .90
.2 0 2 6
LAWN 655 8 657 .4 3 5 95 7 7
3"
.3 5 .2 6
3
1 .0 8 .8
9 6 6 59 657 .8 6
3
7 36 7 .46 2
3"
655 9 5 .2 65 .3 86
66 65 9 .7
7 .86 8
3
656 0 .3 65 8 .8 7 5
9 8 .4
3
660 .9
65 9 .8 3 .5 65 .2 97 8 .9 6 5
66 0 .59 7 9 .2 1
9 .8 7 9
0 .5 5 8
2
LOWE
LO SA
W G
SAG=1
ST WIR
9.6’
E AT
65
65 6 8 .2
65 6 8 .8 655 8 .2 7
8 655 8 5 8 .7 2 65
65 65.9 8 9 .2.7 8 0 657 .1
8 .9 9 .3 6 7 .19
2 4 9
SIG
65
9 65 6565
65 .0 6 9 .4 6 .7
6 .7
659 9 5 5
9.0.18
3
AERIAL UT
65
65 9 .2
96.2565 8
96.29 .7
02
65 6565
9 .7
9 .2 9 .1
66 9 74
1 .0
234
20
Sheet
12 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
F.F.=687.58
DOORWAY
F.F.=687.23
Burton Street Station NB
DOORWAY
6868
DOOR 60 INCH
6 .66 .1
DOOR 36 IN
68 68
68 7 .5
7 .2 8 6868
3 6 .76
68 6.3 5
68 66.78
68 7 .1
68 .9 6 68636 .6
3"
86 6 E 2 68.46 1
.8 68 .8 7
CONCRET 68
7 6 68 4 6 .7 9.4 3
CONC
.6 68
1 6 68 68 680
668 6 .7 6 6 .8 7
6 .9 6 .6
86 68 688 6 .6 688 6 .0
U
68866.7 8
4 68 3 2
.8 6 .7 8
CONC U
6 .2 6 .1 1
3
6 .2.6666
0 68 .3421 628 7 8 6 .8 6
68 6 86
6 .3 6 .2 68 6 6 .7
.3 4 6 .7 866.6
9 8 1 68 5 .523
6868 6 687 .0
6 .4.8 68 6 6 .54
2648 66 .9 688 6 6
.5 2 6 .5.9 8
1 1
0
68
68 6 7 .1
68 7 .0 68 688 7 .1 5
68 7 .1 7 .61
68 7 .0 4 9 0
68 7 .0 7 .0 0
68 686 4 68 9
68 6 6 .9 7.9.45 7 .1
10
68 4
68
6 6 .7
68 6 .8 68 68 688 6 .8 6 8
Feet
68 68 68 686 2 7
6 6 686 .5 688 6 1 68
7 7.7.36 7 .3 .4
7 .4 8
68 6 .59 68 68 7 .2 .2 89 7 5 2 4
68 .3 4 68 68 .4 7
68 68 7 7 .0
7 .1.6 7
7 7 2 .3 68
686 .3 66.28 6 .3
6 6
7 .0 7 .1 1 68
6 7 .3
6 .9 4
4 .9 .9 5 3 68 7 68 7 .1
68 6 .82
0 1 68 3 6 7 2
686 .2 4 6 .9 .1 9 68 68 68 68
.8 68 8 68 4
68
7 7 7 .4 7 68 7
68 6 .73
7 68 7 7 .3 .4 68 9 .5 68 7 .7 .8
6 8.1 4 68
7 .2 .2 5 1 7 5 7 CONCRET 0 E 4
6 .0 0 .4 .6 68
1 inch = 40 feet
6683 .9 0 9 7
6 .2 68 8 4 8 .9
CONC
68 .1 5 7 1
1 1"
CONC
3 68 68
.0 7
2 2"
6 .2
20
7
CONC
.3
CONC
68
2 2"
68 56 68 CONCRET E 3 .2 3 668 68 668
.3 6 2
2 2"
6688 8 .38 77 .9 68
6 8.16 2 .7 66
68878.6 7
CONC
3 68 78.4 628 .8 07 .9
68 6 66 6 687 .2 2
CONC
.2 6 68 688877 9
CONC
685.0 68 7 .5.062 7 .89
7
SIG
68 86886778.18 7 .8 7.7.722
6 .29 2 8 6 .3 .1 687 .67.178.17546 6 68 7 .4.8.257 7 .5 5 7 5
68 6
8 1 2 7 .38.2 389 7 7 .4 1
6
6 .28668
5 .2 2
0 .16 4.5 68 5
4 7
69 68 .3
7 .2 7 2
68 6 .5
6 3
.5 68
1
U
68 5 .2 68 68 68
7 1 5 5 7 .9
68 .2 .5 .7
BIT
6 3 6 6 2 1
.7
BIT
BIT
BIT
2 97
69 .1 68
7 9 68 7 .3
66 .1
68 8 58 6 68 3 7 .1 7
5 .9 .9 .4 3 7 3
5 .0 -BITUMINOUS PARKING LOT-
8 0
68
6 .4
2
68 68
6 .7
668.9
6784
1 .1 68
6 .8
16 5 .0
9
BIT
HEIGHT=24.4’
LOWEST WIRE
Sheet
13 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
Burton Street Station SB
BRICK
2 STORY
BUILDING
MULTIPLE
STOREFRONTS
F.F.=687.58
0
DOORWAY
F.F.=687.23
F.F.=687.25
F.F.=687.49
F.F.=687.01
F.F.=687.05
F.F.=687.11
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
F.F.=686.42
F.F.=686.83
F.F.=686.17
F.F.=686.33
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
F.F.=686.97
10
DOORWAY
Feet
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOOR 36 IN
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
6868
DOOR 60 INCH
68
7 .2 DOOR 36 IN 68
6 .66 .1
68
DOOR 36 IN
5 7
DOOR 36 IN
DOOR 36 IN
68
DOOR 36 IN
6698 68 7 .5
68 68 .2 8
DOOR 60 IN
DOOR 36 IN
DOOR 36 IN
68 669689 7 .4 6868
7 7
DOOR 36 IN
6668 7 6967.6.0 3
DOOR 36 IN
.1 .0
DOOR 36 IN
68 68 68 .0 56.5
6.9.7 9 6 .76
68 68 68
6 6698 6 6 89775 1 5 1
6 .699 68 6.3 5
1 inch = 40 feet
6 .8 .9 .0.5
68
6 6 6 .4 6969 6 783 2
OVERHANG
6 .1
6 .2.6 3 68 66.78
OVERHANG
.7 .1 .3 68 6 2 7 69 .0 135
OVERHANG
16
5 .5.6 68 7
OVERHANG
4 5 7 3 .1 68
6 .1
OVERHANG
4 69 65 .5 68 56 68 6 68 .9
68636 .6
20
69 6 68
3"
OVERHANG
6 .9 6 2
OVERHANG
6
68.46 1
69 .9 7 E
OVERHANG
6 .0 69 68 6 .4 8 63 .9 4 .8 .8 CONCRET 68
6 6 68
OVERHANG
6 .3 368 .9 0 68 4 7
9.4 3
.8 6 68 4
3"
1"
68 6 .7
CONC
9 668.0 68 68 68
6 68 1 5 6 .8 .6
OVERHANG
6 .8
6 6
OVERHANG
6 68 680
PARKING METER
CONC
68 .4 6868 1 6 68
6 .56 1 .9 .8 6 .9
CONC
68 6 668 6 .7 7
OVERHANG
PARKING METER
6 .5
CONC
68 2 68 6 68 E 68
CONC
1 6 .8 6 .6
OVERHANG
668.1 CONCRET E 5 6 6 CONCRET
6 1 6 .86 .8 68 8 6 68 688 6 .6 688 6 .0
U
0 68 68 6
6 .8 8 6 68866.7 8
4 68 3 2
CONC
68 .7 .6 68 .8 .8 6 .7 8
6 6
CONC U
6 68 6 6 86 6 .2 6 .1 1
6 6 768 66 .9
3
6 0.0 6 .2.6666
.6 .6 1 6 .8 688 6 2 .8 0 5 8 .9 0 628 7 8 6 .8 6
CONC
2 68 .3 9 68 6 2
6 .7 .8 68 .3421 68 6 86
PARKING METER
68 68 0 688 6 .6 68 .5 01 68 6 6 .7
.5 3 3 68 6 .4 3 6 .2
CONC
68 68 6 68 6 .3 0 6 .3
1
6 .0
5
6 .4 .5 6 686 .1 2 6 .4 8 6 .5
9 8
.3 4
1 68
6 .7 866.6
3 .9 4 686 .0 3 6 .4 7 5 5 .523
3
6 9 6 .12
6 .27
1 8 6868 6 687 .0
5 6 6 .54
688 6 .0 3 6 .4.8 68
68 5 .5 4 2648 66 .9 688 6 6
5 .6 6 .5 2 6 .5.9 8
0 1 1
METER
PARKING
OVERHANG
OVERHANG
METER
PARKING
OVERHANG
METER
PARKING
68
68 68
6 6 6 .5
68 668 6 .4 688 6 .59 68
68 .3 4
6 .28 66 .3 7 68 68 7 .0 7 7 .1
686 .3 6 6 .9 3
68 6 .82 4.9 04 .9 3 5 68
4 1 68 6 .9
686 .2 6 .8
68 6 .73
7
68 8
6 8.1 4 68 68
7 7 .2
6683 6 .9 .0 0
68 68 .1 6 .2 68 8 4
6 .0 7 68
.3
.4 6 .25 3
7
09 685
2 2"
68 6 .3 68 CONCRET E 3 .2
6 2
2 2"
.7
36
6 8.16 2 66
CONC
68 6 3 68 66 6 6888
.2 6
CONC
685.0 7
SIG
6866868888767778.18 7 68
6 .29 2 8 6 .3 .1 687 .67.1.1.1 7 7.8
68
8 1 2 7 .38.285.14368976
66.2868
6 5 .2
0 .16 .5 68 5
44 7
69 68 .3
7 .2 7 2
68 6 .5
6 3
.5 68
1 5
U
68 .2
68 7 .2 1
BIT
6 3
.7 69
2 7
69 .1 68
7 9 68 7 .3
6 .1
68 68 58 6 68 3 7 .1 7
5 .9 .9 .4 3 7 3
8 5 .0
0
68
6 .4
2
68 68
6 .7
66.9
8687
1 46.1 68
.81 5 .0
6 9
BIT
HEIGHT=24.4’
LOWEST WIRE
Sheet
14 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
66 6 6
5 .1 6 56 5
BRICK
9 .1 2.5 5
1 STORY
BUILDING
WATER VALVES
SHRUB
BITUMINOUS
Southview Street Station
66 6666 66
5 .7 6666666666 6666668668 666666
5 .1 4 5 66
1 .9.40 4 5 .6 2 5 .757.9.277.3.2 7 .2.48.5.4 89.59.0.0
1 9 43 14 74 03 128
SOUTHVIEW STREET
F
66 66 6 66
66 7 .1 7 6.38 8
5 .1 5 4.3 7 .5
9 0
6667 6677
90 00
66 66
5
ELEV. N=22.3’
64
64
. .3 6666 6
LAWN
6 66
LAWN
66666
689 6666667 66 66 66 66
9
6667.9.749 67670
90.9.7
.8 9 57.5.2 6 7 67 8 7.3.8.0 .7
87.7 7 8 66 66 9 .5 .8 67
811665.39 .3 .4.4 9 .7 .8 9 9 7 6
12 0 3
810 .511
6 1 8
LOWEST WIRE
666 .0 4 .0 5
86.89
66 9.1 7 66 LAWN
66 66 7 .6 8 .8
5 6 .7 5 66 66 LAWN 3
.3 4 7 8
8 .7 .1
2 9 66
6 66 8
66 66666 5 6 .9
AERIA L UT 7
4 .3 6
5 .05 .4 66 .5 2
.9 95 6 5
ILITY LINES 66
5 561 .1 9 5 .6
65 .6 4
.1 2
66 1
5 .0 66
3 66 66 8 .7
5 .3 7 3 66
66
7 66 66 6666 5 .4 9
4
66
CONCRETE 666.5 67 .4
66 5 .7 5 .8 5 .8 .9 6 66 67
3
5 .16
67656 5 .7 9 3 82 66 7 .2
.
.7
6
U
.6 1
755
.5 5 6
2IN
5 .6
5
2"
35
6 666 8 .5
3IN
66 LAWN
3"
6666 666
66 666 7
5 .1 666665666 6 .2 686.1 6
7 55.6.76 55 .3 566.5
.5555.8.9 66 66 .7 62 80.1
66 93 .3 99 1
5. 6 .8
66 3 .9
896.46241 5 .4
5 .5 3 0
2
66
43
66 1 .6 2 1
0 .9 4
65 .7 3
8 1
.9
8
2.0’ CURB
& GUTTER 2.0’ CURB BITUMIN
& GUTTER
AERIA L UTILITY LINES

DIVISION AVENUE 336+00
ELEV. S=18.7’
ELEV. N=17.0’
335+00
334+00
LOWEST WIRE
LOWEST WIRE
66
333+00 6666 6 7
666666 66 6 7 .3 1
666666.2.2
.2.344 7 .8 .3 3
66.8
.8820 2
0
0 66 66 66
7 .87
7. 665.4 0
6666 66 7 .4
5
6 .1
6 .26 .7
15
50 5 66
6 66 7
66 666 6 66 7 .8
.3 5
666 .2.7 3 7 .3 8
6 .20 1
4664.
.7 1
U
755
10
Feet
DIVISION AVENUE
1 inch = 40 feet
20
2.0’ CURB
BITUMINOUS & GUTTER
2.0’ CURB
66 66 66 66 9 6666
& GUTTER 8 7 .9
8 .9 .2 99.3.2
66
66 66 .2 8 6 2 39
66 6 4 .3
466 66 66 66 66 66 6 9
66 6 4. 66 5 .9
1 66 3 .2 66 66 66 666 4 8 66 6 4 .5 5 .4 5 .6 5 .3 5 .4 5 .8 6
66
6 .6 .4 4 .5 2 .0 6 0 6 7 7
52
4 .7 0 .9
65
66 6666 6366.26 33 66 4 .2 4 .54 .7 1 8
65 65 9 .5
66 0 .6 666 1 9 33.3.3 31.4.3 4 .3 8 5 2 9 5
8 660 6 2 .1.6 4 66
0660.
669 .5 4 .0 41 09 1 4
66
65 .3 9 65 1.6.01 2 .7 66
9 7
0 .02
099 63
65 8 .3 65
.5 0
63
. 7 66 66 9 .6
.9 4 5
F
8 .7 2 8 .8 6 .9 .0
6 3
U
911 LAWN 2 3
2IN
3IN
66
66 66 4
2"
1 2 .9 66
.2 .6 5 66
3"
6 1 5 5 .1
66 LAWN 66 .0 7
0 .1 3
66 7
.9
17
4 6 64
64
65 6666 66
9 6666 6. 5
.1 6.74 5 .05 .0 .1
U
6 66
73 3.5
66 2
33.9.9
2 46 7
1 .5 89
65 6666 66 .3 5
65
9
6655 9 0 .2 4
.4 99.5.4 .7 00.0.0
4
0 39 5 54
66 666666 66
CONCRETE 666 6 66 66 66
4 5 .1 5 55.2.2 5 .2
66 634 6 4 4 4 .1 .6 7 .2 1 13 1
66 66 2 .7
.9.0 .0 .0 6
0 1 .4 1
96 4 5 4
65 65 .8 2 66
9 .4 9 .6 66 1 66 5
7 2 66
0 0
4 .6 .966
46
.7 .7 9 .3
65 65 9 2 66 1
9 .8 9 66 66 65
.8 0 0 65
66 664
5 7 .1 .6 6 . .5
6
4IN
4 64
6645.7 1 522
4IN
65
..77.199
9 9
4"
.8 CONCRETE
4IN
2
4"
4"
LAWN 66
6 .7
66 6666
6 .16 6 3
66 6
66 5 .3 66 6656 5.1.63 6
4 .6 9 5 .8 .35
BITUMINOUS
6
66 3 3 .4 3
66 0 .6
0 .0
65 8
9 0
.9
0
65 65
9 .8 9
6 .9
2 LANDSCAPING
Sheet
15 of 21
F. ELEV.=654.32
DOORWAY
Survey
Silver Line BRT
28th Street Station
64 64
9 .6
6 649.47
64
9
8648
.6 64 ..9 9
2 8 .9 44
0
64
9 .4
CONCRETE
64 64 6
649 .2 64 9 4.1 8
9 .39 9 .2 .2 61.7 3
7 1
BITUMINOUS
PARKING 64
9 .0
8
64
65 64 8 .9
6565 3 .8 8 4
4 .44
0 6565 .8
8.0 4 4 64
3 .43 .9 9
TRAFFIC
20 65 .0
2 7
LAWN
65 65
3 .2 64
4 .3 .6 6 8
5 6 .3
0
CONTROL BOX
65 65 65 64
7 65 8
HEIGHT=21.7’
.8 6466
65 657 7 .77 .4
7
HEIGHT=18.6’
66 .3 9 0 7 .4 65 65 .6 84.6488
56 8 65 2 6644 3
.4
LOWEST WIRE
. 0 65 3 .5
F
LOWEST WIRE
88.4 64 646 5.6.602
65 .774 4 .5 6565 .4 1 .44
6 .8 4 6565
3 3 .7
4 .2 65 65 0 7
64 5 8 .2 487
4 .94 3 .1.939
3 5.7 0
65
4 7655 3 .8 3 65 64 68
.2 4 .2 3 .5 4 3 .5 8 48
.
9 6 8
65 65 .5 .5
3 3 0 5
E
65 .8
55
LAWN
.6 65 65 64 64
7 .6 65 65 65 8 3 3 65 64
8 8 7
7 65 5 65 4 5 .5 .5 2 64 .3
1 .6 7 .9 5 .0 6 6 4
65
3 .7 8 9
64 6.047 .9 6
4 6 .1 7 .26565 6 3 5 .4 0 .3 8 .3 .8
65 57 1 4 5 .14 .6 5 4 36.8 8 65 65 9 64 0
65 3 7 .7 3 3
LAWN
7 .1 7 .2
65.1 2
5 47 65 .4 .2 65
.2 65 65
3
64
2 7 .16
5 4 3 2 1 .0 3
65
2
65
65 65 4 .0 65
64 667
1 .0 7 .0 .8 2
652 .6 64 447
WATERLINE
F
6 .77 .165
7 65 65
4 0 LANDSCAPING 0 0 .7 2 .34 68
48 8 .2
7..7.7 AERIAL UTILITY LINES
4 9 .2 7 0
CP 16
2 .0 .1 1 . .2 6
LAWN
64
7022
7 7 8
SIGNALE
BITUMINOUS
277
65 65 65 65 .4 64 664464
7 .165 7 4 65 65 7 864.0 88.2.37
.0
64
47 5
5 .2 65 65 .2 3 .8 3 77.9 91.8 2
.2 4 3 .6 0 .1 9
8
86
.3 9 3 65
2 64
65 64
7647.
65
65 55 5 9 65 .5 2 65 9 9 6 .9
65 .0 .0 .5 .0
U
65 4 .9 6565 3 1 65
6 0
977
6 .6 .7 4 2 65 363.9 .8 4 65 4 1 .4 4 7 644 8
1 65 5 .7 6655 5
3 5.73 65
3
65 2 .0 .2 2 8 .2684 64
8
4 6 .7 3 6
78.5
65
65 65 65 6 .6 56 6569 5 .5.5
00 6 3 .6 .3 4 64 64 .36 2 .2 8
BUSSTOP
.2 5 .3 8 3 8 8 .64 8 5 .1 2
6 .6 4 5 .2 .5
WATERLINE
6 .7
0
65665.8
0. 64
4 30 65 6 64 1 .5 64
ELEC
6 .568.86 6
5 635 65 8 .1
64
W
635.3
75 64 6464 8 8648.
6 51 6 6 .4 6 .6 6 .6 65 6565 3 6655 CONCRETE 6 64 9 4 67 .0
.4 9 1 3 5 3 6.2 65 665 4 9 .4 9 .0.9
9 64
U
00.3 .4 1
4 7.
2 3 .3 .3 5 11
.3 65 6
077
65 84 7 65 6 65 65 1 .8 .1 .36
7 64 1 64 6 8 .8 .9
2 5 55 2
WATER
.2 4 9
U
65
ELEC
3 .1655 .9 0
933
CONCRETE .2 .2 8
65 1 .8 6
9.
65 6 .16 6555.5 7 8 .3 8 .6 64 694.0
6 .1 65 65 6 8 1 33 .3 7 65 69 64 89.5
E
.3 561 65
688
7 6 .1 656 .3 5 5.9 .4 5 4 65 173 65 65 650 .2 64 4.49 4 694.3 3
.0 65 65 6 BITUMINOUS
ELEC
.42 65 635.0
6 640 2 80.8
MDOT
6 6 2 65 63 9 65
6
1 .8 9 .0.4 2
65
E
.365 6 .15 9 65 5 .2 3 2 .94 2 .6 3 .0 655 11 .0 9.1.78 0 2
65 25 35 .6 1 4 655 2 655 1 .86655 655 0 .6.0 7
46 2 7 1 64
E
.8 4 65 4 .9 65 .6 8 2 .5 1 .2 511 1 .2 3 9
1.
5 .9 1 65 7 3 .5 52
9 .2.211 7 .3
3 65
5 .4
8 .3 65 .1 06 21 0
9
4 .9 9 2 .0
5 .6 65 1 65
3 8
4 5 .4 .9
3 9
0
HEIGHT=21.4’
LOWEST WIRE
10
312+00
Feet
311+00
310+00
309+00
1 inch = 40 feet
20
DIVISION AVENUE
AER IAL UTILIT
64
67
47
. .5
U
599
Y LINES
2.5’ CURB & GUTTER 64

8 .8 64
6
64 1 648
UNDER
65 64 9 .0
65 6 66554 9 64 64 8.4.563464 8
8 64
65 65 655615 605 00 .8 9 9 .2 7
64 68 .6 2 .7 .8 7
65 65 652 .2 65 .619 1 .9

65 .3.3758 .9 4
4 653 6653 .165 2 .37 1 .6 1.41.7.81 8 .6 4 8364 8 8 0 8
.1 4.9
65533 .54 3 .2
9
1 .0.1 2 0 .4
4 .7 .8
7 3.5.54 2 65 6501 35 7 6 3 5
65 65645.4645.985
.0 65 .453 6 64
CONSTRUCTION
656 65 02 2 .0 .8 64
50 65 8
45 55 4 .4 65 1 9 6 0 CONCRETE
64 6644 648 .6 .1
65 . 32 64
8 .4
F
65 .855.2 65 .227 36.4 65 65 BITUMINOUS65.5 8 6565 9 88.8.8 8 .74 7

66 4
5 .7
E
U
565 5 8 5 7 LAWN 65 5 6 656655 2 .2 2 .0 655 1 .2 0 .6
00.3.3
0 66 4
64 8 .3 4 7 67
6 5. 65 3 65 1 .3 5 043 8 .1 2
E
5 .0 65 .3 3 65 .2 65 .8 65 36.3 6553365 CONCRETE 2 .3
22.3 4 7 2 .44 7.
6 .4
ELEC
654 .4 2
2 .9 4 3
BUSSTOP
03
6655 655.5 03 5 .3 3 655 3 .5 9 .4.43 .4 9.384
5 .4 65 .15 1 6464 7 164
4 .58 24 6
41
55.3 5 6.2 2 5 .3 0 5.1 6
.33 6
0 5 6 7 64
7
7 .7.8 7 .3
64 .6 09 640
656 64 6466464 64
CONCRETE 65 64 9 .3 7 9 64 7664.64
5 .4
5 .5 65 0 9 .8
8 .9 846884.8
8 .8
.8
1 1 .5 9 6 .88 4 2
96 .9 8
7 .2 737.1.1
45
4 65 65 .7 65 0 9 1
65 3 2 65 2 0
4 9459 7.8 5
65
65 652.6 64
665 65 5 4 .6 .5 .82675 9 2 .8 .0 .463 64
7
5 55 5 .2 9 65 .1 3 4 4
9 8 .4
.7
.7 0 .5 4 4 65
4 2..8 2 2 .3 .5 2
65 65 6 8 9 .1 .9 2 9 664464 6
U
65 1 65 2 664.7.7 .5
89965 64
5 .6 .1 5 .2 3 .0 2 .9 64 6 622.8 1
7 2 9 7 1 674.7 .6
TELE
64 5 64 4
9 .6
7 .57 64 6 .5
8 2 6 .3 1
65 5 64
65 64
6 6 .5
64 6 .3
.5 7 .1 64 6 .2 64
3 5 6
6644 7
65 BITUMINOUS 8 6 .2 9 .0 55.864
6 .3 3 7 .70 5
64 8 .5
65 65 6 64
6 7
66.056 .5 .2
9.
69.82 PARKING 64 64 7
4 6 6
23
.7 .4 64
65 4 8 64
4 .2 65 65 5 654.4
8 3 2 64 64 .9 5 78.7
.2 .4 65
6 6 0 0
9 1 .1 6644
SIGN
7 .5 .2 64 6 8
TS
66 8 9 .0 66.0.0
65 5566 64 6 9 73 64
6 .3 .8.8
44 65 9 .95 065 64 4 .9
465 6 65 5 .5
65
4
65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
.8 6 6 .2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 0
2.408.3
1
64 5 .4 2
64 64
8 .1 0 .7 .3 .0 .6 .1 .7 .3 .9 9 3
5 3 8 0 7 8 7 7 4 .0
3
5645. 654
65 64 .8
0 6
U
.2
U
.6 64
855 5..7788
65 65 2 5
665 6 4 .8
.56 .6 4
3.6 5
0
LAWN
65
0 .9 64 646
64
3 64 6 .4
54.75 64
9 5 4.4 6 5 .3 4 .4
9 8
HEIGHT=21.1’
.0
1 64
5
64
.3
LOWEST WIRE
4 .9
8 6
65 65 64
4 1 65 65 65 65
1
64
6 5 .2
.3 .4 1 .8 1 .2 1 .1 .1 .2 2
1 7 0 7 7 65 5 8
1 .1
0 64
6655 65 9 .3 64
44.5.5 1 .9 5 4
45 5 65 65 64 .8 8664464
0 .7 16.2 4 .5 44.5.54 .0
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
2 5 12 64 64 9 35 0
65 65 .4 9 6 .0
1 1 0 .1 9
64
.8 6 4 .6
1 65 65.2 6 64 9 64
DOORWAY
65 0 .7 1 .5 4 .4 4
1 .9 2 9 .3
7 8 6
64
5
.4 6
2 44
CONCRETE
65 .3
1 6 64
.7 3 .6
9 0
BUILDING
OVERHANG
F.F. ELEV.=652.01
DOORWAY
F.F. ELEV.=651.98
F.F. ELEV.=653.91
DOORWAY
DOORWAY
F.F. ELEV.=653.39
#2800
DOORWAY
F.F. ELEV.=653.89
1 STORY
DOORWAY
"BELTLINE BAR"
FRAME BUILDING
Sheet
16 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
6767
667 67 7
67 7 .8
7 88 8
.4 7 .4 0
.5 96 .3 6 67 .8 35
27 7 .5
8 .3
4 1
67
67 67 7
8 .4 8 .2 676 .5 2
3 9 77.87
97.3 9
TRAF SIG
50 6 6 67
78 78 78 8 .1
.4 .4 67.3
0 83
3 67 67 2
E
.2 8 .28 .0
1
67 1 26677
8 .2 667 77.8.8
6 777
GAS
67 67 .6.5 28
7 .8 7 .8 24 6
6767 7 67 677 8
69 0 7 .2 .7 7 .7.1 6
6677 7 7 6 67 8 .1
6777 .5 02 666777788 7 .6 6 3
7.9.8.4 5
39 6 6767 7 77.5.0.03 67 9
5 677 7 .8 6
67 7 .4.8
.534
4 7
.8
7 .2 3 07 0
36th Street Station NB
677 7 .767
2 7 .1 6 7
7.
5 .1 3
13
CONCRETE
19.0’ HIGH
BRICK TEXTURED
TRAFFIC ARM
262+00
TRAFFIC LIGHT ARM

261+00
BOTTOM STOP
260+00
(18.5’ MINIMUM CLEARANCE)

259+00
LOWEST WIRE
BOTTOM
HEIGHT=S 21.0 FEET

LIGHT
69
5 .7
STOP
2
BOTTOM
LIGHT
69
5 .6 DIVISION AVENUE
3
CONCRETE
9’ HIGH +/-
GLASS
STOP LIGHT
BUS STOP
PI 259+18.513
69
CONCRETE
5
METAL WALKWAY
.4
3 67
6
BRICK TEXTURED
OVER DIVISION AVENUE
8 .0 67
67 67 8 67 8 66777 7 .9
67 8
67 6 678 .1 8 .1
.5 3
88.3.3 2
67 67 8 .0 8 .07 8 678 .51 7 36
67 7 7 .9 .0 67 6 8 4.5 4
.9 6 4 9 8 78 8 .57 67
8
7 .7 .2
67 67 67 67
67 6 67 7 67 0
6677 7 5 677 8 .0 1 .6 2 67 67 2 67.7 9
8
67 67 7 7 7 .5 7 .9
.9 6 8 .0 2 687.6 8 .6 8 .4 8 .9
.4 7 2
7 .2
7.
67 677 .1 677 .1 .1 4
0
67 CONCRETE 67 7 .7 2 67 4 67 67 8 6 68 2 .6 3
8 67 7 8
E
67 67 7 .6 2 7 .73
67 7 .5 7 .6 3 678 .1 .7 8 .7 6.6 2 7 8 7 8 .7
28 67 67
7.2.34 .5 39 67 3 7 7 6767.5 67 7 7 67 8 .66 9 67 67 671 67 .7 0 1
67 7 7.1.25 676 6767 .8 8.4 9 73 7 6 8 8 .7
6677 8 .8 8 .767
7 .5 9 7 .9 7 .8 67 7 .5.5 4 7 .6 .9 .7 7 6878.7.7 678 8
2
7 .9
8 .0 6 9 67 9
0
67 7
BUS STOP
2 67 88 67 7 .7 5 869.876 6 86.7 67 9 .7 9
24
67 7 .1 BITUMINOUS 67 67 687.2
67 7 .8 67 8 .1 0 80.87 8 748 8 .8
7 2.5’ CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 8 8 .83
E
67 67 7.3.56
6 3 .8 5 67 67 6 .1 67 67 8 .2 1 3.8 6 .8 8 5 BITUMINOUS
7 .167 .7 0 67 6 8 .1 7 .7 67 77 8 8 .7 5 67 6 67
8 4 7 .9 .8 667 67 8 .2 8 9
74 7 0 7 .9 67 79
.1
BUS STOP
67 67 678 .0 67 0 6 6 8 .7 9 .1
7
677 88.1.2 67 0 8 .9 3
CP 12
7 7 67 .7 7 67 8 .10 677 8 8 .6 80 8 8 8 4
TRAFFIC SIGNALTS E
.767 67
67 .2 2.6 8 7 .7 8 .0 4 67 68 67 8 .6.0
7 7 .9
67 .3 0
67 7 .8
67 1 687.1 4 8 1
GAS
67 7 7.6 31 67 667 7 BRICK 87.1 3 .4

7 .8 .9 8 .0 3
7.
7 .2 .4 9 8
GAS
67
CP 11
4 1 7 CONCRETE
WATER
67 4
90 67 67 67 67
67 7 7.1 4 8 8 67 9 9
10
.2 .5 CONCRETE 67 8 .0 .1
GAS
7 .1 .2 4 8 .9 3
6 3 67 7
Feet
1 3 67 .7 31
67 67 8
8 .6 3
67 67 67
8 8 .4 7
7 6677 67 8 .2 .2 6
6 .27 .3 4
.4 9
8
6767777 63 1 77.8.8 .1 4
67 8 .0
7 .0 .5.5 6 7 7 12 67 8 8 .1 1
.0 3 67
38 OAK
3 9 .7 5 9 9 .4
6
1 inch = 40 feet
67 67
6767 8 9
20
36 OAK
.4 67 67
7 .5
7 .0 67 6
67 8’ HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE 9 .3 9
18 8 67 9 .1 8 .8
67 .4 8 LAWN .0 1 LAWN 4
67 8 6 .7 6
7 .8 .2 8
4
0 67
6767 9 .7
7 .07 0
67 2.5 6 67
7 .5 6 67 8
2
67 67 7 8 .3 8 .6
.667
68
7 .8 8 .4 2 8 .7
6 0
CONCRETE
67 67
6 8
674
.9 68 .7
78 1 67
67 2 . .1 6
1 7
67 9 .3
7 .4 9
U
11 8 67
8 .3 9 .1 8
2 .1 0
67 4
7 .3
8
67
9 .8
36TH STREET
5
TRAFFIC
CONTROL BOX
68 68
1 1 .9
.3 2
6 68
1 .2
5
DOOR
68
1 .3
7
Sheet
68
0 .6
7
16 of 21
Survey
Silver Line BRT
36th Street Station SB
1 STORY
BRICK BUILDING
ELEV.:679.05’
ELEV.:678.76’
ELEV.:679.04’
FINISHED FLOOR
FINISHED FLOOR
OVERHANG
ELEV.:678.78’
FINISHED FLOOR
OVERHANG
0
FINISHED FLOOR
STEPS
10
67 6 67
7
Feet
677 7 .8
67 67 6677 67 8
67 7 .4 0
6786 8 88 .5
8678.
67 67 .7 .4 .3 6 67 .8 53
967 . 2967
8
67 6677 8 .7.7 8 6677 .7 3 67
9 .0 67 8 67 7 .5
756
67 67 8.7 88.7.7 8 88 8 8 .3
1
67
05 67 .7 4
74 .784 6
667 8 0 .6 7 .7 7 4
67
9. 9 .0 66 6767
7 778 6677 8 .4 .7 8 89 8 .6 68
67 .7.733 67 .7 9
8
.4 .4.1 88 4 7798 7 .9
87 .9 92 8 .6
OVERHANG
.0.3 0 67 8 67 3 7 8.7
BITUMINOUS 04
5 67 .2 67 .7 0
METER
64 .2.9 .72 7 67
04 67 05 67 8 .7 8 .7 7
7 .8 01 2 0 8 .7 67 67
OVERHANG
67 67 9 .0 8 3 1 67
8
STEP
67
1 inch = 40 feet
67
STEP
STEP
67 .3 6 0 .2 676 .5 2
7 7 .4 86.1
5 8 .6 8 8 .5 8 .4
OVERHANG
0 67 67
.3 3 7 82 67
6
67 .7 67 7 3 9 77.87
5 .7 8 .2 8 .8 67 7 .9 8 7 79.3 9
20
67 .7 CONCRETE
OVERHANG
.2 7 8 .5
8
TRAF SIG
.0 7 4 4 6767
6677 9 8 .2 9
.6 4 6 67
87.1.7 0 0
STEP
67 0 67 8 7 8
STEP
67 77.9
.3.9 33 CONCRETE 8 .4 .4 6 .3 8 .1
STEP
7 .3 .2 9808 AERIAL UTILITY LINE 67
67 8 67 3 0 7 83 67 67 2
STEP
687 6767
E
7 5 .5 .2
STEP
.0 67 8 .3 8 .28
80.4
0 .8 6 9 678 .28 .3 1
BUS STOP
69 8 678 .5 1.0 26677
E
67 7 .86 2 7 67
4 93
67
.5 67 67 67 8 .4 677 8 .3 8 .09 67 6 8 .2 667 77.8.8
14
3 7 8 7 .8 0 7 .8 5 67 7 7 .8
687 67 7 8
6
777
.8 .6.5 28
7677.
GAS
.9
WATER
6677 .1 3 67 6 0 7 .7 7 .8.3
0 67 67
67 6 867
7
8 .0
9 3
24
3.3FT DIA U
67 7 .8 7 .8 7 .8
6788 .0 0
966 6767 7
7 .1 67 7.0.547 7 .9 3 69 0
4 7 .7 0 67 67 7 .2 .7
67 .9 67 4 2 7 8 66677 7 7 .5 02
7 67 9 67
.9 .2 7777 5
.2 7
7 .4 7 .8 6
67666778 8 .9.8.4 6
9
67
.7 6767 5 0
7 78.2.2 395
2 677 7 .8 6
6677 7 .8 6677 7 .7.73312
67
7.8 7 .2 3
7. 7 .3 4 67 677 7 6
7
.34 67 7
677 .6.6
2 .7
67 79 7 .6 7 .687 67 7 .1 6
44BITUMINOUS
67 67 .8 6 67 8 5
67 7 .3 7
.7
67 3 67 7 .0
67 7 .3 7 7 .4 67 0 7 .6 7 .6 .6 2
677
6
67 2 7 .8 3 6 1
6 7.6.26 67 9 7 .7 2
67
67 6 .7
67 6 6677
6 .97 6 77.3.3
677 7
.5
7 .0 1
67
7 .1
7
7 .4
5
1 CONCRETE WATER
6 .6 6 5.8 2 22 1 2
3
BRICK TEXTURED
LOWEST WIRE
HEIGHT=N 12.3 FEET
CONCRETE
CONCRETE
19.0’ HIGH
BRICK TEXTURED
TRAFFIC ARM
TRAFFIC LIGHT ARM
CONCRETE
BOTTOM STOP
(18.5’ MINIMUM CLEARANCE)
259+00
LOWEST WIRE
BOTTOM
258+00
HEIGHT=S 21.0 FEET
257+00
LOWEST WIRE
LIGHT
HEIGHT=S 12.3 FEET

256+00
69
5 .7
STOP
2
BOTTOM
LIGHT
69
5 .6
3
STOP LIGHT
PI 259+18.513
DIVISION AVENUE 69
CONCRETE
5 .4
3
BRICK TEXTURED
67
67 67
67 7.
67 677 .1 7 .2
67 677 .2 7 .6 2 8
67
28 667777.1.737.14 67 67
67 67 67 7 7.1.25 7 .346 .5 39 67 3 7 7
7 7 .6 67 7 6767 .8 8.4 9
67 .5 4
7 .5 9 .9
7 .8 8 .0
7 1 67 7 2 67 2 7 .9
88
67 .1 6767 .1
6 3 7 .8 67
.7 7 .3
E
67 67 7 .56 3 7 .8
9 7 .167 .7 60 67 6
747 0
67 67 678 .0
7 7 67 .7 7 67 8 .10
TRAFFIC SIGNALTS E
6677 .2 2.6 8 7 .7 67 8 .0 4 67
77
67 67 67 7.6.631 67 667 7 67 1
7 7 .8 .9
7. 8 .0
BRICK687.187.1
.7 67 7 .2 .4
CP 11
1 7 4 9 4 1 90 7 8
67 67.1 67 67
8 .2
GAS
7 .17 .24
1 43 6
67 6 67 67 67
77 67 678 8 .2 .2
8 .4
6 .27 .3 7 .8 67 8.0.14 4 89
67 67777 63 1 21 67 8 .1 1
7 .0 .5.5 67 7
3
9 .7 8 .0 3
5 9
67
6767 8 .4
7 .07 .5 67 6
18 67 8 .4
67 8 6
7 .8 .2
0 4
6767
7 .07
67 2.5 6 67
7 .5 6 67 8
2
67 67 7 8 8 .6
.667
68
7 .8 8 .4 .3 2 8 .7
4 6 0
CONCRETE
67 67
6 8
67
.9 .7
2 8678. 1
67 .1 6
1 7
U
7 .4 11 8
8 .3
2
67
7 .3
8
36TH STREET
TRAFFIC
Sheet
CONTROL BOX
18 of 21
NG
1 .0
0
1 .0
0
Survey
67
9 .9
8
Silver Line BRT

44th Street Station
LOWEST WIRE=23.0’
LOWEST WIRE=20.5’
68 68
LOWEST WIRE=22.5’
1 .2 1 .1 68
7 8 1 .8
68 6 5
68 8 1
LOWEST WIRE=20.4’
68 681 .1 68 1 .3 .3 8
0 LAWN 1 .3 1
68 .8 0 .90
3
1 5 6 68
SL-44.39
.0 68
1 1 .2
68
1 .1 6
BITUMINOUS 68
68 1 .1
68 4 6868 68 1 .2
1 68 1 0 .5 9
.3 1 .4 6688 1 .9.5 2 1 .5 0
7
3 3 68 68 3 1
68 686811.7.8
68 1 1 .3 618.3 68
68 1 .3 3 1 1 .3
11.3.498
68
68 1 .2 1 2.3
7 88 1
1 .2 1 2 .4 LAWN 68 68
.1 6 6 1
68 1 .0
7 68 6
68
1 .4 61 7
668 68 5
PLANTER
PLANTER
68 811.1 1 .2 1 .2 86861811 .4 81
.
CONCRETE
68 1 .13 2 0 .5 6
.2
68 681.0 7 6688 1 .3.33.232
68 1 1 7
E
522
1 .0 61 .6
1 .7 668 8 0
SA
68
12IN
81 3
1 .1 3 23
801 .6
.1 6 68 68 .9.0 0
..009 68
3 9 1 .4 0 1
00
PLANTER
PLANTER
68 .8
SA
1 .1 8 2 .3
68 7 7
1 .1 68 68
2 68 68 1 .0 68 1 .0
LAWN
1 1 6 0 2 68
F
.1 .1 68
6 1 3 .9 68 68 0 68 1 .4
.7
BOXBOX
BOXBOX
68 7 68 68
0 0 1 5
68 8 0 1 0 .6 1 .5
.8 BITUMINOUS .2 .6
0 .6 68 .5 8 9 2
8IN
68 0 .4 6 68 2 9 68 4 0 .5
8"
0 .4 1 68 06.9
688 0 .5
4 68 68 680 68 6
2IN
68 68 0 .8 0.8 050 68 8 0 .6
68 .5.427
680 .9 0 .3 1 68.414 0 .6 8
0680.
0 68 4 .1 0 .5
0 .5
1
68 .551 9 2.0’ CURB
188
0 .3 1
SQUARE
0 .5
0 6
& GUTTER
2.0’ CURB
& GUTTER
0
205+00
204+00
203+00
202+00
10
Feet
1 inch = 40 feet
ELECTRIC (AERIAL)
20
DIVISION AVENUE
BITUMINOUS
2.0’ CURB
& GUTTER
68 68
68 68 1 1
68 68 1 1 68.2 1 .2 68
68 68
0 .9 068.9 68 68 .0 5 6 .0 681 9 1
68
68 68 680 .8 6 68 68 66 0 688 1 .09 .3 1 .3
68 0 608.8 3 68 8 08.80 .8 68 68 05.9 68 .9 1 .0 68 1 .5 3
1.2.61 6 68 3
2
68
68 0 .80 68 688 0 0 .8
68 0 0 0 .6 68 .7 2 68
0
680 .7 68 1 .0 9 0 1 .5 5
68 0 .6 .5 68 6 68 68 0 .71 68 0 0 .9
.8686 57
0 .9 58 1 .28 1 .3 867 0 0 .9 1
2
1 .3
GAS
0 2 68 9 68 0 680 1 .1 7 .7 68 0 .8
2 9 668 18 0 .9 3 7 1 .1 6 62
0.
.7 6 68 .860 0
0 .568 0 0 .4 680 1.6.02 6 8 0 .9 3 1 0 .81 .3
6 68 7 6688 1 .3
9 680 .78 0 .6 18 0.4 3 3
.8
43 0.4.8
0 8
.3 .9 3
1 68 811685
688 0 .6 0 68 4 68 2 6868 3
1
1 .6 .8.7 1
SQUARE
1 .17 .7 5 6 0 68
6
SL-44.40
68 .2
1 .0 2
3 0
680 1 .4 0 .91 6868
2 1 .8
42 .4
4
9 68 688 0 .7 0.6 0 1.3 0 1 .30 68
1 0 .8 9
68 LAWN 68 1 2
.3 .8 5 68 .787 1 .1 68 8.9 9 1 .8
5 68 4 68 0 .9
8 68 .7 LAWN 2 68
1 .0 1 .4 0 68 68 68 66188.31 6688 618.4 9 1
9 1
68 1 CONCRETE CONCRETE .7
5 1 .3 0 .913.2 11.3.3 1 .17 6868 1 1
2IN
.0 .2 0 9.1 66 91 5 1 .7.6
8 6 6866 68 68 68
GAS
68 68 LAWN 5 76 68 1 1 1 .7
1 .2 1 .4 CONCRETE 6688 6 188.3
11.3 81 68 1 .8 .9 2
5 3 68 8 1 1.398 .6 1 .6 3 3 68
LAWN 68 61186.78.8 .3 68 68 68 8 .5 7 1 .7
6 68 681 .4 6686 6
1 8 9 1
6 68 1
113.391.3.4 8 1 .1 1 .21
.4
688 118.3
6 68 68 6868 8 1 .8
1 .4 1 .43 8691 3 684.3 1 .4.4 .24 71 .2
6
68 6 668
GAS
688618.9
1 .4 7 2 4 5 1 .48 18 11 68 68 68 68
GAS
68 .3
1 .3 1 .51 .4 8 81 1 .671 68
1
1 .41831 .5
8 17 2 .4 .4 .5.4 68CONCRETE 2 2 1
.4 2.4 5 0 8 2 9 66889 4 45 68 1 .7 1 .0 68 .0 8 68 1 .7 .7 6
05 5 68 68 686688 6868 11.9.8 1 .7 2 .8 2 68 6
68 668 6 1 1 .71 2 2 .2 2 .0 168
E
68 1 CONCRETE 1 .5 1 .4
88 .3 50 1 0 3 1 .9 1 .8 8
1 .5 1 8 618.2618.6.8 68 2 7
68 68 6 6868 .5 1
66181.2.41 .3 1 .49618921 9 4 68 2 .1 68
68
CONCRETE 668868 1 9
81171 3 2 .0 2
1 1.4
6811.4 .3 1 .468 1 1 .41 .4 2.8 7.4 8 0 .1
.5 5
8 1.4
2 .92 5 6 68 .5.841 3 8
01 3 1 .8.4950
0 68 618.7
687 6 68 68
1 .4 1 1 .8
17.2
68 8 2 68 .8 4
1 .8
4 6868
68 9 1 .5 .0 6 1 2 3 1 .4
1 .5 68 8 .6
1 .8
1 9 0 4
9 .7 6868
LAWN
7 5 2 .11 .6 6868
00 1 .72 .1
BITUMINOUS 58
LAWN 68
2
LAWN BITUMINOUS .1
4
68
1
CONCRETE
LOWEST WIRE=27.7’
1 .0
1 .0 0
0
68
1 .6
7
Sheet
19 of 21
BUILD
Survey
Silver Line BRT
67
2 .1
8
54th Street Station
67
2 .0 67
4 2 67
67 .3 2 .2
67
2 1 2 .1
6767
.0 5 2 .11
4 5 4.6 6
6767
67 67 67 2 .21 .7
2 2 .2 2 77
.4 9 .4
0 2
67 67 67
2 .1 2 2
2 .4 .3
4 6
67
2 .0 67
4 2
67 67 .5
2 .2
67
2 2 67
.6
1.
1 7 2 67
2
67 67 .4 .4
3
98
2 .0 67 2 .6 3
8 2 3
7
.3
7 67
3
67
67 .0 2 .5
2 .2 3 0
8 6677
67
3 .8
22.6.5
67 67 7 32 676
4
TEXTURED
3 .4 67 27.5
8 CONCRETE
67 .1 5
2 .0
0
WATER
2 2 2 .6 2
.9 67 67 8
9 2
TRAFFIC SIG
67 .9 67 2
2 2 2 .8 .6 7 67
.6 3
0 67
3
67
.0 6 6
2
LAWN 67 .2 LAWN 0 72 .9
E
2 7 6677 .7 0
.3
8
967 6
LOWEST WIRE
33.7.7
POST
77 67 2 .6 7 2
.6
3 7
POST
.6 3
CONNECTION AT 19.0’
4 67
8IN ELM
TSTAKE
67
8IN ELM
8IN ELM
1
8IN ELM
2 .3
.9 BRUSH 67
1
6 3 .0
WIRE HEIGHT WEST

67
0 627
67 67 67 .3
2 .24
67 67 3 2 67
67 67 2 3 .0 6677 69.9 2 2 .8 66 2 .3 3
67 67 2 2 .9 .0 1 22.9.9 4
67 67 67
2 2 .6 .8 .8 6 0 88
4 .3 5 7722
2 2 .4 0 8 4
GAS
.7.7 1
2 .1 .2 .3 4 4 67 1
5 5 5 67
2 .9
2 .8
67 67 3 7
67 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 67 67 2 2 .8 67
6677 67 6677 2 2 2 .8
67 67 2 22 .5 .5 .7 .7 8 9 67 672
1 2 22.2.2 .3 8 2 5 3 2.7.24
GAS
.4 1
.9 .0 67 0 9 67 .0 8
OVERHEAD ANCHOR WIRE

3 7 CONCRETE 2
67
2
67
2 2
67 67 .6 .7 .7
1
67 67 2 6 1 8
.8 BITUMINOUS 2 .0 2 .0 69 .2 LAWN 6
AERIAL UTILITY LINE 5 1 9 1 67 67 6 67 67 677 2
6657.9 67 67 6677 672 2 .5
6 67 711 5 1 67 1 .8 6722.0.1 6677 2 2 .57 2 .5 2 .1
9
2 .1 7
.2
BOTTOM TRAFFIC LIGHT
6677 1 677 1 1 .867 6.8.773 .6 7 67 1 .7

7 1 .797
1 .7 1.4.93 2 .0 8 6 7
.6
1 .1 1 .3.8 3 5 1 .4 19.5 1 .6 3 7 51 8
65 4 6 2 1
69
1 .2
2.5’ CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 8
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ARM HEIGHT=19.0’
139+00 140+00
0
137+00 138+00
10
Feet
1 inch = 40 feet
20
DIVISION AVENUE
BITUMINOUS
OVERHEAD
GUY WIRE
2.5’ CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
67 67 67 6677
67 66 67 672 .0 672
61 677 17 1 617 2.2.776 67 22.6.3
6 71 67 66771 .6 .7.6 24 2 .51 67 7 3 86 6
. .0 671 .2 6767 1
1 .4
67 .8 67 4 .0
677 1 .0 088 1 .60 .11
22 .4 672 .1 0 6 2 .5.3 5 3 36.0 672 2 .9 1 67 677 2
12 .1 72
671 .4 0 67 .9 11 67 2 .656 6 2 .7 4 3 2 .6.2 8
67
1 .99 8 2 .2 2 5 5 .7
67 .2 9
0 67 1 67 .7 8 1 67 8 67 6
3 67 2
2 3
2.
2 2 .8 .7 3 .2 .3 .3 66767 2
.1 2 6
67 LAWN 3 0 8
5 2 67 6 7 26 .3
W
40
ANCHOR WEST
67 LAWN
.9 3 .3 3 .3 67 7 2 2 .7 .77 2 4
67 2 8
1 LAWN 69 3 67 2 .9 .9 3 67 32.4 2
.9 67 5 67 3 4 2
7 2 .2 67 .2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL E
.5 8 67 676 67 3 .2 1 67 .7 6
5 2 66667777 672 .9 6677 733 2 .6 67 67
67 67 .7 9 23.9.2 .1.2 3 .0 6 4
67 6677 2
2 2 .6 2222.9.9 2 .71
46 01 8 2 .4 2 .3
1 .0 .2 .7.763 9
GAS
1 .8 2 22 6 9
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
.6 4
ARM HEIGHT=18.8’
92
WATER
3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
6 67 67 67
67
67
66377 67 6 67 7 3 .1
67
3 3 2 .967 3 667 67 26.56
.1
67 67 .122 2 .9 7 3
CONCRETE SIDEWALK 673.0 67 3 .4 2 67 .1 6 7 .17 3 2
7 277 2
67 2 67 2 7.8.8 6 .2 6 3 9 .7 .3
ELEC
.3 67 2 .7 34 .6 67 4 3 .5 676 22
1 .0 2 67
9 67 67 4 67
5 3 6
73 .2.1 9 .8 7
8
.7 67 .4 2 .6 3 3 .1 5
3 3 .6 .5 37.33
6 2
0 67 9 2 .1 2 .4 8 1
.4 2 3 67 3.3 167 3
CP 6
7 .6 3 67
6 67 67 67
3 .3 .2 2
67 67 3 .7 3 3 6 4 67 .8 1
67 4 .0 .3 3 .2
2
67 673 .9 2 1 .3 5 67 7 3
.7 3 .1
67 67 3 .8
5 67 9 67
3 .97 4 .2 4 .0 7
67 LAWN 2 67 3 2 5 LAWN 4
3 .9 3 .6 67 676677 2
.5 8 .7 3
2 9
67
3 .1 2 .6.1
672 .6
52 .8 2 .60 18
2/6 CA
67 1 2
67 4 67 67
2/6 CA
67
3 .5
67 .3 4 .3 4 .8 67 2 .6
67
3 7 4 .0 8 5 1 4 LAWN
.2 9 .4 67 9
7 9 3
SIGN
8 MAP
67 67 .7 67
4 4 .1 2 3
.0 0 .0
0 67
3
67 9 6767 2
.0 4 .5 67 2 .6.1
4 8 4 26
.4
7
HEIGHT=29.0’
67
67 3 67
LOWEST WIRE
4 .3 67 3
HEIGHT W=22.1’
SIGN
.0 1 3 .1
LOWEST WIRE
7 .5 3
5
POST IND VALVE
67
ELEC
67
3
1.
.2
6
90 67 6 676
676 2 .7 7 2 27 2
CP 5 5
37.22 4 .6.59.04 5
4.8 7
54TH STREET
Sheet
20 of 21
.=670.34 CL DOOR
1 STORY
FRAME BUILDING
67
DOOR CL 6X7
0.
"BMW MOTORCYCLES"
67 67
0
31
.3 0 .2
4 8
CP 4 2
67 67
Survey
0 .0 0 .0
67 5 0
67 0
0 .5
67 .5 4 66
9 0 .4
67 67 9 .9
8 1067.9 4
.211 .9
73.9 7
8
POST
Silver Line BRT

67 6677
10 10.9 66 66
.9 .14
3 9 9
.3 78
5 .5 .4
66 4 8
66
9 9 .6 66
.7 0 9
0 .3
3 66
9 .2
2
66
9 .5
66
66 8 .2
9 7
67 .5 8
0 BITUMINOUS 4
.0
60th Street Station
66
HEIGHT=E 21.2’
1 9
66
67 .4 .3 9 66
LOWEST WIRE
0 3 7 9 .4
.2 3
WATER
BITUMINOUS 9 66 66 66
8 .8
67 66 67 9 .5 9 .5 66 9
0 9 .4 66 0 .4 4 9 9
66
9
.2 4 9 4 .3 .4 66
8 .6 9 8 9 .5
9 4
66
67 9 .4
0 .1 66 1
3 9
6IN
67 .8
0 2 66
SIGN
.1 67 8 .7
8 5
66
9
LAWN 670 .367 LAWN
BUILDING OVERHANG
.4 66 0 .10 0 .1 66 66
SIGN
66 66 1 6 7 9
67 67 9 9
DRIVE ENTRANCE
DRIVE ENTRANCE
67 0 0 9 .8 9 .6 .7 .3 66
0 .1 .1 .7 6
66
9 1 0 8 .8
.1 8 3 1 5 67 67
.5
3 0 0 7
WIRE HEIGHT 19.8’
.3 67 8
.5 2 0 66
67 3 .0 9
66
66 67 0 .0 2 .8
9 0
LAWN 1 66 0
.9 .0 9
9.
.6
WIRE HEIGHT
2 8 97 0 66 69
66 9 2
9
F
.4 .5 .7
66
8 2 1
9 6
6 66 66 66.4 5 66 66 6666 666 9 6666 6 6666 666 6666 9
66
66 9
6666696
66.69
66 AERIAL UTILITY LINE
666 9 696 9 .19 669 696.1 99.4.5 9 .7
9 .5 66 66 6 6
9 .8
4X4
9 .29 .3699.5
WATER
9 .5.5 366 99.1.2 666 9 .2 69 69 9 6 6
8 .8.3 4 .48 3.0
1.9 2
9.1.06 9 9.1 82
5 9 .0 61
9 .4.9 .4 9 8 .30 0 69 6
6 3 6 3 9
9 .1 1 4 6 .198 20 5 6 . .3 6
8 344 69.5.308.589.97 9.97 667 0 .0
9 .5 2 667 0 .0 LOWEST WIRE 19.8’
WATER
3 9 .6 8
0
66
69
69
. .9
AER
U
977
T WIR
103+00 104+00
101+00 102+00
E 14 .8
LOWES IA L UTILITY
’ @ RO
LINE
A D CL
DIVISION AVENUE
BITUMINOUS
6
66
69 676 9 .6
0
666
66 6 6 99. 0 .0 1
66 6666 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 7 0 .5.59 67 8
6 6 6 6 9 9 9 6 9 676 9 .6 .1 4 0
67
59 67
66 9 .3 667699.5 6 9 .4 6 9 .4 .5 66 9 .566 9 .5 666669 .6 96.67 697.60
0 0 .1
9669.6669
.1 666 9 .1 666 9 .1 666 9 .3
9 .8 9
6709 .5 7 0 6 9 .56 66 7 666696.5 6 646 4 6740 67
0
0 .1 2
.2 0 .4 4
9 .6 7 9 .7 8 0.0.4
.9010 .0 37 0 66 6 .6 5 66 9 .469.5.52 67 1 0.1 54.1 4 .2 6 67 9 66
0
106069.1.64 669 .8 1
0 8 09 4 .0 9 .5 66 9 .59 6.4 9 .5 .6 1 9 .6 9 69 67 .378 6 .6
67 2
0 66
69 6 66 7 9 .91 7 4 5 .6 7 5.6 0 .1
1
66 9 .6 9
.9 9 .9 67 5
6 67 9 .5 7 0
6 2 0 7 607.0 9 1 .4
5 9 0
67
0 67 0 .0 76 9 068.6 66 .1 5 .4 3
.0 .4 67 67 0 70 67 67 9 .5 8
9 6 0 .3 9 .6 0 0 .0 .1 4.3 0 .4 06.16 0
67 5 66 67 6 2 98.4
0 467 3
66 9 .4
67 .3 6 66 607 0 .4 3
67 67 0 3 66
9 3 .4 5
67
0
66
9 66 66
.6 9
0 .38 9
10
9. 67 6 9 .6 66
67 0 .2 0 3 67 67 .6 .4 9 .2 66 .2 9 .2
0 .1 67 0 0 0 .1 2 9 .6
2 4 9 6 .2 2
Feet
3 67 2 LAWN LAWN 1 66 .2 6
97
.0 0 0 .1 .1 67 5 3 BITUMINOUS 9 66 7
1 .0 .2 2 0 .7 9
5 0 .3 6
CP 3 3
2 67 66 0 .3
0
WIRE HEIGHT
4 66 6 9 66 2
.0 9 .9 .5 9 66
3 67
6 3 666 66 9 .9 66 9
USDT
67 0
66 666 .6 367 0 .3
0 66 .0 66 6 66 66 66 66 9 96 .0 6 99 .8 9 .5 6 669 .7 4 66
.2 9 .9 1 66 9 .2 66 66.2 1 .590.4
9 .2 2 .7 2 66 6 66 8
8 6666 9 .5 6669 96.46 9 .3
9 9 3 2 9 9 9 .20 .3
67 66 4 6666 9 9 .2 8 09 .2 .3 .3 .3 7 6
9 3
1 inch = 40 feet
67 66 660 .9
.5
99.5.4 9 .5.46 90.3 6
1 6 2 1 0 2 66
9 9.0.70 9 .5
82 09 9
660 .1 .7 0 6 .2
5
20
9 .72 66 3 66
8
9 6 66 66 66
9 9 66 .8
66 6
9 9 .1 9 1
WIRENORTH
CONCRETE SIDEWALK 66 6666 66 66 9 66 6 9 .1 .1 .0
6 9
9 6.29 .1 6 4 4 0
99.3.3 9 .0 .2 9
WIRE HEIGHT
66 66 66 .4 66 9 .2 .2 66
66
9 66
9
66 6 9 .4 66 6 76 6 9 6.2 1
3 5 3
1 6
9
68
9
HEIGHT
66 .6 .6 66 9 .5 9 .5 66 9 66 .6 69
.1 6
9 3 .5 9 .567 8
9
67 .4 686 66 6 9 .7
9 9 66 6 .4 7 .9
.7 66 665 6 9 .4 7 66 1 9 0 .0 .8 0 .1 6 98.57 9 .8 0 .9 8 .8 6 8 1 66 9
2 9 .7 9 .6 6 9 66 4 66 7 9 .4 1 7 2 5.1 9 2 7 0 .8 4 8 .8
9 .4
0 1 .7 9 9 .5 2 67 66
8 8
8 1 0 .9
.1 66
6
66 66 1 9 .3
66 9 .9 9 .6
66 66 66
66 9 AERIAL UTILITY LINE 4 8
9 .6 66
9 3 1 .9 9 .2 .7
5 9 .5 .6 66 LAWN 66 4 66 8 66 4
8 4 9 9 .8
66 8
66 .3 66 66 7
9 .4 66 9 .4 .9
67 9 0 9 9 6 66
67 0 .6 .6 .6 3 9 .6 663
9
0 .3 3 66 0 2 0 .2
SIGN
9 8 .9
.2 5 .5
66
8
66 66 5
0 66 66 9
SIGN
66 8
66 7 9 9 9 8 .8
.0 66 .4
.2 .2 .2 9 0
CP 4 4
9 .6 7 3 2 8 .4 9 66
2 4 66 8
66 66 8 .6 LAWN .8
699 9 4 8
.6.6 .6 66 66
35 6 66 66 9 .5 9 .0
PLANTER
9 .6 9 8 8
6 .5
8
66 66 66 66
69
9 9 9 9 .4
.8 .8 .9 .8 5
1 5 3 9
DOOR
DOOR
DOOR
HEIGHT=9.6’
HEIGHT=S 18.0’
HEIGHT=N 17.3’
BITUMINOUS
LOWEST WIRE
GUY ANCHOR
HEIGHT=W 19.6’
LOWEST WIRE
LOWEST WIRE
BITUMINOUS
"DW3" 1 STORY
BUILDING #5990
BRICK & FRAME
F.F.=669.89 CL DOOR
F.F.=669.93 CL DOOR
F.F.=669.85 CL DOOR
Sheet
21 of 21

Appendix F

Design Program – Stations Report


SILVER LINE BRT
DESIGN PROGRAM - STATIONS
Task 2.0
September 24, 2010
Prepared by:
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 STATION CAPACITY................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Station Shelters ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Station Passenger Capacity .................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.2 Furnishings Inside the Station Shelter .................................................................. 2-1
2.1.3 Station Shelter Lighting ........................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Station Platforms ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Furnishings and Utilities on the Station Platform.................................................. 2-1
2.2.2 Platform Surface .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.3 Platform Lighting ................................................................................................. 2-2
3.0 STATION BUILDING FEATURES .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Safety and Security ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Weather Protection and Roof Drains ............................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Station Materials ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.4 Structural Design ........................................................................................................... 3-1
4.0 OTHER DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Platform Height ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Horizontal Clearance ..................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Platform Slopes ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.4 ADA Clearances ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.5 Minimum Sidewalk Width.............................................................................................. 4-1
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this technical paper is to identify the concept design program for the transit stations in
order to guide the visualization task of the project in developing concept level illustrations of the
stations. Following the visualization task, at the beginning of the design phase, Design Criteria for the
stations will be prepared by the Design Team to be used for final design.
This Design Program – Stations contains the following components:
• Station capacity
o Buildings
o Platforms
o Utilities
o Equipment included
o Amenities included
• Expectations for Weather Protection
• Dimensional Requirements
Introduction
1-1
2.0 STATION CAPACITY
2.1 Station Shelters
2.1.1 Station Passenger Capacity
• Coaches have a 40 seat capacity
• Inbound coaches will board passengers uniformly over the ten stations from 60th and
Division to Franklin Street; about four passengers per station. Use six passengers
(standing and seated) as the capacity for the typical station.
• Outbound coaches will board passengers uniformly over the 5 stations from Fulton
Street to Fountain Street; about eight passengers per station. Use 10 passengers
(standing and seated) as the capacity for these five outbound stations in the CBD.
2.1.2 Furnishings Inside the Station Shelter

• Two to three seats (one bench)
• One wheelchair space
• Ticket Vending Machine (assumed dimensions: 30” wide x 12” deep x 42” high with
30”x30” clear space in front for maintenance)
• Free standing Ticket Validator (assumed dimensions: 10” wide x 10” deep x 42” high)
• Free standing Emergency Telephone (Blue Light) with camera (assumed dimensions:
12” wide x 12” deep x 72” high)
• Wall mounted “Next Bus” Variable Message Sign with audio (assumed dimensions: 24”
wide x 8” deep x 16” high)
• Security cameras (one or two wall mounted in addition to the camera with the
emergency telephone)
• Signage
• Art (or something related to local context)
• Signage for the visual and hearing impaired customers
2.1.3 Station Shelter Lighting
Station shelters shall be lighted with an averaged maintained level of 10 fc.
2.2 Station Platforms

2.2.1 Furnishings and Utilities on the Station Platform
• Three seats (one bench)
• One trash receptacle
• Bike racks
• Cigarette disposal
• Kiosk for Route Maps and opportunities to post other information (assumed
dimensions 48” high x 36” wide x 24” deep with 36”x36” clear space in front and back
for maintenance.)
• Signage for the visual and hearing impaired customers
Station Capacity
2-1
• Art (or something related to local context)
• Free-standing NEMA electrical panel with GFI outlet (assumed dimensions 36” high x
24” wide x 12” deep with 48”x48” clear space in front for maintenance.)
• Tree Plantings may be included on the platform
2.2.2 Platform Surface
Hard impervious durable surface that allows for easy maintenance, snow removal and water drainage.
Examples include stamped concrete, scored concrete, pavers, etc.. Provide ADA tactile surface at the
curb.
2.2.3 Platform Lighting
Platforms shall be lighted with an average maintained level of 2 fc.
Station Capacity
2-2
3.0 STATION BUILDING FEATURES
3.1 Safety and Security
• Station buildings shall not provide locations to hide people or packages.
• Stations are not to be enclosed
• The interiors of stations buildings must be clearly visible from the outside.
• Maximize use of transparent materials where possible.
• All station buildings must be designed to eliminate conditions where a person could be
contained
• Measures to prevent loitering (signage, bench design, etc)
3.2 Weather Protection and Roof Drains

Station buildings shall have a roof and appropriate wind breaks. No heating is provided. Roof storm
water shall be collected and disposed per local requirements but shall not be discharged onto the
platform walking surface where it can freeze.
In most cases it is expected that the canopy will be about 25 feet long to cover both doors of a 40 foot
coach and set back 24” from the face of curb to protect the boarding passengers from rain. The 25 foot
length may be reduced if site constraints do not permit. If the roof extends over the bus, the clear height
of the roof is to be 14’-6” above the pavement.
3.3 Station Materials

Structures shall be made of materials that are durable and easy to clean such as glass, stainless steel,
ceramic or porcelain tile, and concrete.
Maximize inter-changeability of components to minimize attic stocks and ease in replacement of
damaged parts.
Maximize transparency.
Incorporate design elements or art that relate to the context of the neighborhood
Signage/branding of the Silver Line BRT
3.4 Structural Design

Stations shall meet all building code requirements for structural design except that the bottom of the
foundations shall be at approximately the same depth as the roadway pavement.
Incorporate large vertical feature at each location that allow stations to be visible up to 2 blocks away
Optimize the ability to manufacture the stations off-site.
Station Building Features

3-1
4.0 OTHER DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Platform Height
The platforms shall be placed 14” above the pavement for BRT Vehicles and 10” above the pavement
where BRT will share stations with other local route stops. The BRT will share the platform with local
routes at the following stations:
• Michigan WB
• Ransom NB at Fulton
• Burton NB and SB
• 28th NB and SB
• 36th NB and SB
• 44th NB and SB
4.2 Horizontal Clearance

All elements of the station shall be placed not less than 24” from the face of curb. With prior approval
from the City, the horizontal clearance may be reduced to 18”. Where the platform is 10” high there
must be 96” clear perpendicular to the curb for the bus to deploy the ADA ramp.
4.3 Platform Slopes

All slopes of the platform will be designed and constructed to meet ADA requirements.
4.4 ADA Clearances

All clearances required by ADA shall be provided.
4.5 Minimum Sidewalk Width

The minimum sidewalk width behind the station building shall be 5’-0 clear.
Other Dimensional Requirements

4-1

Appendix G

Roadway Program Report


SILVER LINE BRT

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Task 2.0 Roadway Program

September 1, 2010

Prepared by:
and
URS Corporation

Table of Contents


1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1‐1
2.0 DESIGN SPEED ............................................................................................................... 2‐1
3.0 DEDICATED BRT LANES .................................................................................................. 3‐1
4.0 LANE WIDTH.................................................................................................................. 4‐1
5.0 CROSS SECTION ............................................................................................................. 5‐1
6.0 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ............................................................................................. 6‐1
7.0 ADA COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................... 7‐1
8.0 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE....................................................................... 8‐1
9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 9‐1
10.0 APPENDIX...................................................................................................................... 10‐1

Table of Contents
i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) will provide a state of the art transit option for the greater
Grand Rapids area. The main route for the BRT includes the following roadways:
• Grandville Avenue – Central Station to Monroe
• Monroe Avenue – Weston to Michigan
• Michigan Street – Monroe to Bostwick
• Ransom Avenue – Crescent to Fulton
• Logan Avenue – Jefferson to Division
• Jefferson Avenue – Fulton to Logan
• Wealthy Street – Jefferson to Division
• Division Avenue – Wealthy to 60th
In preparation for the roadway design, this technical paper will identify the concept design
program for the roadway improvements associated with the Silver Line BRT. An initial review of
the existing roadways has been completed. Based on this review, initial design criteria have been
identified for the proposed work. It should be noted that, after station location and dedicated BRT
lanes have been finalized, more detailed information will be included.
As discussed in the environmental assessment, improvements to the existing roadways will
generally be spot improvements associated with the proposed stations. This will include
construction of concrete pavement with new curb and gutter in front of the stations to minimize
‘rutting’ from the stopping and starting of the proposed BRT. In addition, auxiliary/turning lanes
may be added at intermittent locations to accommodate the proposed BRT route. Finally, portions
of the route may be cold milled (i.e. top layer of asphalt removed) and resurfaced with asphalt to
improve overall ride quality. The cold milling depth will likely be 1.5 inches to 2 inches. This should
be deep enough to remove existing surface deterioration and wheel rutting.

In coordination with the layout of the proposed stations and dedicated BRT lanes, the pavement
markings and signing will be modified along the corridor. The markings and signing will delineate
lane assignments, parking, turn lanes, etc…

Exact locations for concrete pavement and cold milling and resurfacing will be determined once the
final station locations and dedicated BRT lane locations are set.

Introduction
11
2.0 Design Speed

The design speed for the roadways shall be typically designed at five miles‐per‐hour over the
posted speed limit. Posted speed may be used for portions of this project as this section of roadway
is a non‐freeway and non‐NHS (National Highway System) route. Existing posted speed limits and
appropriate design speeds are shown in the following table.

Table 2.1 Existing Posted Speed Limits and Design Speeds
Roadway Start End Speed Limit Design Speed
(mph) (mph)
Grandville Avenue Central Station Monroe Avenue 25 30
Monroe Avenue Weston Michigan Street 25 30
Michigan Street Monroe Avenue Bostwick Avenue 30 35
Ransom Avenue Crescent Street Fulton Street 25 30
Jefferson
Logan Avenue Division Avenue 25 30
Avenue
Jefferson Avenue Fulton Street Wealthy Street 25 30
Jefferson
Wealthy Street Division Avenue 25 30
Avenue
Division Avenue Wealthy Street Alger Street 30 35
Division Avenue Alger Street 28 Street
th 35 40
Division Avenue 28th Street 54th Street 40 45
Division Avenue 54th Street 60th Street 45 50

Design Speed
21
3.0 Dedicated BRT Lanes

In order to maximize efficiency of the Silver Line, dedicated BRT lanes will be provided wherever
possible. After the exact locations of the dedicated BRT lanes are determined, a summary table
identifying these areas will be listed. It is anticipated that dedicated BRT lanes will have an 11‐foot
width.

Dedicated BRT Lanes
31

4.0 Lane Widths

The existing roadway typically has 11‐foot to 12‐foot wide lanes. However, intermittent
auxiliary/turning lanes appear to be as narrow as 10‐foot. Proposed through lane widths will
typically be 11‐foot lanes as recommended in the AASHTO ‘Green Book’. Auxiliary lanes will also be
11‐feet wide, however, 10‐foot lanes will be considered where space is limited. As previously
mentioned, the dedicated BRT Lane will be a minimum of 11‐feet.

Lane Widths
41
5.0 Cross Sections

The existing roadway cross section varies throughout the Silver Line BRT route. Listed below is a
general summary of the roadway cross section by street. It should be noted that the number of
lanes column includes center left turn lanes.

Table 5.1 Summary of Roadway Cross Sections
Roadway Start End Number of Lanes Parking
Grandville Avenue Central Station Monroe Avenue 2‐3 Yes
Monroe Avenue Weston Michigan Street 5 None
Michigan Street Monroe Avenue Bostwick Avenue 6 None
Ransom Avenue Crescent Street Fulton Street 2 Yes
Jefferson Avenue Fulton Street Wealthy Street 2‐3 Yes
Jefferson
Wealthy Street Division Avenue 5 No
Avenue
Division Avenue Wealthy Street Alger Street 4 Yes
Division Avenue Alger Street 44th Street 5 No
Division Avenue 44 Street
th 56 Street
th 4 Varies
Division Avenue 56th Street 60th Street 5 No

Cross Sections
51
6.0 Horizontal Alignment

Since the roadway will not be reconstructed, the horizontal alignment will not be modified.
However, lane shifts may be required at certain locations to accommodate additional auxiliary/turn
lanes. Shown below is a table that shows distances required for a lane shift. After the final layout of
the stations and dedicated BRT lanes is determined, specific locations for lanes shifts will be
identified. Please note that the table assumes an 11‐foot shift distance (equal to one lane).

Table 6.1 Summary of Lane Shifts
Design Speed Shift Distance
30 165
35 225
40 295
45 495
50 550

Horizontal Alignment
61

7.0 ADA Compliance

As mentioned in the Stations Design Program, all station areas will be ADA compliant. This will
include upgrading sidewalk ramps within the station influence area that are not compliant. These
modifications will include design of ADA compliant ramps with detectable warning strips. Each City
within the project area does not have unique ADA standards, instead they follow the Americans
with Disabilities Act Guidelines and the Michigan Department of Transportation Sidewalk
Guidelines (see Appendix).

ADA Compliance
71
8.0 Horizontal and Vertical Clearance

Horizontal clearance shall meet minimum offset distance as identified in the AASHTO ‘Green Book’.
For urban arterials, collectors and local streets, the offset to an obstruction can be as small as 18
inches (1.5 feet) from the face of curb. However, the preferred minimum would be 24 inches (2
feet). Where practical, additional offset distance should be provided.

Vertical clearance shall meet minimum underclearance requirements identified in the Michigan
Bridge Design Manual. For arterials, collectors and local roads, the minimum vertical clearance is
14’‐6”. However, the preferred minimum would be 14’‐9”. This allows the 14’‐6” mimimum to be
maintained if a 3 inch asphalt overlay takes place in the future.

Horizontal and Vertical Clearance
81
9.0 References

AASHTO ‐ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines. July 23,
2004.

Draft Public Rights‐of‐Way Accessibility Guidelines. November 23, 2005.

Michigan Department of Transportation Standard Plans

Michigan Department of Transportation Bridge Design Manual

References
91
10.0 Appendix

Appendix
101

Appendix H

Bus operations, Traffic Signals, and
Communications Concept Report


SILVER LINE BRT

Bus Operations, Traffic Signals, and

Tasks 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6
Tasks 6.1 and 6.6 thru 6.10

October 21, 2010

Prepared by:
And
Clifton, Weiss and Associates

Table of Contents


1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................. 1

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Existing Bus Operations .................................................................................................. 1
2.2 Existing Traffic Signals .................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Existing Communications Infrastructure ......................................................................... 3

3.0 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Technology/ Topography ................................................................................................ 3
3.3 Bandwidth ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Availability ..................................................................................................................... 5
3.5 Scalability ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.6 Quality of Service ........................................................................................................... 6
3.7 Security .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.8 Reliability and Maintainability ........................................................................................ 7
3.9 Resilience, Survivability and Redundancy ....................................................................... 8
3.10 Equipment Housing, Environmental Control and Electrical Power ................................... 8

4.0 BRT FUNCTION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................ 9

4.1 BRT Operations .............................................................................................................. 9
4.1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9
4.1.2 BRT Operations Overview .................................................................................. 9
4.1.3 Dedicated Lanes ................................................................................................. 9
4.1.4 Station Locations and Transit Signal Priority ..................................................... 10
4.1.5 Off‐Board Fare Collection ................................................................................. 10
4.1.6 “Next Bus” Display ........................................................................................... 10
4.1.7 3‐D VISSIM Simulations .................................................................................... 10
4.2 Traffic Operations ......................................................................................................... 12
4.2.1 Intersections To Have Transit Signal Priority ..................................................... 12
4.2.2 Transit Signal Priority Functional Devices ......................................................... 12
4.2.3 Detection System ............................................................................................. 13
4.2.4 Signal Controller Interface Unit (SCIU) .............................................................. 15
4.2.5 Remote Data Management System (RDMS) ..................................................... 15
4.2.6 Traffic Signal Heads .......................................................................................... 15

Page i

4.3 Silver Line BRT Communications Requirements ............................................................ 16
4.3.1 Communications Systems ................................................................................. 16
4.3.2 Emergency Telephone ...................................................................................... 16
4.3.3 CCTV ................................................................................................................ 16
4.3.4 Connectivity ..................................................................................................... 16
4.3.5 Bandwidth ....................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Communications Options and Recommendations ......................................................... 18
4.4.1 Technology / Topography ................................................................................. 18
4.4.2 Bandwidth ....................................................................................................... 22
4.4.3 Other Design Approach Items ........................................................................... 22

5.0 ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO PROVIDE BRT FUNCTIONS ................................... 23

5.1 Operations ................................................................................................................... 23
5.2 Traffic Signals ............................................................................................................... 23
5.3 Communications .......................................................................................................... 24

6.0 BRT OPERATIONS,TRAFFIC SIGNALS, AND COMMUNICATIONS COST ESTIMATE ...................... 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A Meeting Minutes
Appendix B Existing Bus Routes
Appendix C Dedicated Lane Base Maps and Station Locations
Appendix D VISSIM Simulation CD
Appendix E Traffic Signal priority, Transit Operations, and Communications Cost Estimate

Page ii


1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

The Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, as defined in the Environmental Assessment (EA)
report prepared in 2010, runs through three cities; Grand Rapids, Wyoming, and Kentwood and
includes 33 proposed Silver Line BRT stations along a 9.6 mile route.

The purpose of this technical paper is to summarize the existing bus, traffic, and communication
operations in the project area; summarize the Silver Line BRT operation, traffic and communication
functions anticipated to be required for future operations; and identify the quantity and cost of new
infrastructure and/or equipment needed to be included in the project to provide these functions.

To identify existing conditions the study team met with representatives from each of the three
cities, and the Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) – The Rapid, to discuss, existing and proposed
bus operations, existing signal operations, and communication infrastructure. The meeting notes
are attached in Appendix A.

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Existing Bus Operations

Several existing bus routes operate in the area of the proposed Silver Line BRT. These routes will
continue their current operations after the Silver Line is operational: Route # 1 along Division from
60th to Wealthy, Route #3 overlaps for a short section on Jefferson, Route #11 overlaps from The
Rapid station downtown until the BRT route turns from Michigan onto Bostwick. The existing bus
routes are included in Appendix B. Other bus routes have minor interaction with the BRT route
such as route #4, #12, #13, #14, #15.

 There are no dedicated lanes for buses on any existing routes located along the proposed
Silver Line BRT route.
 The current equipment and software is developed by AVL Technologies in Colorado and the
stop annunciators are from McKenzie Corporation. The current system appears to have
some existing issues with the functioning of their Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) System.
The reporting features are not yet meeting their expectations.
 The “next bus” sign currently gives a scheduled time which is not linked to actual bus
arrivals
 Currently using Odyssey GFI Genfare fare boxes which have smart capabilities but have not
been implemented or utilized. They were installed in 2003 – 2004.

Page 1

It is anticipated that the AVL system shortcomings will be corrected to support BRT operations and
provide real time bus information for variable message signs.

2.2 Existing Traffic Signals

An assessment was made in determining the type of equipment that is available in the field to
provide Transit Signal Priority (TSP). Existing traffic signal information for the 28 signals on the
proposed Silver Line BRT route was collected from each of the three cities within the project limits
and is summarized in Table 2.1. The information will be used to design the proposed BRT system
to be compatible with existing systems.

Based on information from engineering staff at the cities of Grand Rapids, Wyoming, and Kentwood,
all intersections are equipped with Eagle EPAC signal controllers. These controllers are capable of
providing TSP. In addition, it was also found that the majority of the signalized intersections
already have OpticomTM detection systems installed for Emergency Vehicle Preemption. This same
detection equipment can be used to detect transit vehicles to provide TSP. The OpticomTM system
will allow the BRT buses to have signal prioritization where applicable.

Table 2.1 Existing Traffic Signals
SIGNAL CONTROLLER TYPE OPTICOM PRESENT
MAJOR ROUTE CROSS STREET MAKE
Market Fulton Eagle EPAC yes
Monroe Loius Eagle EPAC yes
Monroe Pearl Eagle EPAC yes
Monroe Lyon Eagle EPAC yes
Monroe Michigan Eagle EPAC yes
Michigan Ottawa Eagle EPAC yes
Michigan Ionia Eagle EPAC yes
Michigan Bostwick Eagle EPAC yes
Ransom Lyon Eagle EPAC no
Ransom Fountain Eagle EPAC no
Ransom Fulton Eagle EPAC no
Fulton Jefferson Eagle EPAC yes
Wealthy Division Eagle EPAC yes
Division Franklin Eagle EPAC yes
Division Deleware Eagle EPAC yes
Division Hall Eagle EPAC yes
Division Cottage Grove SE Eagle EPAC yes
Division Cottage Grove SW Eagle EPAC yes
Division Griggs Eagle EPAC yes
Division Burton Eagle EPAC yes
Division Alger Eagle EPAC yes
Division 28th Eagle EPAC yes
Division 32nd Eagle EPAC yes

Page 2

2.3 Existing Communications Infrastructure

Existing fiber optic cable is available between Central Station and 28th Street. There are plans for
extending the fiber optic cable along Division south of 28th Street but that work is not anticipated
until after the Silver Line BRT is intended to be operational.

Leased facilities are available in the project area at a monthly lease cost of approximately $10,000
per month.

3.0 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

3.1 Introduction

It is difficult at times to draw the boundary between a communications system and its user systems
or clients. As an example, Internet browser software on a computer performs critical
communications tasks, but would be considered a user system and not part of a communications
system. The term Communications System will be used herein to describe the basic
communications transmission system that will serve the proposed Silver Line BRT. The
Communications System will host several sub‐networks that serve specific client systems.

In addition to the client systems already planned for the proposed Silver Line BRT, likely future
uses and demand for communications can be anticipated by examining other transit agencies. It is
important for a communications system to be equipped to respond to evolving demands for
different types of services. Typical types and quantities of services demanded have grown
dramatically in recent times and have moved from the fixed dedicated bandwidth of time division
multiplex (TDM) to shared resources using network‐based technologies.

To address the requirements of the Communications System there are several system attributes to
be considered:

 Technology / Topography
 Bandwidth
 Availability
 Scalability
 Quality of Service
 Security
 Reliability and Maintainability
 Resilience, Survivability and Redundancy
 Equipment Housing, Environmental Control and Electrical Power

3.2 Technology / Topography

The backbone is the portion of the communications network that carries the bulk of information.
Ideally the backbone must extend over the entire territory and will serve all of the communications

Page 3

based applications. Any application should be able to connect to any backbone node and be able to
communicate with all other application elements connected to other nodes as required. The
technology used to form the backbone as well as the topology, or shape of the backbone will
determine many of the other attributes of the system. Technology and topology are closely related
in that certain technologies are designed to function in a certain type of topology. Geography and
other physical limitations of a system will determine the available topology choices.

Fiber Optic: In a fiber optic based backbone, fiber optic cable is installed over the entire length of
the area served. At each location to be served, some or all of the fibers in the cable are terminated in
a distribution panel. With fiber optic cable comprising the physical layer, it is also necessary to
provide transmission equipment to serve applications that are not equipped for optical
transmission. The two main technologies provided by fiber‐based transmission equipment are
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Ethernet. Multi‐service platforms (MSPs) provide both
technologies, supporting both traditional Time Division Multiplex (TDM) interconnections as well
as Ethernet capabilities.

Microwave: There is considerable use of licensed and unlicensed microwave data communication
technology on commuter rail and transit properties in the United States. Line‐of‐sight is required
between nodes. This often requires the use of high towers.

Leased Facilities: There are multiple technologies available as leased services such as: frame relay,
Multi‐protocol Label Switching (MPLS), point‐to‐point TDM, and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). It is
also possible to lease individual voice or serial data circuits. Leased services can be either
conventional hard‐wired lease lines, or wireless leased circuits. Initial capital outlay for this
alternative is relatively low, consisting only of the initial installation costs for the service and the
required interface equipment. The ongoing maintenance cost varies with attributes such as
bandwidth. It should be noted, that in the aftermath of both September 11, 2001 and Hurricane
Katrina, many telecommunications experts concluded that mission critical applications, in
particular applications that involve public safety, should not rely entirely on communications
networks based on leased services.

Wireless Local Area Networking: Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN) have become
commonplace since the ratification of the first IEEE 802.11 standard in 1996. Now known as WiFi,
this standard continues to improve as its popularity continues. These networks permit un‐tethered
access to the Internet and corporate files in support of data, voice, and video applications. Their
implementation ranges from simple residential installations to complex meshed urban and even
statewide networks.

Wireless Mesh: This approach places wireless network nodes usually mounted on poles at a
distance of approximately seven‐tenths of a mile apart along the territory to be served. Each node
covers an area with WiFi signal. Each Node passes information on to its neighbor, relaying
information to a point where the mesh accesses a central center or high‐speed network. This
approach provides scalability since a new site can be added relatively easily at any time in nearly
any location. The overall bandwidth provided is the lowest of the alternatives considered. The
alternative also requires user system interfaces to be WiFi.

WiMAX: WiMAX is a next generation technology that improves upon WiFi. This new technology is a
dual‐use technology that supports 4th generation cellular data service from providers such as

Page 4

Clearwire and Sprint/Nextel as well as customer‐owned wireless networks that have much larger
coverage areas than the localized coverage typically provided by a WiFi access point.

Cellular Data Services: The cellular data services industry continues to progress the performance
levels of their networks. The use of this technology is considered a viable alternative to building
completely new wireless networks in support of wide‐area data or voice applications.

Free Space Optics: Free Space Optics (FSO) uses light propagating in free space to transmit data
between two points. FSO is often used in locations where physical connection is difficult, such as in
cities where installing fiber optic cables is expensive or impossible. FSO products range from 0.5 to
2 kilometers in distance and from 25 Mbps to 1.25 Gbps in bandwidth capacity. Advantages include
fast installation times, no license requirements, high degree of security, and lower installation and
maintenance costs than that of a fiber based system. The main disadvantage is susceptibility to
weather conditions and physical obstructions.

3.3 Bandwidth

Bandwidth, or digital data rate expressed in bits per second, is a critical requirement of a
communications system. It defines the size or capacity of the system. Application bandwidth
requirements are prime considerations in network planning. Bandwidth requirement estimates
and forecasts are by nature complex. In a time‐division multiplexing (TDM) based network each
user component is assigned a dedicated channel with an assigned bandwidth. As an example, a
telephone is generally assigned a 64 kbps channel. This bandwidth is dedicated to the telephone
whether or not the phone is in use. In a packet‐based network environment, the packets containing
the audio signal from the telephone are mixed or alternated with packets from other applications.
Estimating and forecasting the bandwidth requirements of a communications system carrying
packet‐based traffic generated by many different types of applications is more complex. The
complexity increases with the disparity of the transported traffic. Packet‐based networks are able
to retransmit packets that are blocked, allowing the information to be transmitted, but introducing
latency. The degree of latency that is tolerable is dependent upon the application, introducing
additional complexity in predicting required bandwidth.

3.4 Availability

One of the factors in bandwidth requirement calculations is the principle of system availability. In a
system with high availability, portions of the network will not be denied full functionality due to
other portions of the network with less bandwidth. Access to the full system bandwidth is available
wherever necessary, with a minimum of wiring and/or administrative changes. Generally this
quality requires a high‐bandwidth communications backbone. As much of the system bandwidth as
possible is available for use by applications. Unnecessary redundancy, mirroring or carrying
information other than that required for resilience is avoided.

The term availability is often used in another sense, i.e. the proportion of time a system is in a
functioning condition. For purposes of clarity, the term availability will not be used in that sense in
this report.

Page 5

3.5 Scalability

A sound basis for meeting the needs of the future is to plan an architecture that is scalable and
modular, so that as demands increase, new building blocks can be added to accommodate the
increased needs. Often, a scalable and modular system is more costly initially than a fixed system,
requiring extra components that will permit future expansion, but will provide a positive return on
investment against the increased initial capital costs when the inevitable demands upon the
communications systems are made on an unpredictable schedule.

The communications marketplace will respond to the needs of the large carrier and telephone
companies. Therefore, one key to a successful strategy is to keep current with and follow the
strategies and technological trends of the communications marketplace, and in particular, the
marketplace for large carriers and telephone companies.

The architectures found in the marketplace are based upon meeting changing customer demands,
leveraging capital investments and building networks that can evolve based upon scalable building
blocks. A prime example is the manner in which major telephone companies have evolved their
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) plant. The carriers have found that their customers
demand the reliability associated with SONET standards regardless of the end service they need. In
particular, customers demand the 50‐msec automatic protection switching and the resiliency
associated with ring‐based networks. These levels of reliability and resiliency are based upon well‐
defined and well‐known industry standards. Newer services often rely on the SONET layer to
overcome their shortcomings in reliability and resiliency. Widely deployed and well understood,
the use of SONET by major carriers will continue in the near term.

Initially deployed as TDM architecture, the core SONET systems deployed by the telephone
companies have evolved to support cell based technologies (ATM, Frame Relay, IP Ethernet) and
more recently to Wave Division Multiplex (WDM) and Multi‐protocol Label Switching (MPLS).
These technologies are built upon the foundations established in earlier years, but have continued
to evolve using incremental building blocks to meet increased demand for newer services, in most
cases by moving traffic from dedicated TDM services to IP based shared resources, such as Ethernet
and MPLS.

A scalable and flexible communications system is one where network capacity may be changed in
response to changes in demand, without significant redesign or abandonment of existing resources.
The network may be extended to serve new geographic locations by installing additional elements
of the same type used in the existing network. This requires standardization of system elements.

3.6 Quality of Service

Time‐division multiplexing (TDM) communications systems dedicate bandwidth for each circuit or
channel allocated. By doing so, maximum quality of service is delivered for every circuit. The price
that is paid is in efficiency, because bandwidth is used for idle circuits. Packet‐based systems
deliver a higher rate of efficiency by only sending packets when required, however there may be
times when the demand for bandwidth exceeds capacity, delaying packets or causing them to be
retransmitted or discarded.

Page 6

In networking, Quality of Service (QoS) refers to resource reservation control mechanisms rather
than service quality. The QoS mechanism provides different priority levels to guarantee a certain
level of performance to an application. This can be important to delay sensitive real‐time streaming
multimedia applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP) and video. QoS mechanisms are not required
when there is no network congestion.

Several network communications protocols provide QoS mechanisms, including frame relay, ATM
and MPLS. QoS generally functions at higher Open System Interconnection (OSI) layers than those
provided by a communications system, however it is important that physical and transport systems
do not preclude the desired QoS mechanism.

3.7 Security

Many applications have built in security measures, such as the Payment Card Industry (PCI)
protocol used by most Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) Systems. Once the critical information is
encrypted, it may be transmitted over the Internet or the public switched telephone network.
Other applications rely on the communications transmission system being secure. There is
inherent degree of insecurity whenever wireless transport is used. This may be mitigated through
the use of encryption or other security measures.

3.8 Reliability and Maintainability

For a well operating, functional system that is meeting needs, age alone is not necessarily a
requirement for replacement or upgrade. However when new functions are required that the
current system cannot supply, or the age of a device in a rapidly changing marketplace results in
loss of support and replacement parts from the vendor community, then consideration must be
given to the risk of continuing with a system that does not meet needs or cannot be maintained.

Applications have varying degrees of tolerance to reliability. A brief communications failure may
have a small effect to a passenger information system, only delaying the arrival of new information.
However, a brief communications failure could more drastically affect safety or control
applications.

A state of good repair of the current systems is mandatory, irrespective of whether a system is kept
in service as is, or migrated to a newer platform or system. A state of good repair is not achieved
only by performing routine maintenance and repair. In some instances it requires immediate
replacement of aged components. In other cases, maintaining a state of good repair requires
periodic updates of software, often on a quarterly or even monthly basis. Manufacturers of
equipment typically will not support customers during routine or emergency diagnostics or repair
unless the latest version of software has been deployed.

Deployment of remote diagnostics to complement the new systems will enhance current
maintenance practices by reporting the precise nature of any technical issue before technicians are
deployed. Remote diagnostics and improved network management may allow re‐routing of
disrupted services to alternate channels until normal business hours, thus avoiding unnecessary
overtime costs.

Page 7

It is important to maintain a periodic replacement cycle of Communications System components
that acknowledges limits on capital budgets and service life expectations for current systems
deployed in phases over the years. These cycles are based upon deployed systems in‐service dates
and geographies. It is important to note that communications systems, and for that matter any
microprocessor or software based system, now faces accelerated replacement cycles compared
with older technologies, and it is highly probable that communications and signal systems may each
exhibit significantly different replacement cycles based upon their respective technologies.

3.9 Resilience, Survivability and Redundancy

In a resilient communications system, as much of the network as possible will continue to function
in the event of localized events or failures, such as cable cuts or equipment failures. For true
resilience, the alternate communications paths must be constantly and automatically tested to
assure they are functioning and may be depended upon in the event of a failure.

In a survivable communications system the network is able to maintain or restore an acceptable
level of performance after a catastrophic network failure by applying various preventative and
restoration techniques. This requires having restoration plans in place and the resources available
to implement the plans.

Redundancy is closely tied to these requirements for resilience and survivability. Having multiple
communications paths that are constantly and automatically verified is necessary for the backbone
system. Traditionally, network infrastructures have been designed for single failure redundancy.
This, for instance, is the basis of a SONET ring infrastructure. The ring provides two paths around a
failure.

3.10 Equipment Housing, Environmental Control and Electrical
Power

It is important to provide space and environmental controls for existing and future communications
equipment. For availability, resilience and survivability it is essential that each location type have a
standardized electrical power treatment. This includes lightning protection, surge protection and
UPS or other means for providing power during a commercial power failure.

Page 8

4.0 BRT FUNCTION REQUIREMENTS

4.1 BRT Operations

4.1.1 Introduction

The proposed Silver Line BRT system will need to integrate with the existing Automatic Vehicle
Location (AVL) system and other systems currently utilized by ITP.
The following represents a list of requirements for the proposed operating system that should
allow the riders of the BRT system to seamlessly transfer from the Silver Line BRT to other routes
and operate seamlessly with the existing ITP systems.

4.1.2 BRT Operations Overview

Improved operating times of the BRT are dependent on Dedicated Lanes, Station Locations and
Transit Signal Priority (TSP), and Off‐Board Fare Collection. Two other amenities to make the BRT
a first‐class service is to provide passengers with a “Next Bus” Display and Level Boarding. The
“Next Bus” Display will be driven by information collected from ITP’s existing AVL system.

The Level Boarding will set the platform 14 inches above the top of pavement. This platform height
will require that the vehicles are equipped with precision docking devices. Platforms that provide
service to both BRT and local buses will be set at 10 inches above the top of pavement.

4.1.3 Dedicated Lanes

 The BRT vehicles would run in the existing travel lanes closest to the curb in each direction
with 10‐minute headways in peak hours and 15‐minute headways in off‐peak hours. During
peak hours, portions of the bus travel lanes would be exclusively for transit use. Only
right‐turn general traffic at intersections or the various driveways along Division Avenue
would be allowed to utilize this lane in the immediate area of their turn. Outside of peak
hours, the transit vehicles would travel in mixed traffic. See Appendix C for locations of the
dedicated lanes along the BRT corridor.
 The following locations are where it is recommended that the BRT travel lane be shared
with northbound general through traffic to increase northbound throughput along Division
Avenue. The travel lane restriction could be lifted a relatively short distance in advance of
the intersection, and then put back in place a short distance downstream from the
intersection.
o Burton Street and Division Avenue
o 28th Street and Division Avenue
 The following locations are where it is recommended that the BRT travel lane be shared
with northbound and southbound general through traffic to increase throughput along
Division Avenue. The travel lane restriction could be lifted a relatively short distance in
advance of the intersection, and then be put back in place a short distance downstream
from the intersection.

Page 9

 The BRT vehicle is allowed, traffic permitting, to leave the dedicated lane to pass local buses
or vehicles making right turns.

4.1.4 Station Locations and Transit Signal Priority

The benefit of TSP is dependent on the stations being located on the far side of the intersections.
Unfortunately, the EA located some stations where they cannot benefit from TSP. As a result, some
stations have been relocated and are shown in Appendix C.

Other technical aspects of TSP are developed in Section 4.2 Traffic Operations of this report.

4.1.5 OffBoard Fare Collection

 Smart Card Readers are desirable but may be too expensive; however, the existing Odyssey
GFI Genfare fare boxes have smart capabilities which has not been implemented or utilized
to date. They were installed in 2003‐2004.
 Ticket Vendor Machines ‐ Pre‐paid boarding is a desired attribute for the Silver Line BRT
service as a feature to reduce dwell time at stations.
 Random fare verification and the honor system currently used have been effective at
safeguarding against fare payment avoidance. It is expected they will be just as effective in
the proposed BRT system.

The consultant team will make a recommendation on the fare system and technology during final
design. The recommended system must be fully ADA compliant.

4.1.6 “Next Bus” Display

 The proposed “next bus” system should include audio for persons with disabilities.
 User’s should be able to easily differentiate between the BRT system and the regular fixed
route system.
 BRT needs to be integrated into the existing AVL system to support the “Next Bus” display.

4.1.7 3D VISSIM Simulations

Three intersections, as illustrated in Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, were selected to simulate the traffic
operations:

 Michigan and Bostwick (Transit turning , dedicated east bound transit, mixed use
westbound)
 Franklin and Division (Dedicated transit in both directions)
 36th and Division (Dedicated southbound transit and mixed use north bound)

The simulation includes traffic volumes based on 2035 projections except that transit and
pedestrian traffic was significantly increased to visually confirm that these modes would not reduce
the LOS.

Page 10

The simulation demonstrated that:

 Pedestrians had adequate time to cross the street safely
 Bus Operations did not adversely impact the intersection LOS
 Mixed traffic turning movements were accommodated even with the dedicated transit lanes

A CD of the AVI (movie clip) files is included as Appendix D.

Figure 4.1 Michigan and Bostwick

Figure 4.2 Franklin and Division

Page 11

Figure 4.3 36th and Division

4.2 Traffic Operations

4.2.1 Intersections To Have Transit Signal Priority

The Silver Line Rapid Transit System EA document, proposed to provide Transit Signal Priority
(TSP) at all of the signalized intersections along the proposed Silver Line BRT route except the
following:

 Division Avenue and Burton Street
 Division Avenue and 28th Street
 Division Avenue and 44th Street

4.2.2 Transit Signal Priority Functional Devices

The TSP system provides specialized treatment of transit vehicles at signalized intersections and
requires four basic functional devices:

 A mechanism to communicate transit vehicle arrival to the signal controller (On‐Board
Equipment),
 A mechanism to detect the transit vehicle presence (Roadside Equipment),
 A mechanism to communicate/execute the TSP logic to the controller (Signal Controller
Interface Unit), and
 A mechanism to monitor the TSP system performance (Remote Data management System).

Figure 4.4 describes the basic functional components of the TSP system. The On‐Board Equipment
(OBE) emits a signal to the Road‐side Equipment (RSE). The RSE detects the transit vehicle and

Page 12

transmits the information to a Signal Controller Interface Unit (SCUI). The SCUI responds with the
appropriate signal timing. The TSP system performance is monitored by Remote‐Data
Management System (RDMS).

Transit
Priority

Confirmation
Device
TA

OBE RSE

FD

EV

Preëmption

SCIU

Figure 4.4 Functional Components of TSP

In so far as the on‐board and roadside equipment must be compatible these are generally
purchased as a package Detection System from a single vendor.

4.2.3 Detection System

OnBoard Equipment (OBE): OBE is a device that is mounted on the transit vehicle and is
continuously emitting the signal conveying the presence of the transit vehicle. It is the intent of the
ITP that TSP is required only for Silver Line BRT vehicles.

Typically, the on‐board equipment is mounted on the roof of the transit vehicles or inside the
transit vehicle on the dashboard or the electronic number plate housing. OpticomTM emitters are
typically mounted on the roof of the transit vehicle for better line‐of‐sight to communicate with
OpticomTM detectors at the signals. The on‐board equipment derives power from the vehicle power
source and can be automated with the vehicle ignition process. Activation of the signal can be

Page 13

linked to the door opening or closing. In the case of near‐side stops or when the transit vehicle is
stopped and its doors are open; TSP request to the signal should be stopped.

Roadside Equipment (RSE): RSE is a device that can detect the signal emitted by the OBE; detecting
the presence of the transit vehicle. In some TSP technologies, the detectors are installed in the
roadway pavement or on the curbside at an advanced distance from the intersection.

The existing Detection System is OpticomTM equipment mounted on the signal mast arm or span
wire is hardwired to the SCIU that is secured within the local signal controller cabinet and is
currently being used for Emergency Vehicle Preemption. The same equipment can be used for TSP
for the proposed Silver Line BRT. The RSE detects the presence of the transit vehicle and conveys
the presence signal to the SCIU to execute the TSP logic.

The choice of strategies, technology, and the existing hardware in the field determine or dictate the
functional requirements for TSP system components. Given the presence of the existing 3M
OpticomTM system in the field, it is recommended to utilize existing field equipment for TSP
purposes and add necessary components to the Silver Line BRT vehicles. New RSE’s would be
provided at intersections that do not have existing OpticomTM equipment.

The 3M OpticomTM components consist of an OBE that is an infrared strobe emitter, an RSE that is
an infrared detector directionally mounted at intersections, and an interface to the signal controller.
The emitter sends a cone of infrared and visible strobe light in the forward direction.

Within the strobe’s flashing pattern and frequency is a coded message consisting of the vehicle
identification number. At each intersection approach for which priority is desired, 3M OpticomTM
detectors are mounted facing approaching traffic. Figure 4.5 shows the 3M OpticomTM TSP
system’s vehicle on‐board and intersection‐mounted components. OpticomTM supports two or four
channels, providing detection capability on two or four approaches respectively. The detectors are
connected by wire to the OpticomTM phase selector card installed in the signal controller cabinet.
The phase selector (and card rack for some controllers) provides the interface between the
detectors and the preemption inputs of the signal controller. This interface provides authentication
and authorization of priority phases using predefined logic and acts through standard controller
functions. In addition, the phase selector supports user classification and operating priorities for
vehicle types overriding other vehicle types. The 3M OpticomTM system is able to communicate
with both centralized and closed loop systems.

Figure 4.5 3M OpticomTM – Emitter and Detector
Page 14

4.2.4 Signal Controller Interface Unit (SCIU)

The SCIU is the most important and complex component of any TSP system. The SCIU’s
responsibility is to ensure that the detected vehicle is authorized to get TSP, determine if the
detected vehicle is a transit vehicle or an emergency vehicle, and execute the TSP logic to send the
appropriate signal timing plans to the signal controller. The SCIU is typically an interface card that
communicates with the traffic signal controller at the local intersection level. Depending on the TSP
strategy selection, the SCIU ensures that predefined TSP logic is deployed seamlessly and the
controller can return to the normal operations once the detected vehicle is served.

The physical composition and the functional requirements of the SCIU are different and unique for
each type of controller owing to the controller design and communications requirements.
Sometimes, the SCIU design can be extremely complicated to ensure the performance of different
types of TSP strategies. The SCIU functional requirements often provide limitations on or dictate
which TSP strategies can be deployed in the field. However, based on the existing conditions data,
all intersections along the proposed Silver Line BRT route are equipped with Eagle EPAC signal
controllers. These controllers are capable of providing TSP and can communicate with the
OpticomTM system.

The Final EA document recommended Early Green and Green Extensions as part of the TSP. This
active priority strategy can give an early green signal or hold a green signal that is already being
displayed allowing free passage of the authorized vehicle.

4.2.5 Remote Data Management System (RDMS)

RDMS is a data management system that enables the transit as well as traffic engineers and
planners to monitor the performance of the TSP system.

The RDMS system can be a single location system or a web‐based system accessible to all the
stakeholders interested in monitoring the performance of the TSP system.

Currently, the City of Grand Rapids has the central control system and uses ACTRA®. Except for
Division Avenue and 32nd Street intersection, all intersections communicate with the system.
ACTRA® is capable of generating reports on TSP activations. It can generate reports by intersection
and by vehicle identification number (ID). Each OpticomTM emitter which is mounted on the transit
vehicles would have a unique ID. This information can be reviewed by city traffic staff and the
Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) to refine the Early Green and Green Extension times based on
the delays to the general traffic and to BRT vehicles.

4.2.6 Traffic Signal Heads

It is anticipated to use all of the existing traffic signal heads. If new traffic signal heads are required
they will be the standard (red, amber, green) signal in a yellow enclosure. In so far as the transit
lanes are dedicated only during peak periods it is not appropriate to use special transit signal
heads.

Page 15

4.3 Silver Line BRT Communications Requirements

4.3.1 Communication Systems

To plan a communications system it is necessary to consider the requirements of the various user
systems or clients, both those currently planned and those that may be added in the future. The
following Communications System clients are planned for the proposed Silver Line BRT; now or in
the future:

 Emergency Telephone
 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
 Fare Validation
 “Next Bus” Arrival Time Sign
 Ticket Vending Machines
 Smart Card Readers
 Passenger Information Signs and Kiosk

4.3.2 Emergency Telephone

Emergency telephone service is planned for each platform at every station. At this time the most
likely arrangement for the emergency phones is a free standing stanchion. Stanchions clearly
indicate the presence of an emergency phone to patrons through color, graphics and by displaying
the standard blue light.

4.3.3 CCTV

Emergency telephone stanchions also provide convenient mounting locations for CCTV cameras.
Two cameras are planned for each stanchion. The first is a fixed camera that will capture the image
of an emergency phone user. The second is a pan‐tilt‐zoom dome camera that is mounted on an
extension pole above the stanchion. This camera will provide surveillance capability of the entire
platform area.

4.3.4 Connectivity

Each of the user applications will require connectivity to a central facility. Communications
between stations will be minimal. Table 4.1 depicts the expected connectivity requirement for
each of the applications.

Page 16

Table 4.1 Connectivity Requirements
Application Connectivity Requirement
Emergency Telephone PBX or VoIP Server
CCTV Viewing and Storage
CCTV
Facility
Fare Validation System Host via Public Network
“Next Bus” Arrival System Host via Public Network
System Host via Public Network
Ticket Vending
or On‐Site Server
Smart Card Readers
or On‐Site Server
Passenger Information
or On‐Site Server

It is assumed that each of these central facilities will be located at the Central Station location.
However, the Communications System must be capable of providing connectivity to other locations
if required.

4.3.5 Bandwidth

In approximating the bandwidth requirements for the Communications System a reasonable value
for each application at each location has been estimated. It is assumed that every station on the
Silver Line BRT will have the same user applications. The bandwidths are then added to obtain a
maximum value that would apply to all applications at all locations transmitting information. The
bandwidth needs for the planned and future applications are summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Approximate Bandwidth Requirements
Application Approximate Bandwidth
Requirement

Emergency Telephone 128 kbps

CCTV 25 Mbps

Fare Validation 128 kbps
“Next Bus” Arrival 1.5 Mbps
Ticket Vending 1.5 Mbps
Smart Card Readers 1.5 Mbps
Passenger Information 256 kbps
Total 30 Mbps

Note that CCTV is particularly bandwidth intensive. The bandwidth required at each station for
CCTV depends on numerous factors. Key factors are listed, showing the assumptions made for a
Silver Line BRT station:

 Number of Cameras – Two for each of the 33 directional stations
 Frames Per Second – 15
 Type of Cameras – IP

Page 17

 Resolution – 640 x 480
 Video Format – Mjpeg
 Live Viewing – Yes
 Recording Method – Network Storage at Central Location

A key factor in the bandwidth stated for CCTV is the use of networked storage. Networked storage
eliminates the need for a local recorder or storage device, but requires a large amount of
bandwidth. By recording locally, the Communications System bandwidth is reduced to that needed
for live viewing.

Bandwidth requirements for all other applications both planned and future are significantly less
than that required for CCTV using network storage. For this reason, future expansion of CCTV
coverage at stations must be identified early in the design in order to provide sufficient bandwidth.

4.4 Communications Options and Recommendations

4.4.1 Technology / Topography

Of the physical media available for communications transmission, fiber optic cable has many
advantages, including very high bandwidth capabilities, high reliability, and intrinsic security
attributes. The major disadvantage of fiber is the high cost of installation. The City of Grand Rapids
has indicated that existing fiber optic cable is available between Central Station and 28th Street. The
existence of fiber optic cable makes the choice of physical media simple for this area. Some work
will be required at each station to access the existing cable and extend fibers to the communications
equipment at each platform.

Installation of fiber optic cable is also planned along Division south of 28th Street; however, it will
likely be three to five years or longer before this plan is implemented. One option for the area
between 28th Street and 60th Street is to install fiber optic cable as part of the Silver Line BRT
Project. Cost is a major consideration of this option. Estimating the cost of installing aerial fiber
optic cable highly depends on local conditions. The cost can vary from $25,000 to $100,000 per
mile.

Considering the other options for this area, there are some that can be easily eliminated.
Microwave and Free Space Optics both require line‐of‐sight, and for that reason would most likely
require towers that are difficult to site and are often disliked by neighbors. Wireless Mesh would
require a large number of node installations, and would provide inadequate bandwidth. Wireless
LANs would serve a station area, but would not provide the connectivity back to the central
location. The remaining options are examined in more detail.

WiMAX: WiMAX products are becoming available, such as the RuggedMAX line of products
manufactured by Ruggedcom, Inc. Base station units are mounted on utility poles and cover a much
larger area than WiFi access points. FCC licensing is required to deploy these wireless devices;
however, the licenses are generally easy to obtain and are inexpensive. To cover the area from 28th
Street to 60th Street, base station units would be installed on utility poles at the 28th Street Station
area. Bandwidth is an important consideration. Effective bandwidth decreases as the coverage
distance increases.

Page 18

Leased Facilities: The use of leased services is an attractive option for the area not equipped with
fiber optic cable. The prospect of fiber optic cable becoming available in the future also makes the
use of lease services attractive, since it eliminates the installation of infrastructure that will
eventually be replaced. In particular, Multi‐protocol Label Switching (MPLS) service provides a
network solution that readily interfaces other IP‐based networks and systems. Service Level
Agreements are available with MPLS to assure a level of reliability. The service is scalable, allowing
selection of bandwidth to serve only the current equipment and allowing changes to port
bandwidths if additional equipment is installed in the future. Bandwidths as high as 12 Mbps are
available. A disadvantage of MPLS is the relatively high recurring cost. Monthly lease cost for MPLS
service to the stations in this area is roughly approximated to be $10,000 per month.

Each of these options remains viable and will be considered as the proposed Silver Line BRT design
progresses. However MPLS service offers distinct advantages in terms of bandwidth, scalability,
reliability and security, and is considered to be the most likely option at this time.

As previously stated, communications technology has moved in recent years from the fixed
dedicated bandwidth of time‐division multiplexing (TDM) to shared resources using network‐based
technologies. Ethernet/IP has become nearly ubiquitous throughout the industry. Devices such as
telephones and video cameras have evolved into Internet Protocol (IP) devices. Nearly all data
based systems, such as Automatic Vehicle Location and Fleet Management Systems require
Ethernet/IP communications between elements. Communications transmission equipment for the
Silver Line BRT will provide Ethernet/IP service to each station.

The topology of the system is a key factor in redundancy. SONET based systems provide excellent
self‐healing redundancy characteristics when deployed in a ring topology. When a node or path
ceases to function, the Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) automatically reroutes traffic around
the failure using other nodes and connections, making the transition in less than 50 microseconds.
The Division Avenue corridor does not lend itself to a ring topology, being essentially a straight line.
A SONET system could still be deployed, using a collapsed ring, i.e. fibers contained in the same
cable sheath. A collapsed ring does not provide the same degree of protection that a spatially
diverse ring does. If a fiber cable is cut, it is likely that all fibers in the cable will be severed or
damaged. SONET nodes are more costly than routers. The additional cost plus the necessity of
using a collapsed ring make the use of SONET less appealing for the proposed Silver Line BRT.

IP protocols such as Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) also provide protection against equipment and
link failures. OSPF quickly detects changes in the network topology, such as those caused by node
or link failures, and changes the affected packet routing in a matter of seconds. While not as fast as
the protection provided by SONET, OSPF still provides a high degree of protection when multiple
paths are available.

SONET nodes will continue to be considered in the project design, but it is expected that
environmentally hardened, Gigabit Ethernet layer three switches/routers will provide the best
basis for the Silver Line BRT Communications System. Figure 4.6 depicts a typical station using
this approach.

Page 19

Figure 4.6 Typical Station Communications

Using this approach, all user applications will interface the Communications System via
Ethernet/IP, including IP CCTV Cameras and VoIP Emergency Telephones.

Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show two possible approaches to the network arrangement. In Approach 1,
depicted in Figure 4.7, each Switch/Router in the area served by fiber will have a dedicated pair of
fibers back to the central office. This maximizes the amount of bandwidth available to each
location. Fiber connections are also provided to the next station. The last station served by fiber,
28th Street, will also be served by MPLS. Using this arrangement, if the fiber optic cable is severed
in any location, each Switch/Router will have an alternate path back to the central location. The
disadvantage to this arrangement is the number of fiber pairs required.

Page 20

Figure 4.7 Topology Approach 1

Approach 2 depicted in Figure 4.8 requires fewer fiber pairs than Approach 1 by “daisy chaining”
several Switch/Routers. The price paid is in bandwidth, with the daisy chained Switch/Routers
sharing the Gigabit bandwidth. Approach 2 provides alternate paths in a similar manner to
Approach 1.

Figure 4.8 Topology Approach 2

Page 21

4.4.2 Bandwidth

As previously discussed, each station will require approximately 30 Mbps of bandwidth if
networked video storage is used. Approach 1 will easily meet this requirement for the stations
served by fiber, with the full Gigabit Ethernet bandwidth available to each Switch/Router.
Approach 2 will also meet bandwidth needs in the fiber area, since no more than five stations are
chained on any one pair of fibers, requiring a total of approximately 150 Mbps of the Gbps capacity.

The area not served by fiber optic cable is a much different bandwidth scenario. Due to the much
more limited bandwidth capacity of leased facilities or any of the other non‐fiber options, it would
be required that CCTV data be stored locally. This requires a digital video recorder at each location
and heating/cooling ability of the equipment housing. Therefore, due to the bandwidth limitations,
the need for expensive digital recorders, and the significant recurring leasing costs it is
recommended to provide fiber optic for the full length of the project as described in Approach 2
except that new aerial fiber is recommended south of 28th Street in lieu of leased (MPLS) fibers.

4.4.3 Other Design Approach Items

Availability: To assure the greatest amount of availability, Approach 1 will be preferred. However,
it is unlikely that as many as 34 fibers will be available to be dedicated to this system. The daisy
chaining of Approach 2 will therefore be used as required by the number of available fiber pairs.
Availability will also be considered in the selection Switch/Routers.

Scalability: Scalability is achieved by planning for future user applications, providing spare
bandwidth capacity and Switch/Router ports. Future applications will also be considered in
allocating space, environmental treatment and electrical power for equipment housings.

Quality of Service: The Switch/Routers chosen, as well as the MPLS service provided will support
QoS. This will be an important system feature since primary use of the system will be by VoIP and
video.

Security: As previously discussed, a degree of security is inherent in fiber‐based communications
systems. The LAN/WAN network approach also lends itself to using modern security methods.

Reliability and Maintainability: Network management and remote diagnostics will be provided for
the Communications System as well as the Emergency Telephone and CCTV user applications.
Hardened units will also be employed to the greatest extent possible. Maintenance will be
considered in the arrangement of equipment in housings.

Resilience, Survivability and Redundancy: This subject has been considered and discussed in the
Technology/Topology section. The Communications System will be arranged to provide as much
resilience as possible while not driving up cost using approaches such as hot standby equipment.
UPS will be used to provide limited protection during commercial power failures.

Equipment Housing, Environmental Control and Electrical Power: Many of the characteristics
discussed above depend upon the housings and environmental controls used to house the
equipment. This will be a primary consideration during project design.

Page 22

5.0 ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED
TO PROVIDE BRT FUNCTIONS

5.1 Operations

Each Silver Line BRT Station will require a set of operating hardware devices:

 “Next bus” signs with audio
 Audio station announcements on the bus
 Ticket Vending Machine
 Emergency Telephone with CCTV camera
 One additional CCTV camera
 Fare Validation Device
 Smart Card Reader
 Passenger Information sign and Kiosk

Each of the systems will utilize the communications infrastructure and will tap into the electrical
supply constructed at each station.

The ITP must make their current AVL System functional to support BRT operations.

5.2 Traffic Signals

Signal Replacement/Modification: Based on the existing infrastructure capabilities and the
requirements to implement TSP, there is no need to replace or significantly modify any signalized
intersections.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Equipment: It is recommended that this project utilize the existing 3M
OpticomTM system for TSP communication at signalized intersections; the following equipment is
required to deploy TSP using OpticomTM technology:

 Signal Requirements (Per signalized intersection where not existing)
o Confirmation Light Kit
o Detector
 Two Channel/Two direction, or
 One Channel/ One Direction
o Phase Selector (Four Channel)
o Span Wire Clamp
o Card Rack with P1 Harness Assembly

 Bus Requirements (Per bus)
o Emitter (Low Priority with Visible Light Filter)

Page 23

 Software Requirements (One cost for system wide )
o User configuration software with Communication Cable
o 700 Series Emitter User Configuration software and Communication Cable

5.3 Communications

The following is a summary of the infrastructure needed based on the communications systems
options and recommendations.

 Aerial Fiber on Division from 28th to 60th street
 Approach 2 Switches and Routers
 Switches and routers at each station pair
 Equipment housing at each station pair
 Underground conduit between station pairs and tie‐in to existing fiber optic and electric
utilities

6.0 BRT OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS,
AND COMMUNICATIONS COST ESTIMATE

The Construction Cost Estimate for BRT Operations, Traffic Signals, and Communication is detailed
in Appendix E. The cost estimate is based on 2010 dollars and does not contain vehicles,
escalation, contingency or professional services.

The project cost estimate will utilize FTA’s Standard Cost Categories (SCC) spreadsheet was used to
summarize costs. The total cost will be summarized in the Cost Estimate Report and will include
escalation to year of expenditure, a 33 percent contingency on all cost items, and professional
services. The most recent total cost for the project excluding vehicle cost (as of October 11, 2010)
is $28.6 million and within budget.

Page 24

APPENDICES


Appendix A

Meeting Minutes


Wilbur Smith Associates Inc., Michigan
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
DATE: August 9, 2010
SUBJECT: Traffic Operations Meeting
PROJECT: Silver Line BRT
Date/Time: August 9, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

Attendees:

Conrad Venema, The Rapid
Gary Scheuren, The Rapid
Russ Henckel, City of Wyoming
Ron Dressander, City of Wyoming
Chris Zull, City of Grand Rapids
Terry Schweiterzer, City of Kentwood
Mike Devries, URS
Barney Payseure, CWA
Marlene Connor, WSA
Vinod Dega, WSA
Matt Hunter, WSA
The following represents our understanding of the key points of discussion at the traffic
operations meeting. If anything appears misrepresented, please let us know.
Meeting Purpose: Understand Cities traffic signal systems as well as how the Transit
Signal Priority equipment will interact with the traffic signal controllers.
Introduction
• The EA for the Silver Line is complete
Signals
• Existing signals are Eagle EPAC (models 30, 50 and 60 coming soon)
• The proposed transit signal prioritization in the EA document includes early green and
green extension. Pre-emptive signals are not proposed
• Cities concerned that extending green to Division when is the secondary traffic volume
could cause problem for heavy volume on some of side streets. The EA document
excludes the following heavy volume intersections along Division Avenue from
implementing transit signal prioritization – Burton St, 28th St, and 44th St. Group
suggested to exclude 36th St and 54th St also from implementing transit signal priority.
However, the study as part of the EA document shows 36th St and 54th St would still
operate within acceptable level of service even with transit signal priority.
• The City of Wyoming controls the signals at 32nd, 36th, 44th, 48th, and 54th which are
shared with the City of Kentwood. They all follow standards set by the City of Grand
Rapids
• The Opticom system is used to allow communication with the signals i.e emergency
vehicles. Currently the Fire department are the only group authorized. City of Wyoming
portion of Opticom is not being used.
• The City of Grand Rapids will provide a list of signals that have Opticom
• If other than Opticom is proposed, Cities indicated that The Rapid will be responsible to
change the hardware at signals and also on the Emergency vehicles. Group agreed that
the Opticom remain the system for the Silver Line to keep consistency and avoid
additional cost
• The system is currently optimized for progression which the city is hopeful will suffice for
the transit progression along the corridor.
• The consultant team needs to consider delay to the general public and ensure that
additional green time is only given when needed
• The average cycle length is currently 90 seconds
• The consultant team will request necessary synchro files for the existing signal network
from the City of Grand Rapids
• The existing detection systems include micro, loops, video and a few pucks
o If any improvements are done at signals, cities are changing them to Video
detection
o The City of Grand Rapids will provide a list of detection types at each signal
• City’s central control system currently uses ACTRA, however, will be changing to
TACTICS. Except 32nd St, all other intersections communicate with Central control
system.
Maintenance
• The Cities are concerned about the maintenance requirements as they are responsible
o The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is currently drafted will layout all
components of the system including the maintenance requirements
o The MOU has been reviewed by City management prior to this technical
coordination
o The MOU will address issues communicated at two levels, to City Managers at
one level and to engineering and operations at the next level
o The MOU will be a living document that can be revised over time
• A quarterly technical report is proposed to look at safety, detour routes and maintenance
schedule
Communication Infrastructure
• The Current communication infrastructure has either radio, copper or fiber
o Fiber is installed from 28th to Wealthy, with none south of 28th
o No ductwork is available for running fiber or cable
o The existing fiber network has 48 lines with approximately 50% dark
o The City owns all lines and may look at leasing in the future
• The City of Grand Rapids will send a fiber map
• The Silver Line will likely need 2 lines for traffic, and 2 or more for other uses such as
CCTV
Other
• Note that Division is an incident management route for US-131
• 28th street is an M-route that crosses division but it is not recommended for signal
prioritization so not an issue
• ITP will coordinate with MDOT (Eric Kind - TSC Manager, and Paul Errand – Traffic
Management Center)
• The cities would like to see what other cities have done with signage when lanes
transition from exclusive bus lane to shared lane.
• The speed limit on Division from 28th to 54th will increase to 40 mph from 35 mph
Action Items
• The City of Grand Rapids will provide a list of signals that have Opticom
• The consultant team will request necessary synchro files for the existing signal network
from the City of Grand Rapids
• The City of Grand Rapids will provide a list of detection types at each signal
• The City of Grand Rapids will send a fiber map
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
DATE: August 10, 2010
SUBJECT: Bus Operations Minutes
PROJECT: Silver Line BRT
Date/Time: August 10, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Attendees:

Brian Pouget, The Rapid
Conrad Venema, The Rapid
Meegan Joyce, The Rapid
Ronald Webber, The Rapid
Steve Schnipper, The Rapid
Gary Scheuren, The Rapid
Barney Payseure, CWA
Kyle Reidsma, URS
Marlene Connor, WSA
Vinod Dega, WSA
Matt Hunter, WSA
The following represents our understanding of the key points of discussion at the bus operations
meeting. If anything appears misrepresented, please let us know.
Meeting Purpose: Understand all of ITP’s operations and expectations that will interface
with the Silver Line and how those will be communicated.
Introduction
• The team would like to understand what systems are currently in place and how they
can be implemented into the Silverline BRT.
• ITP would like to ensure that their current ITS system will be compatible with the
proposed system
Integrate the BRT with AVL system/other systems in ITP
• The current equipment and software is developed by AVL Technologies in Colorado and
the stop annunciators are McKenzie. They appear to have some existing issues with the
current functioning of their AVL systems. The reporting features are not yet meeting their
expectations. The Rapid staff needs to resolve this with their vendor.
• The next bus sign currently gives a scheduled time which is not linked to actual bus
arrivals
• The proposed next bus system should include audio for persons with disabilities, on
board the vehicles and at stations.
• ITP would like the system to make it easy for users to differentiate the BRT and regular
fixed route system.
• BRT needs to be integrated into the existing system
• Transferring between the BRT and other services needs to be seamless
Fare Collection
• Smartcards are desirable but may be too expensive
o Currently using GFI Genfare fareboxes, the Odyssey model which has smart
capabilities which has not been implemented or utilized. They were installed in
2003-2004
• Pre-paid boarding is a desired attribute for the Silverline service, as a feature to reduce
dwell time at stations. Questions were raised regarding how to safeguard fare payment
avoidance
• The consultant team is to make a recommendation on the fare system and technology. .
o Options include: one card that can be used on both BRT and regular service
o Issues raised: premium fare for BRT, shared stations
Emergency Telephones
• Currently no system in place
• Emergency calls should go to the security office which is manned 24/7
• ITP would like the emergency telephone to automatically trigger a camera at that
location so that security can instantly see the incident
• Calls need to be recorded for later use
CCTV
• Existing cameras on buses are Apollo, Washington
• Central station currently has cameras
• The current security system has 64 cameras that are monitored 24/7
• The proposed system should include cameras at other stations that will tie to the main
system
• The goal is not to have all cameras visible at once but to have easy access to camera
footage when needed.
• The initial camera locations need to be prioritized at the worst crime locations
• ITP should explore the potential of tying into the City of Grand Rapids Traffic
Management Center
General System
• ITP would like the system to be as intermodal as possible allowing easy transition for
pedestrian and Bicycle traffic onto the BRT
• Bicycle racks are needed at core stations and the Silver Line ends
• ITP is currently looking at different buses, and will likely have 60’ articulated units
• Low-flow hybrid electric buses are desirable
• ITP has future plans to build park’n’ride facilities at 54th and 60th, however this is not part
of this contract
• The fiber optic currently does not go south of 28th St, but an economical data system can
be installed in the interim to avoid the initial cost
Stations
• Stations can be shared between BRT and regular fixed route service however there is
concern over the logistics i.e. will both buses use the exact location which will cause
delay to the Silver Line, will the regular stations be offset to reserve the spot BRT etc.
• If regular fixed route stations are offset the consultant team recommends downstream to
all easy entry for Silver Line buses to line up correctly with the curb
• Verification is needed on whether BRT buses will be allowed to leave the designated
lane to avoid regular fixed route buses or right turning traffic blocking the bus line while
waiting for pedestrians
• ITP will evaluate the operation at each location to recommend a function
• Technology should differentiate between which bus types are arriving
• The MOU needs to allow changes in the operation to be made over time
• 5 stations are currently located on grades steeper than 2% which is the maximum
allowable ADA grade
• The team will explore options and make a recommendation on a treatment at each of
these locations
• Precision docking is an option that would allow a ADA accessible landing area
• Precision docking will impact the ability of the station to be used for regular fixed route
operations.
Signal Priority
• The team recommends keeping the Opticom system which is currently used to save
additional cost of upgrading the entire system
• The system is currently set up to hold green and not switch to green
o This is signal priority which is how the proposed will work vs. signal preemption
which allows emergency vehicles to always get a green light
• The optimal station location is past the signal not prior to
Action Items
• ITP to assess each station for combined Fixed Route and BRT services impacts.
• Schedule a site visit to recommend regular fixed route bus interaction with BRT stations
for WSA team
• ITP to assess potential of tying cameras into City Traffic Management Center
• Consultant team to recommend fare collection system
• Consultant team to review parking and other signage along BRT route at proposed
station locations.
• Wayfinding and other signage needs to be a consideration
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Appendix B

Existing Bus Routes


196
US - 13 1
ALP
IT
THREE MILE MI CH I G AN
CO
RK
VE TER A N S THREE MILE
PA
FAC I L I TY
E
ID
FULLER
RS
MEIJ ER 616.776.1100 www.ridetherapid.org
VE
T H E DELTAPL EX
RIVERSIDE
RI
MIDDLE SCHOOL
CELEBRATIO
VILLAGE
D
EL
EAST BELTLINE
KNAPP KNAPP
FI
KNAPP
N
AI
DIAMOND
PL
MEIJER
ORD BLANDFORD RICHMOND ANN
US - 131
OOL NATURE PARK CRESTON
W
LEFFINGWELL
CENTER HIGH SCHOOL CITY MIDDLE/HIGH
AL SCHOOL KENT CAREER
KE
BRISTOL
R TECH CENTER
KEC BELTLINE
GRCC OCCUPATIONAL
TRAINING CENTER GRAND R
LEONARD LEONARD BAPTIST
LEONARD
ALPINE
CORNERSTONE
KENT
MARYLAND
UNIVERSITY
LAFAYETTE
BALL
1 - Division JUVENILE
ER
FREDERIK
TU RN ER
COLLEGE
BELKNAP CENTER
MEJIER
SC RI BN
FULLER
PARK S PEC TR U M GARDENS
KE N T CO MM. E
VIC
C EN TER
SER
PLYMOUTH
COVELL
U NIO N W ES T WO O D
ST
HIG H SC H O O L MIDDL E SC H O OL HIGHLAND KEN T
PARK
OC
COU N TY
J AI L
GARFIELD
KI
BRIDGE BRIDGE US - 196
N
LAKE MICHIGAN DRIVE MICHIGAN MICH IGAN
G
SEE DOWNTOWN MAP
LAKESIDE
LANE
VALLEY FOR MORE ROUTING DETAIL
OTTAWA
LAKE MICHIGAN DRIVE FULTON
FULTON US
- 1 B ROUTE 14 FULTON FULTON
31
WILCOX AQUI N AS
DIVISION
JOHN BALL PARK
AND ZOO PARK CO LLEGE CA
CHERRY SC
LAK AD
E
A E D
R IVE F IS
K L
WEALTHY WEALTHY AK
ROUTE 5 E
S PE CTR UM H EALTH WE RE
FULLE R
AL ED
W E A LTH Y B L OD GE TT CAM PU S TH S L
G R CC FAMILY THEATE R Y A KE
6
M -TE C H INDEPENDENCE
9
-1
ER AGENCY GASLIGHT EA ST G R A N D R A P ID S
R IV
ND VILLAGE
GRA C ROUTE 2 CIT Y H AL L AN D P O LIC E
S
FRANKLIN
R
U
GIDDIN GS
STE
OXFO RD EAST GR AND R AP ID S E A ST GR AN D R AP ID S

E
ILL
H IGH SC HO O L M I DDL E SCH O O L

CHE
31
DV
BRETO N
IR OQ UOI S
- 1
MI DDLE SCH OOL

AN
DOR
HALL HALL
GR
US
PLYM OUT H
R EY
DF
IV ER CHIC AGO DR. G O
D R
BUCHANAN
BOSTON
DIVIS ION
N
KA
EASTE RN
RA
MADISON
G GO DFREY L EE
BRE TON
LA
MIDDL E A ND B RET O N
M
HIG H S C HO O L VILL A G E CALV
AZ
CO LL EG
OO
BURTON
ROUTE 24 D BURTON BURTON BURTON
B UR T O N
W Y OM ING
MIDDLE
SE NI OR C IT IZE NS OTTAWA H ILLS
SC H OO L
BURLINGAM E
C E NTE R HI GH SCH OO L
DE
PORTER W Y OM ING W
P O LIC E &
HO
PORTER LAKE GR AN D R API DS C HR IS T IA N

C OURT H O US E H IGH SCH OOL WO O DL A N D
OP
CENTER
BYRON
WY O MING PA RK M AL L
YRO
HIGH SC H O OL W YO M ING
RADCLI FF
C ITY HA LL
B
C
28TH ROUTE 28 28TH 28TH

28TH
CLYD E PARK
M EI J ER
MICHAEL
29T
KALAMAZOO
W Y OM I N G D AV E N POR T COL L E GE
G OO D W I LL Y C OM M U N I TY C A R EER CE N TER
IN D U S T R I ES PKW EDUCATI O N
PRAIRIE PR A IR IE 32ND
US - 13 1
R O G ERS 32ND 32ND 32ND

IVANREST
JEFFERSON
HI G H S CHOO L W YO M ING HO PE
R
.B
L IBRA RY N ETW O RK
.
C
H
GOD W I N H EI G HTS
A
FF
36TH HI GH S C HO O L E 36TH
EE
1 WEEKDAY ONLY
SERVICE ON
DIVISION
ROUT E 10
36TH STREET
DIVISIO N
EASTE RN
44TH 44TH ROUTE 44 F 44TH 44TH

BYRO N CENT ER
44TH
CLYD E PARK
WALMA
BURLINGAME
ME IJE R KEL L OG S V IL L E
M I DD L E S C H OOL
K EL L O GS VI L LE BR
ET
H I G H S C H OOL ON K E NT
P O L IC
D IS C OV ER Y
US - 13 1
K EN T WO
H I GH S C HO OL C IT Y H A
WY O M IN G
SEN I O R C IT I ZEN S
52ND CEN TER 52ND
54TH
MEIJ ER H 1
KALAM AZOO
WEEKDAY EVE &

GEZON PARKWAY SUNDAY
1 WEEKDAY EVE &
DIVISION
NO SERVICE
SUNDAY
DIVISION
CLYDE PARK
SOUTH OF 54TH
ME T R O PO L ITAN TWO WAY
HE ALT H VIL LA G E
SERVICE ON
54TH STREET 60TH
DIVISIO N
W OOD F IE LD
CLOC KTOWER
APA R TM EN TS
CENT ER
EAST KEN TW O O D
M - 6 H IGH SCH OO L
K-M A R T
68TH G
S PE CT R U M HEA LTH
S OU TH PAVI L I ON
PINE REST
C HR I S TI AN
M E N TAL H EA LTH
E
KNAPP KNAPP
FI
N
AI
DIAMOND
PL
ANN 616.776.1100 www.ridetherapid.org
RICHMOND
PARK CRESTON
HIGH SCHOOL CITY MIDDLE/HIGH
SCHOOL
BRISTOL
GRCC OCCUPATIONAL
TRAINING CENTER
LEONARD
LEONARD
ALPI NE
KENT
LAFAYETTE
BALL
JUVENILE
ER
TU RN ER
COLLEGE
BELKNAP CENTER
3 - Madison
S C R IB N
FULLE R
PARK SP ECT RU M
KE N T CO MM. E
VIC
CE N TER
SER
PLYMOUTH
WESTWOOD
ST
OL M ID D L E S CH O OL HIGHLAND K ENT
PARK
OC
CO UNTY
J AI L
GARFIELD
KI
DGE BRIDGE US - 196

N
MICHIGAN MIC HIG AN

G
SEE DOWNTOWN MAP
LAKESID E
LANE
FOR MORE ROUTING DETAIL

VALL EY
LAKE MICHIGAN DRIVE OTTAWA FULTON

FULTON US
- 1 B ROUTE 14 FULTON FULTON
31
DIVISIO N
WILCOX A QU INA S
JOHN BALL PARK RO
JEFF ERSO N
AND ZOO UT PARK CO LLE GE
E 4 CHERRY N
A
LAK
E D R O B IN S O
R IVE FIS
K L
WEALTHY ROUTE 5 WEALTHY AK E
S PE CTR U M HE ALTH WE
FUL LER
W E A LTH Y B L OD G ETT C AM PUS AL
G RCC FAMILY
TH
PLEASANT T H EATE R Y
96
M- TE CH INDEPENDENCE
-1
IVER AGENCY GA SLI G HT

R
ND VI LL AGE
GRA ROUTE 2 C FRANKLIN
S
GIDD ING S
STE
OX FOR D E A ST GR AN D RA
E
ILL
HI GH SC
CHE
31
DV
I R OQ UO IS
- 1
MI DDLE SC HO OL
AN
DOR
HA LL HALL
GR
US
PLYM OU TH
Y
F RE
CH ICA GO DR . G OD
BUCHANAN
BOST O
KA
EAS TER N
DIV ISIO N
MADISON
GO DFREY LEE
M I DDLE A ND LA
HI GH SCH OO L M
AZ
OO
BURTON
ROUTE 24 D BURTON BURTON
B U RT O N
ROUTE 4
WY OM IN G
MI DD L E
SENI OR C IT I ZE N S OTTAWA HI LLS
S C HO OL
BURLIN GAME
C EN TER HI G H SC H OOL
DE
WYO MI NG
POLI C E &
HO
GRA N D RA PIDS CH R
C OU RT HO US E HI G H SC H OO L
OP
ARK
L W Y OM I N G
C I TY HA L L
28TH 28T H E ROUTE 28 28TH
CLY DE PAR K
ME I JE R
MICHAEL
KALAMA ZOO
W YO MI N G D AVE N PO R T CO L L E GE
CO MM UN I T Y CA R EER C EN TER
32ND E DU CATI O N
US - 131
32N D F
JEFFERSON
WYO MI N G HOPE
R
.B
LI BRA RY N ET WO RK
.
C
G
H
G ODW I N H E IG HTS
A
FF
TH H I GH S CH OO L 36TH
EE
DIVIS ION
44TH 44TH ROUTE 44 44TH

BURLIN
CLY DE
616.776.1100 www.ridetherapid.org
LAMOREAUX
N
OR
11 - Plainfield
NH
PE
AL
HENZE
FOUR MILE
FOUR MILE
R IV E R
O LD OR C HA RD APA RTM E N T S
GRAND
NORTH CENTER ELMD
ALE
GR E EN R I DG E M A LL E
CENTE R
ELD
I NFI
ALPI NE
US - 1
96 PLA
US - 96
IT
REE MILE M I C HI GA N
CO
RK
VE T ER ANS THREE MILE

PA
FAC I LITY
E
ID
FULLE R
RS
ME I JE R
VE
T H E D ELTA PL EX
RIVERSIDE
RI
MIDDLE SCHOOL
US - 13 1
KNAPP KNAPP
D
ROUTE 13
DIAMOND
RICHMOND ANN
PARK CRESTON
US - 96
CITY MIDDLE/HIGH
D
HIGH SCHOOL
EL
SCHOOL
FI
N
AI
GRCC OCCUPATIONAL
PL
TRAINING CENTER
LEONARD LEONARD
C ROUTE 15 EAST LEONARD
ALPI NE
KENT
MARYLAND
LAFAYETTE
BALL
JUVENILE
ER
TU RN ER
COLLEGE
BELKNAP CENTER
S C R IB N
FULLE R
PARK S P E CT R UM
K E N T CO M M . E
VIC
CE N T ER
SER
PLYMOUTH
D
ST
HIGHLAND KENT
H O OL
PARK
OC
COUNTY
JAIL
GARFIELD
KI
BRIDGE US - 196
N
MICHIGAN MI CH IGA N
G
B MICHI GAN
LAKESID E
LANE
VALL EY
OTTAW A
IONIA
MONROE
LAKE MICHIGAN DRIVE PEARL

DIVISIO N
FULTON FULTON
FULTON
L PARK WILCOX A Q U I N AS
PARK C O L L E GE
CHERRY
N
A LAK
E D R O B IN S O
SEE DOWNTOWN MAP FOR R IVE FIS
K L
WEALTHY AK E
MORE ROUTING DETAIL
S P E C T R U M H E A LT H WE RE
FUL LER
AL ED
W E A LT H Y BL O DG E T T C A M P US TH
GRCC FAMILY TH E ATE R Y
M - TEC H INDEPENDENCE
ER AGENCY G AS L IG HT
RIV EA
VI L L AG E CIT
FRANKLIN
R
GIDD ING S
STE
OX FOR D E A ST G RA ND RA P ID S E
E
ILL
HIG H SC HO O L M
CHE
31
DV
BRE TON
IROQUOIS
- 1
M I D D L E S CH O O L
AN
DOR
HA LL HALL
GR
US
H

Appendix C

Dedicated Lane Base Maps
And
Station Locations


31
US-1
Legend
WILLIAMS
MA New Crosswalk Proposed
R KE
T
WEALTHY
FINNEY Lane Assignments During Peak Hours
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
131
WEALTHY
Shared Lane
US-
GOODRICH
BARTLETT
OAKES
ALLEY OAKES
WESTON
GRANDVILLE
WEALTHY
FULTON
CHERRY
MO
N RO
E
AU
ALLEY OTTAWA
MP
ELLSWORTH
CA
ALLEY GRANDVILLE
OTTAWA
PRIVATE
US-131
BUSINESS US-131
US-131
BUSINESS US-131
ALLEY IONIA
WESTON
S
UI
LO
IONIA
GOODRICH
BARTLETT
WILLIAMS
ALLEY IONIA
WEALTHY
Silver Line BRT Base Mapping Sheet

0 100 200
COMMERCE
Station Locations and Dedicated and Feet
Shared Lane Assignments 1 1 of 17
During Peak Periods 1 inch = 200 feet
Legend
BRIDGE
FULTON
MA 7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
R
LOUIS
KE
T Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
CAMPAU
ALLEY OTTAWA
LYON
MONROE
Louis St (SB)
Van Andel (SB)
S
UI
Louis St (NB)
LO
Van Andel (NB)
MICHIGAN
ALLEY IONIA
69
I-1
PEARL
OTTAWA
ALLEY IONIA
FOUNTAIN
COMMERCE
69
I-1
IONIA
ER
NT
CE
CRESCENT
E
O
NR
O
M
I ON
DIVIS

0 100 200
LIBRARY

WINCHESTER
Legend
S
UI
LO
PEARL
LYON
COMMERCE
69
I-1
IONIA
ER
NT
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
CE
CRESCENT
Dedicated Lane
E
O
NR
Shared Lane
O
M
I ON
DIVIS
LIBRARY
WINCHESTER
SHELDON
SHELDON
BOSTWICK
ALLEY FULTON
PARK Michigan St (EB) Michigan St
CRESCENT
LA GRAVE
RANSOM
Fulton St (SB)
G.R.C.C. (SB) COIT
JEFFERSON Fulton St (NB)
G.R.C.C. (NB)
BARCLAY BARCLAY BARCLAY
CRESCENT
FULTON
MIC HIGAN
FOUNTAIN
CLAREMONT
JOHN

0 100 200
WILLOW

WESTON
MCCONNELL Legend
GOODRICH
BARTLETT
WILLIAMS
ALLEY COMMERCE
CHERRY
OAKES

DIVISION 7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
GOODRICH
CHERRY
ALLEY DIVISION
SHELDON
SHELDON SHELDON
ALLEY FULTON
WESTON
OAKES
ALLEY SHELDON ALLEY SHELDON
MAPLE
PARK
LA GRAVE
RANSOM
ALLEY LAGRAVE
GOODRICH
Fulton
JEFFERSON Fulton
CESS
SAINT MARY’S AC
Wealthy St (SB) BARCLAY
Wealthy St (NB)
CASS
FULTON
WASHINGTON
E
AT
ST
WEALTHY
LAFAYETTE
0 100 200
PLEASA NT
GRANT
Legend
COMMONS IONIA Final Proposed BRT Stations

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
WEALTHY
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
MCCONNELL
ANTOINE
LOGAN
GRAHAM
GRANT
DIVISION
SYCAMORE
Franklin St (SB) Logan StALLEY
(SB)DIVISION
PLEASA NT
RINQUETTE Franklin
CORNWALLSt (NB) CODY
Logan St (EB) SHELDON

FRANKLIN
BUCKLEY
SHELDON ALLEY SHELDON
ALLEY HAIFLEY
HAIFLEY
MAJOR LA GRAVE
THOMPSON
ALLEY BUCKLEY
ALLEY LAGRAVE
JEFFERSON
ALLEY JEFFERSON O NS
ALLEY JEFFERSON
O MM
LOGAN
Silver Line BRT Base Mapping EC
AG Sheet
0 100 200 RIT
HE
Shared Lane Assignments
CASS
CASS
CASS 5 5 of 17
Legend
New Crosswalk
COMMON S Proposed
SHELBY
RYERSON
CANTON
ANTOINE
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
IONIA
Shared Lane
COMMONS
DELAWARE
ALBANY
PUTNAM
HOME
ZENO
RENA
SHELBY
DIVISION
ALLEY DIVISION Green St (SB)

ARLINGTON
DELAWARE
Green St (NB)
GREEN
EUCLID
VILAS
SHELDON
SALEM
HIGHLAND
PRIVATE
HALL

JEFFERSON
0 100 200
JEFFERSON
HIGHLAND
DELAWARE
Station Locations and Dedicated and
POWELL
Feet
During Peak Periods ALLEY JEFFERSON1 inch = 200 feet
Legend
PRIVATE

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
IONIA
Shared Lane
COTTAGE GROVE
DICKINSON
STEVENS
CORINNE
GRIGGS
BROWN
ELM
LA BELLE
FOX
DIVISION
BROWN
DICKINSON
ALLEY DIVISION ALLEY DIVISION Cottage Grove St (SB)

Cottage Grove St (NB)
HOME
LA BELLE
HORTON
HORTON
COTTAGE GROVE
VILAS
GARD EN
ALLEY HORTON
FAIR
FRANCIS DOREMUS
FRANCIS
CROFTON
ALLEY FRANCIS

0 100 200
JEFFERSON
ALLEY IONIA Legend

IONIA Parcel Lines (from REGIS)
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
ALLEY KIRTLAND
ALLEY QUIGLEY
SUTTON
Shared Lane
KIRTLA ND
QUIGLEY
ALLEY STEWART
ALLEY ROSE
ALLEY BURTON
STEWART
BANNER
CUTLER
BAYLIS
ANDRE
ROSE
BURTON
ELM
DIVISION
MELVILLE
ALLEY DIVISION ALLEY DIVISION Burton St (SB) ALLEY DIVISION
ALLEY ANDRE
Burton St (NB)
HORTON
ANDRE
ALLEY HORTON
FRANCIS
GRIGGS
0 100 200
Station Locations and Dedicated and Feet JEFFERSON
SOUTHFIELD
Legend
NORTHVIEW

VANGIE 7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
WITHEY
ANSONIA
BAYLIS
BATT
PLASTER
DETROIT
BLACKBURN
BATT
REEKC
SOUTHVIEW
CLAIRE
KEN-O-SHA
DIVISION
SOUTHVIEW
Southview
ALLEY DIVISION St (SB)
ALLEY DIVISION ALLEY DIVISION
Southview St (NB)
44TH
KEN-O-SHA
EOLA
HORTON
HORTON
ROSEMARY
ALLEY HORTON
MEERSE
FRANCIS
ALGER
0 100 200
EVEREST
Legend
SER
REI New Crosswalk Proposed

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
BUCKINGHAM
CANTERBURY
HONEOYE
Shared Lane
COLRAIN
CELIA
MANCHESTER
32ND
ONEIDA
BUCKINGHAM
COLRAIN
CELIA
DIVISION
28th St (SB)
28th St (NB)
EOLA
COLRAIN
WESLEY
LEMYRA
CELIA
YE
O
ONE
H
28TH
0 100 200
During Peak Periods JEFFERSON 1 inch = 200 feet
OPAL
Legend

SER Lane Assignments During Peak Hours
REI
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
34TH
COOLIDGE
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
32ND
33RD
AVONLEA
35TH
REISER
COOLIDGE
AVONLEA
DIVISION
36th St (SB)
36th St (NB)
HORTON
FRONTENAC
CLEMENTS
WEXFORD
FREEDOM
EXCHANGE
35TH
34TH
36TH
FRANCIS

0 100 200
JEFFERSON
OPAL Legend

URBAN Lane Assignments During Peak Hours
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
COOLIDGE
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
40TH
LORAINE
FLOYD
41ST
39TH
WADSWORTH
CALHOUN
JORDAN
COOLIDGE
40TH
DIVISION
SPANISH
3
HORTON
WILBUR
WALTER
JANET
HIMES
ABBIE
BURT
FRANCIS

0 100 200
Legend

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
PINEHURST
MAPLELAWN
MURRAY
THURSTON
BELLEVUE
43RD
41ST
WILKSHIRE
DIVISION
44th St (SB)
44th St (NB)
RIDGEWOOD
FARNHAM
BELLEVUE
44TH
MAPLELAWN
Silver Line BRT Base Mapping 43RD
0 100 200 Sheet
Legend
DON
URBAN Parcel Lines (from REGIS)
7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
PINEHURST
JEAN
FLORIDA
WILKSHIRE
LEROY
ELWELL
HOLLY
50TH
DIVISION
DANIEL
47TH
GARLAND
SLUYTER
MONTEBELLO
48TH
HORTON

0 100 200
Legend

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
54TH
50TH
DIVISION
54th St (SB)
54th St (NB)
52ND
KELLOGG WOODS
PARK
OODS

GG W
0 100 200
KELLO
Feet
Legend

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
56TH
DIVISION
60th St (NB)
MAJESTIC
58TH
ELDEE
NANCY
NORA
DEBAAR
REGENT
FESCUE
Silver Line BRT BaseFREETON

Mapping Sheet
0 100 200
KLEYLA

Legend
INTERURBAN

7am - 9am & 4pm - 6pm
Dedicated Lane
Shared Lane
60TH
HYACINTH
JONQUIL
DIVISION
60th St (NB)
MAJESTIC
58TH
ELDEE
NANCY
NORA
DEBAAR
BARKWAY
REGENT
FESCUE
Silver Line BRT Base Mapping FREETON

Sheet
0 100 200
KLEYLA
Feet

Appendix D

VISSIM Simulation CD


Appendix E

Traffic Signal Priority, Transit Operations,
and
Communications Cost Estimate

 Project Construction Cost Estimate
Detail cost estimate for cost categories
50.02, 50.06 and 50.05


Project Construction Cost Estimate
Silver Line BRT Transit Signal Priority Implementation
WSA Project No. 104601

Date of Estimate: 11-Oct-10
Specification Number
(DOT or CSI)
Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Price
Quantity 2010 Dollars Dollars
Opticom Priority System at Signals 5 Each $ 4,000 $ 20,000

Opticom Priority System for Vehicles 10 Each $ 2,200 $ 22,000
Opticom Priority System Communications and Adjustments 28 Each $ 1,000 $ 28,000
Transit Signal Heads 0 Each $ 1,000 $ -
New Masts and Mast Arms 0 Each $ 15,000 $ -
New Pedestrian Signal Heads and Call Buttons 0 Each $ 800 $ -
System Integration and Calibration 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
50.02 Total Traffic Signal Construction Cost Estimate $ 120,000

Silver Line BRT Transit Operations

(DOT or CSI)
Emergency Telephone with CCTV Camera 33 Each $ 5,509 $ 181,790

One Additional CCTV Camera 33 Each $ 2,200 $ 72,600
Fare Validation Device 33 Each $ 3,000 $ 99,000
Ticket Vending Machine 33 Each $ 45,000 $ 1,485,000
Smart Card Reader 33 Each $ 3,000 $ 99,000
Next Bus Sign With Audio 33 Each $ 10,000 $ 330,000
Passenger Information Sign and Kiosk 33 Each $ 10,200 $ 336,600
Audio Station Announcement on the Bus 10 Each $ 1,000 $ 10,000
Station Software for Fare Collection 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Central Software for Fare Collection 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000
50.06 Total Transit Operations Construction Cost Estimate $ 2,823,990

Silver Line BRT Office Communications

(DOT or CSI)
16147 Fiber Optic Cable, Aerial, 64 Fibers 0 Mile $ 38,000 $ -

16147 Fiber Optic Aerial Splice Closure 1 Each $ 1,100 $ 1,100
16147 Fiber Distribution Unit 1 Each $ 2,500 $ 2,500
16147 Fiber Optic Drop Installation 1 Each $ 2,000 $ 2,000
16160 Enclosure, Free Standing, NEMA 3R 0 Each $ 11,000 $ -
16160 Enclosure, Free Standing, NEMA 3R, Cooled 0 Each $ 15,000 $ -
16702 Switch / Router 3 Each $ 10,000 $ 30,000
16702 Uninterruptible Power Supply 1 Each $ 1,500 $ 1,500
16702 Miscellaneous Power Material 1 Lot $ 1,000 $ 1,000
16702 Wire and Cable 1 Lot $ 5,000 $ 5,000
16702 Network Video Recorder, 4 Channel 0 Each $ 8,000 $ -
16702 Network Video Recorder, 32 Channel 3 Each $ 12,000 $ 36,000
16702 Installation of MPLS Service 0 Each $ 5,000 $ -
16702 VoIP PBX Configuration 1 Each $ 25,000 $ 25,000
16702 CCTV Display Configuration 1 Each $ 50,000 $ 50,000
16702 Network Management System 1 Lot $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Office Communication Construction Cost Estimate $ 204,100

Silver Line BRT Station Communications - Fiber Optic Cable Option

(DOT or CSI)
16147 Fiber Optic Cable, Aerial, 64 Fibers 4 Mile $ 38,000 $ 152,000

16160 Enclosure, Free Standing, NEMA 3R 17 Each $ 11,000 $ 187,000
16702 Miscellaneous Power Material 17 Lot $ 500 $ 8,500
16702 VoIP PBX Configuration 0 Each $ 25,000 $ -
16702 CCTV Display Configuration 0 Each $ 50,000 $ -
16702 Network Management System 0 Lot $ 50,000 $ -
Station Communication Construction Cost Estimate $ 681,200
50.05 Total Communication Construction Cost Estimate $ 885,300

Appendix I



SILVER LINE BRT
Tasks 4.4, 6.10 and 7.8
December 30, 2010
Prepared by:
Table of Contents
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 FTA Estimate Template ............................................................................................................... 1
3.0 EA Estimate and Budget Control................................................................................................. 1
4.0 Detailed Estimate ....................................................................................................................... 2
4.1 Stations ............................................................................................................................. 2

4.2 Roadway ........................................................................................................................... 2
4.3 Signal Prioritization, Operations, and Communications .................................................... 3
5.0 Final FTA Main Worksheet Estimate ........................................................................................... 4
6.0 Items Not Included in Worksheet ............................................................................................... 6
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Final FTA Main Worksheet Estimate
APPENDICES
Appendix A Cost Estimate Meeting Minutes
Appendix B SCC category list and SCC definitions
Appendix C EA estimate Summary
Appendix D Detailed Estimates
Appendix E Inflation Worksheet
Traffic Concepts Report

Page i


1.0 Introduction and Purpose

The Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, as defined in the Environmental Assessment (EA)
report prepared in 2010, runs through three cities; Grand Rapids, Wyoming, and Kentwood and
includes 33 proposed Silver Line BRT stations along a 9.6 mile route.

The purpose of this technical paper is to summarize the cost estimating process used to develop the
final visioning phase estimate for the Silver Line BRT and to explain the details of each component
of the estimate. This estimate was developed from the design analysis done during the final
visioning process. The intent of this estimate is to provide a preliminary cost to provide
information to Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) – The Rapid and the Federal Transit Authority
(FTA) to confirm that the project is within budget as an aid in moving the project forward to the
final design and construction phases.

To verify the cost estimate method and assumptions the study team met with representatives from
the ITP. The final estimate includes the changes as discussed at the meeting and the notes are
attached in Appendix A.

2.0 FTA Estimate Template

The FTA cost estimating spreadsheet template was used to summarize the cost estimate
components calculated for the Silver Line BRT. The spreadsheet utilizes Standard Cost Categories
(SCC) established by the FTA to allow for a consistent cost format and convenient comparison to
the EA estimate for this project. The SCC list is separated into 10 categories; the full SCC category
list and SCC definitions are included in Appendix B.

3.0 EA Estimate and Budget Control

The EA estimate developed by AECOM on 3/16/2010 as shown in Appendix C, was provided to the
design team as a starting point for the cost estimating efforts. The EA estimate was initially
updated to provide a base estimate to fit with the available $30 million budget for the very small
starts project application to the FTA. The following is a list of modifications initially made to the EA
estimate at the beginning of phase I, by the design team in order to confirm that the Total Project
Cost at the Year of Expenditure was controlled to meet the budget;

BRT Vehicles
Traffic Concepts Report
Page 1

The cost of vehicles (SCC 70.04 = $8 million) and spare parts (SCC 70.07 = $0.26 million) were
removed from the EA estimate. These items were added back in for the final phase I estimate.

Contingency Change
The EA estimate had a variable contingency rate which the design team adjusted to bring it in‐line
with contingency percentages experienced on previous projects to suit the early stage of this
project. The adjusted contingency was calculated as 33 percent of the total 2010 cost for each SCC
item, kept consistent to the EA estimate. A consistent 33 percent contingency was applied to all
SCC items. Note that 33 percent contingency calculated for each revised SCC item in the final phase
I estimate.

Unallocated Contingency
The unallocated contingency was adjusted to round the total project cost up to the $30 million
project budget. Note that the final phase I estimate includes a flat $1 million.

4.0 Detailed Estimate

The design team developed detailed cost estimates to feed into each of the SCC categories. Each
detailed estimate was developed based on the design done for the final visioning phase, and then
given a 33 percent contingency in the main SCC worksheet to account for unknowns in design,
adjustments to unit costs, and final quantities. All costs are based on 2010 dollars.

4.1 Stations
The station estimate includes all cost items associated with the station canopy and the concrete pad
foundation and is shown is Appendix D. It also includes the following items integral to the station;
 trees
 benches and bike racks
 station lighting
 electrical

The unit costs for the station estimate were based on the Euclid Corridor bid tabs and escalated by
3% annually to 2010 dollars.

4.2 Roadway
The roadway estimate includes all costs associated with SCC items 10.02 (Guideway – concrete bus
pad), 10.03 (At‐grade in Mixed Traffic), 20.01 (At‐grade Station), 40.02 (Site Utilities/Utility
Relocations) and is detailed in Appendix D. The unit costs under roadway tasks are based on the
2010 MDOT Average Unit Prices. The unit costs were selected based on similar small projects
within the same geographical area to ensure conservative costs were used.

10.02 Guideway – concrete bus pad
SCC 10.02 includes cost items associated with the in‐road concrete bus pad such as pavement
removal, concrete, earthwork and manhole adjustments

10.03 Atgrade in Mixed Traffic

Page 2

SCC 10.03 includes cost items associated with Maintenance of Traffic for the construction of all
construction components.
20.01 At-grade Station

SCC 20.01 At-grade Station includes cost items associated with civil works behind the edge of
roadway, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, removal items, drainage, and earthwork. This item
also includes the station costs discussed in Section 4.1.
40.02 Site Utilities/Utility Relocations

SCC 40.02 Site Utilities/Utility Relocations includes all public utilities including water, sewer, and
electrical items owned and operated by municipalities. Private utilities are not included in this
estimate. For a full list of items not included in the estimate please refer to Section 6.0.
4.3 Signal Prioritization, Operations, and Communications

The detailed cost estimates associated with 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection, 50.05
Communications, and 50.06 Fare collection system and equipment, are prioritized in detail in
technical paper Bus Operations, Traffic Signals, and Communications Concept Report. The
detailed spreadsheet estimate for these items is included in Appendix D.
The following cost items are detailed in Appendix D;
50.01 Traffic signals and crossing protection

SCC 50.01 Traffic signals and crossing protection includes the cost to provide traffic signal
preemption for the Silver Line BRT. The components include Transit Priority System at Signals
where not currently located, Transit Priority System for all BRT vehicles, and Transit Priority
System Communications and Adjustments.
50.05 Communications
SCC 50.05 Communications includes all items relating to communication infrastructure at the
stations and at the main office.
50.06 Fare collection system and other station equipment

SCC 50.06 Fare collection system and other station equipment includes all items relating to station
fare collection and station communication.

Page 3
5.0 Final FTA Main Worksheet Estimate
The final FTA Main Worksheet estimate based on the concept design is shown in Figure 1. This
estimate is compiled from the detailed cost estimates. The worksheet calculates the year of
expenditure costs based on a construction schedule of 2012-2013, and a year of revenue operations
of 2014. The inflation worksheet is included in Appendix E.
Cost Items Not Revised

The following cost items that were carried over from the EA estimate unchanged;
• 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility

• 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate
• 70.04 Bus
80 Professional Services
SCC items under SCC 80 - Professional Services were updated as percentage costs based on the total
base year construction sub-total (SCC 10 through 50) cost estimate. Table 1.0 shows a summary of
each professional service task and the percentage of the construction sub-total;
Table 5-1 Professional Service Percentages

80.01 Preliminary Engineering 5%
80.02 Final Design 10%
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 2%
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 10%
80.08 Start up 10%

Page 4
Figure 1 – Final FTA Main Worksheet Estimate
MAIN WORKSHEET-BUILD ALTERNATIVE (Rev.13, June 1, 2010)

Today's
Interurban Transit Partnership - THE RAPID (construction with 33% contingency) 12/30/10
Date
Yr of Base
Division Avenue BRT - Cities of Grand Rapids, Kentwood, and Wyoming, Michigan 2010
Year $
Project Development Phase (Very Small Starts) Yr of Revenue Ops 2014
Quantity Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year YOE Dollars
Dollars Dollars
Dollars w/o Dollars Dollars Dollars Unit Total
Percentage Percentage
Contingency Allocated TOTAL Cost of of (X000)
(X000) Contingency (X000) (X000) Construction Total
(X000) Cost Project Cost
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 9.60 1,241 410 1,651 $ 172 10% 5% 1,799
10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 0 0
10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 9.60 188 62 250 $ 26 273
10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 1,053 347 1,400 1,526
10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0 0
10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 0 0
10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 0 0
10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 0 0
10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0 0
10.09 Track: Direct fixation 0 0
10.10 Track: Embedded 0 0
10.11 Track: Ballasted 0 0
10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 0 0
10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 0 0
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 33 5,878 1,940 7,818 $ 237 47% 24% 8,521
20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 33 5,878 1,940 7,818 $ 237 8,521
20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0
20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0
20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 0 0
20.05 Joint development 0 0
20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 0 0
20.07 Elevators, escalators 0 0
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 9.60 218 72 290 $ 30 2% 1% 316
30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 0 0
30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 218 72 290 316
30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 0 0
30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 0 0
30.05 Yard and Yard Track 0 0
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 9.60 745 246 991 $ 103 6% 3% 1,080
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 0 0
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 245 81 326 355
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 0 0
40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 0 0
40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 0 0
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 0 0
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 0 0
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 500 165 665 725
50 SYSTEMS 9.60 4,460 1,472 5,932 $ 618 36% 18% 6,465
50.01 Train control and signals 0 0
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 370 122 492 536
50.03 Traction power supply: substations 0 0
50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 0 0
50.05 Communications 885 292 1,177 1,283
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 3,205 1,058 4,263 4,646
50.07 Central Control 0 0
Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) 9.60 12,542 4,139 16,681 $ 1,738 100% 51% 18,182
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 9.60 489 161 650 $ 68 2% 673
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 489 161 650 673
60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 0 0
70 VEHICLES (number) 10 5,741 1,894 7,635 $ 763 23% 8,402
70.01 Light Rail 0 0
70.02 Heavy Rail 0 0
70.03 Commuter Rail 0 0
70.04 Bus 10 5,562 1,835 7,397 $ 740 8,140
70.05 Other 179 59 238 262
70.06 Non-revenue vehicles 0 0
70.07 Spare parts 0 0
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 9.60 4,641 1,531 6,172 $ 643 37% 19% 6,558
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 627 207 834 886
80.02 Final Design 1,254 414 1,668 1,772
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 251 83 334 354
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 1,254 414 1,668 1,772
80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 0 0
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 0 0
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 0 0
80.08 Start up 1,254 414 1,668 1,772
Subtotal (10 - 80) 9.60 23,412 7,726 31,138 $ 3,244 95% 33,814
90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 1,000 3% 1,090
Subtotal (10 - 90) 9.60 32,138 $ 3,348 98% 34,904
100 FINANCE CHARGES 760 2% 822
Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 9.60 32,898 $ 3,427 100% 35,726
Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 33.00%
Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 4.27%
Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 37.27%
Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 3.21%
YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) $1,894
YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) $2,846
YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) $3,721
Page 5

6.0 Items Not Included in Worksheet

Several cost items were not included in this estimate that could present additional cost to the
project if they occur.

New traffic signals or Signal controllers
Possible upgrades to traffic signals may be possible in the future that could have cost impact to the
Silver Line BRT. An allowance of $250,000 to upgrade signals and one intersection are included in
SCC line item 50.02

ADA ramps
Most intersections already have ADA ramps but not locations impacted by the Silver Line BRT have
been verified

Park’n’Ride
An area at the southern end of the project could potentially attract commuters to used the Silver
Line BRT system. This item is to be determined as part of future studies

Private utility relocations
It is common for private utilities to pay for utility relocations within city ROW however there are
some cases where some or all of the cost would be borne by the land owner.

Facility for CCTV monitoring
Not currently scoped for the project, but a feature that could be added in during the design phase.

Programming etc. for Internet Kiosk
The cost to program the internet kiosk that will be located at each station depends greatly on the
intended function of the kiosk, much of which will be established during the design phase.

Significant plantings and irrigation system
Dependent on decisions made during the design phase

Snow Melt System
Dependent on decisions made during the design phase
Other costs are anticipated as part of the project classified as system amenities that were not
designed during the visioning phase but were developed as draft plug costs that are included under
SCC 70.05 – Other, in the Final FTA Main Worksheet Estimate as plug costs.

 GPS Signal Prioritization = $76,000
 Pedestrian signals (upgrades needed at 14 of the total 18 stations) = $28,000
 AVL System Changes = $75,000
 33 percent contingency = $59,000
 Total = $238,000

Page 6

APPENDICES

Appendix A
Cost Estimate Meeting

Memorandum
TO: Attendees
File
SUBJECT: Cost Estimate Meeting Minutes
Date/Time: November 16, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.

Attendees: See attached sign-in sheet
and other members of the Project Team. If anything appears misrepresented, please let us know.
Cost Estimate Items Not Included
New crosswalk locations

• Because the crossings aren’t warranted pedestrian signals will not be permitted by
MDOT and would not be funded by FTA.
• Tai asked what increase in cost it would be for new crossings. Approximately $100K
typical, $150K for more complicated crossings.
LEED @ Stations?
• May not be required based on square footage
• Avoid rain barrels, consider using runoff water for tree plantings
• Utilizing local vendors/contractors
Snow Melt System

• Currently BRT doesn’t remove snow at stops
• Rapid requested WSA provide capital costs, operational costs and any experience with
the system.
• If infrastructure is there (steam lines/hot water), it might be beneficial
• Ralph suggested waiting until Design Phase to do research into what it will take to
provide snow melt at stations
The Rapid requested WSA look at adding cost breakdown/estimate for additional cost items. Tai would
rather have an item for system amenities with a cost that can be presented to the Board if need be.
Additional items included in the “system amenities” will be:
• GPS/Radio detectors at each signal for transit priority and emergency vehicle preemption.
• Countdown pedestrian signals and new pedestrian call buttons.
• AVL upgrades to support “Next Bus” information (cost from Rapid’s AVL vendor)
Cost Estimate Review
o Add vehicles to estimate with a year of expenditure 2013 ($8.2M) including contingency
Stations
o Last station at 54th St. (SB) can be scaled back as most alight at this point and don’t wait for a bus
o A ticket vending machine might not be required at the last station
Ticketing vending machines
o average of one per station

o Multiple vending machines may be considered at high traveled stations and reserve vending
machines should be on hand for replacement/maintenance. WSA will add 7 additional to round
quantity up to 40
Ticketing and Media Kiosk
o Add additional cost for larger kiosk (as shown on station illustration)
Bike Rack
o Bike rack quantity will be doubled to provide more capacity at high traveled stations
• Bike groups may want to include their own design
40.8 Temporary Facilities during Construction

o Due to the length of project, Tai suggested facilities for the inspector be provided and suggested
adding it to Section 30 of the estimate
The Rapid suggested that the FTA’s definition be included for each line item for presentation to the
board.
It was agreed that all the miscellaneous items be listed individually with the 33% contingency rather than
assume they are part of the contingency amount.
Action Items
Gary will send estimate comments to WSA on Friday, 11/19.

WSA will send hard copies of station plans to BRT for their review by Monday, 11/22.
WSA will send word version of Communication, Traffic, and Bus Operations Report to Gary on
Wednesday, 11/17 for his use in providing comments.
Appendix B
SCC category list and SCC definitions

Standard Cost Categories for Capital Projects
(Rev.13, June 1, 2010)
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles)
10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way
10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic)
10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic
10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure
10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill
10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover
10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel
10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill
10.09 Track: Direct fixation
10.10 Track: Embedded
10.11 Track: Ballasted
10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts)
10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number)
20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc.
20.05 Joint development
20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure
20.07 Elevators, escalators
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS
30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting
30.02 Light Maintenance Facility
30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility
30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building
30.05 Yard and Yard Track
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments
40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks
40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction
50 SYSTEMS
50.01 Train control and signals
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection
50.03 Traction power supply: substations
50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail
50.05 Communications
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment
50.07 Central Control
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate
60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses
70 VEHICLES (number)
70.01 Light Rail
70.02 Heavy Rail
70.03 Commuter Rail
70.04 Bus
70.05 Other
70.06 Non-revenue vehicles
70.07 Spare parts
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50)
80.01 Preliminary Engineering
80.02 Final Design
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction
80.04 Construction Administration & Management
80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc.
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection
80.08 Start up
90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY
100 FINANCE CHARGES
NOTE: The SCC cost breakdown is based on a traditional Design Bid Build model. If
Standard Cost Categories for Capital Projects your project is Design Build, to the best of your ability, separate construction costs from
DEFINITIONS design, administration, testing, etc. Put all construction costs in 10 through 50. Put
design, administration, testing, etc. in 80 Professional Services .
(Rev.13, June 1, 2010)
Include guideway and track costs for all transit modes (Heavy rail, light rail, commuter
rail, BRT, rapid bus, bus, monorail, cable car, etc.) The unit of measure is route miles of
guideway, regardless of width. As associated with the guideway, include costs for rough
grading, excavation, and concrete base for guideway where applicable. Include all
construction materials and labor regardless of whom is performing the work.
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles)
In your written description of the scope and in supporting graphic diagrams, indicate
whether busway or rail track is single, double, triple, relocated, etc. Put guideway and
track elements associated with yards in 30 Support Facilities below.
10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way

10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic)
10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic
Include foundation excavation; guideway structures including caissons, columns,
10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure
bridges, viaducts, cross-overs, fly-overs.
10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill Include construction of earthen berms.
Include excavation, retaining walls, backfill, underground guideway structure and
10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover
finishes.
Include tunneling by means of a tunnel boring machine, drill blasting, mining, and
10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel
immersed tube tunneling; tunnel structure and finishes.
Include excavation, retaining walls, backfill, underground guideway structure and
10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill
finishes.
10.09 Track: Direct fixation Include rails, connectors.
10.10 Track: Embedded Include rails, ties; ballast where applicable
10.11 Track: Ballasted Include rails, ties and ballast.
10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) Include transitional curves.
10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening Include upcharge for vib/noise dampening to any track condition above.
As associated with stations, include costs for rough grading, excavation, station
structures, enclosures, finishes, equipment; mechanical and electrical components
including HVAC, ventilation shafts and equipment, station power, lighting, public
address/customer information system, safety systems such as fire detection and
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) prevention, security surveillance, access control, life safety systems, etc. Include all
construction materials and labor regardless of whom is performing the work.
Put guideway and track associated with stations in 10 Guideway & Track Elements
above.
20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform
20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform Include station structures including caissons, columns, platforms, superstructures, etc.
20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform Include retaining walls, backfill, structure.
20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc.
Per FTA's Joint Development Guidance, "Joint development is any income-producing
activity with a transit nexus related to a real estate asset in which FTA has an interest. .
20.05 Joint development .Joint development projects are commercial, residential, industrial, or mixed-use
developments that are induced by or enhance the effectiveness of transit projects. . ."
20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure Include retaining walls, backfill, structure.
20.07 Elevators, escalators
As associated with support facilities, include costs for rough grading, excavation, support
structures, enclosures, finishes, equipment; mechanical and electrical components
including HVAC, ventilation shafts and equipment, facility power, lighting, public address
system, safety systems such as fire detection and prevention, security surveillance,
access control, life safety systems, etc. Include fueling stations. Include all construction
materials and labor regardless of whom is performing the work.
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS
Where a support facility shares the structure with a station, its cost may be included with
station cost. Identify this with a note.
Except for guideway and track associated with a yard, include all guideway and track
costs associated with support facilities in 10 Guideway & Track Elements above.
30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting

30.02 Light Maintenance Facility Include service, inspection, and storage facilities and equipment.
30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility Include heavy maintenance and overhaul facilities and equipment.
30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building
30.05 Yard and Yard Track Include yard construction, guideway and track associated with yard.
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS Include all construction materials and labor regardless of whom is performing the work.
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork Include project-wide clearing, demolition and fine grading.
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation Include all site utilities - storm, sewer, water, gas, electric.
Include underground storage tanks, fuel tanks, other hazardous materials and
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments
treatments, etc.
40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks Include other environmental mitigation not listed.
40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls
Include sidewalks, paths, plazas, landscape, site and station furniture, site lighting,
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping
signage, public artwork, bike facilities, permanent fencing.
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots Include all on-grade paving.
As a general rule and to the extent possible, appropriately allocate indirect costs among
the construction costs in Categories 10 through 50. Where that is not possible, include
in 40.08 Temporary Facilities costs for mobilization, demobilization, phasing; time and
temporary construction associated with weather (heat, rain, freezing, etc.); temporary
power and facilities; temporary construction, easements, and barriers for storm water
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction pollution prevention, temporary access and to mitigate construction impacts; project and
construction supervision; general conditions, overhead, profit.
NOTE: Include contractor's general liability and other insurance related to
construction such as builder's risk in Cats. 10 - 50, not in 80 Professional
Services below.
50 SYSTEMS Include all construction materials and labor regardless of whom is performing the work.
50.01 Train control and signals

50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection Include signal prioritization at intersections.
50.03 Traction power supply: substations
50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail
Include passenger information systems at stations and on vehicles (real time travel
50.05 Communications information; static maps and schedules).
Include equipment to allow communications among vehicles and with central control.
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment Include fare sales and swipe machines, fare counting equipment.
50.07 Central Control
Construction Subtotal (10 - 50)
Include professional services associated with the real estate component of the
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS project. These costs may include agency staff oversight and administration, real
estate and relocation consultants, legal counsel, court expenses, insurance, etc.
If the value of right-of-way, land, and existing improvements is to be used as local match
to the Federal funding of the project, include the total cost on this line item. In backup
documentation, separate cost for land from cost for improvements. Identify whether items
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate are leased, purchased or acquired through payment or for free. Include the costs for
permanent surface and subsurface easements, trackage rights, etc.
60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses In compliance with Uniform Relocation Act.
Include professional services associated with the vehicle component of the
project. These costs may include agency staff oversight and administration,
70 VEHICLES (number)
vehicle consultants, design and manufacturing contractors, legal counsel,
warranty and insurance costs, etc.
70.01 Light Rail Include light rail and streetcar rail using electric, diesel or other power supply.
70.02 Heavy Rail
Include locomotives (diesel, electric, or other), trailer cars, self-propelled multiple units
70.03 Commuter Rail
(EMU electric or DMU diesel, or other power supply)
Includes "rubber-tired" buses and trolleys including new, used, historic replica,
70.04 Bus
articulated, using electric, diesel, dual-power, or other power supply.
Include Vans, Sedan/Station Wagon, Cable Car, People Mover, Monorail, Car/Inclined
70.05 Other
Railway, Ferry Boat, Transferred Vehicle
70.06 Non-revenue vehicles
70.07 Spare parts
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) Cat. 80 applies to Cats. 10-50. Cat. 80 includes all professional, technical and
management services related to the design and construction of fixed infrastructure (Cats.
10 - 50) during the preliminary engineering, final design, and construction phases of the
80.01 Preliminary Engineering
project. This includes environmental work, design, engineering and architectural
services; specialty services such as safety or security analyses; value engineering, risk
assessment, cost estimating, scheduling, Before and After studies, ridership modeling
80.02 Final Design
and analyses, auditing, legal services, administration and management, etc. by agency
staff or outside consultants.
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction
Include professional liability insurance and other non-construction insurance on 80.05
unless insurance for the agency and its consultants is already included in other lines.
80.04 Construction Administration & Management
Include costs associated with professional services related to real estate and vehicles in
Cats. 60 and 70.
80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance
(Note that costs for alternatives analysis and NEPA work done before FTA approval to
enter preliminary engineering (PE), regardless of funding source,
are not included in an FFGA and therefore, should not be included in the
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc.
Standard Cost Category worksheets. For example, on one and the same grant, costs
incurred prior to FTA approval to enter PE should be omitted from these worksheets
whereas costs incurred after FTA approval to enter PE should be included.)
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection
Include start up and training. Include in Cats. 10 - 50 above access and protection work
80.08 Start up by agency staff or outside contractors.
Subtotal (10 - 80)
Includes unallocated contingency, project reserves. Document allocated contingencies
90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY
for individual line items on the Main worksheets.
Subtotal (10 - 90)
Include finance charges expected to be paid by the project sponsor/grantee prior to
either the completion of the project or the fulfillment of the New Starts funding
commitment, whichever occurs later in time. Finance charges incurred after this date
should not be included in Total Project Cost. (See FFGA Circular FTA C5200.1A
Chapter III for additional information.)
100 FINANCE CHARGES
Derive finance charges from the New Starts project's financial plan, based on an
analysis of the sources and uses of funds. The amount and type of debt financing
required and revenues available determine the finance charges. By year, compute
finance charges in year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars. On the Inflation Calculation to
YOE worksheet enter the finance charges for the appropriate years.
Total Project Cost (10 - 100)
Appendix C
EA estimate

MAIN WORKSHEET-BUILD ALTERNATIVE (Rev.12, July 31, 2009)
Interurban Transit Partnership - THE RAPID (Revised 3/16/2010 to FY2010 Base Year) Today's Date 3/16/10
Division Avenue BRT - Cities of Grand Rapids, Kentwood, and Wyoming, Michigan Yr of Base Year $ 2010
Project Development Phase (Very Small Starts) Yr of Revenue Ops 2013
Quantity Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year YOE Dollars
Dollars w/o Dollars Dollars Dollars Unit Dollars Dollars Total
Percentage Percentage
Contingency Allocated TOTAL Cost of of
(X000)
(X000) Contingency (X000) (X000) Construction Total
(X000) Cost Project Cost
10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 9.60 2,880 432 3,312 $ 345 20% 10% 3,723
10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 0 0
10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 0 0
10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 9.60 2,880 432 3,312 $ 345 3,723
10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0 0
10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 0 0
10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 0 0
10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 0 0
10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0 0
10.09 Track: Direct fixation 0 0
10.10 Track: Embedded 0 0
10.11 Track: Ballasted 0 0
10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 0 0
10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 0 0
20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 18 6,873 1,030 7,903 $ 439 47% 24% 8,898
20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 18 6,873 1,030 7,903 $ 439 8,898
20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0
20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 0
20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 0 0
20.05 Joint development 0 0
20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 0 0
20.07 Elevators, escalators 0 0
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 9.60 250 40 290 $ 30 2% 1% 333
30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 0 0
30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 250 40 290 333
30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 0 0
30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 0 0
30.05 Yard and Yard Track 0 0
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 9.60 760 118 878 $ 91 5% 3% 973
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 0 0
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 720 108 828 918
40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 0 0
40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 0 0
40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 0 0
40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 40 10 50 55
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 0 0
40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 0 0
50 SYSTEMS 9.60 3,875 581 4,456 $ 464 26% 13% 5,028
50.01 Train control and signals 0 0
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 1,702 255 1,957 2,208
50.03 Traction power supply: substations 0 0
50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 0 0
50.05 Communications 1,014 152 1,166 1,316
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 1,159 174 1,333 1,504
50.07 Central Control 0 0
Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) 9.60 14,638 2,201 16,839 $ 1,754 100% 51% 18,955
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 9.60 500 150 650 $ 68 2% 708
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 500 150 650 708
60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 0 0
70 VEHICLES (number) 10 6,612 653 7,265 $ 727 22% 8,201
70.01 Light Rail 0 0
70.02 Heavy Rail 0 0
70.03 Commuter Rail 0 0
70.04 Bus 10 6,400 632 7,032 $ 703 7,938
70.05 Other 0 0
70.06 Non-revenue vehicles 0 0
70.07 Spare parts 212 21 233 263
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 9.60 4,103 332 4,435 $ 462 26% 13% 4,804
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 970 50 1,020 1,105
80.02 Final Design 560 60 620 672
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 170 27 197 213
80.04 Construction Administration & Management 1,550 80 1,630 1,766
80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 0 0 0 0
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 0 0 0 0
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 550 70 620 672
80.08 Start up 303 45 348 377
Subtotal (10 - 80) 9.60 25,853 3,336 29,189 $ 3,041 88% 32,667
90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 2,970 9% 3,309
Subtotal (10 - 90) 9.60 32,159 $ 3,350 97% 35,976
100 FINANCE CHARGES 917 3% 1,024
Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 9.60 33,076 $ 3,445 100% 37,000
Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 12.90%
Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 11.49%
Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 24.39%
Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 10.18%
YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) $1,974
YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) $3,000
YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) $3,854
Appendix D
Detailed Estimates

Silver Line BRT Transit Signal Priority Implementation

Date of Estimate: 8-Dec-10
(DOT or CSI)
Opticom Priority System at Signals 5 Each $ 4,000 $ 20,000

Opticom Priority System for Vehicles 10 Each $ 2,200 $ 22,000
Opticom Priority System Communications and Adjustments 28 Each $ 1,000 $ 28,000
Transit Signal Heads 0 Each $ 1,000 $ -
New Masts and Mast Arms 0 Each $ 15,000 $ -
New Pedestrian Signal Heads and Call Buttons 0 Each $ 800 $ -
System Integration and Calibration 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Potential new signal (per AECOM estimate) 1 LS $ 250,000 $ 250,000
50.02 Total Traffic Signal Construction Cost Estimate $ 370,000

Silver Line BRT Transit Operations

(DOT or CSI)
Emergency Telephone with CCTV Camera 33 Each $ 5,509 $ 181,790

One Additional CCTV Camera 33 Each $ 2,200 $ 72,600
Fare Validation Device 33 Each $ 3,000 $ 99,000
Ticket Vending Machine 40 Each $ 45,000 $ 1,800,000
Smart Card Reader 33 Each $ 3,000 $ 99,000
Next Bus Sign With Audio 33 Each $ 10,000 $ 330,000
Ticket + Media Kiosk 33 Each $ 2,000 $ 66,000
Passenger Information Sign and Kiosk 33 Each $ 10,200 $ 336,600
Audio Station Announcement on the Bus 10 Each $ 1,000 $ 10,000
Station Software for Fare Collection 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Central Software for Fare Collection 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000
50.06 Total Transit Operations Construction Cost Estimate $ 3,204,990

Silver Line BRT Office Communications

(DOT or CSI)
16147 Fiber Optic Cable, Aerial, 64 Fibers 0 Mile $ 38,000 $ -

16160 Enclosure, Free Standing, NEMA 3R 0 Each $ 11,000 $ -
16702 Miscellaneous Power Material 1 Lot $ 1,000 $ 1,000
16702 Network Video Recorder, 32 Channel 3 Each $ 12,000 $ 36,000
16702 VoIP PBX Configuration 1 Each $ 25,000 $ 25,000
16702 CCTV Display Configuration 1 Each $ 50,000 $ 50,000
16702 Network Management System 1 Lot $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Office Communication Construction Cost Estimate $ 204,100

Silver Line BRT Station Communications - Fiber Optic Cable Option

(DOT or CSI)
16147 Fiber Optic Cable, Aerial, 64 Fibers 4 Mile $ 38,000 $ 152,000

16160 Enclosure, Free Standing, NEMA 3R 17 Each $ 11,000 $ 187,000
16702 Miscellaneous Power Material 17 Lot $ 500 $ 8,500
16702 VoIP PBX Configuration 0 Each $ 25,000 $ -
16702 CCTV Display Configuration 0 Each $ 50,000 $ -
16702 Network Management System 0 Lot $ 50,000 $ -
Station Communication Construction Cost Estimate $ 681,200
50.05 Total Communication Construction Cost Estimate $ 885,300

Silver Line BRT Bus Stations

Date of Estimate:
Bid Item Unit Price Source

Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Price bid tab year Unit price Escalated @
Quantity 2010 Dollars Dollars 3%
Per Pair
50' Station Alternate
Excavation 52 CY 13.44 $ 699 38-C04/7 2006 $ 12 $ 13.44
Select Backfill 12 CY 31.36 $ 376 38-C04/8 2006 $ 28 $ 31.36
Structural Concrete 40 CY 802.20 $ 32,088 38-C04/154 2006 $ 716 $ 802.20
Stainless Steel Columns (hot rolled) 4,400 LBS 5.00 $ 22,000 Plug $ -
Stainless Steel Roof Framing (cold formed) 8,400 LBS 5.00 $ 42,000 Plug $ -
Stainless Steel edge strut 4,080 LBS 5.00 $ 20,400 Plug $ -
Curtian Wall (sides) 528 SF 20.00 $ 10,560 Plug $ -
Curtian Wall (wind break) 288 SF 20.00 $ 5,760 Plug $ -
Additional Cost for Custom Station Design 1 LSUM 10,072.00 $ 10,072 Plug $ -
Ceiling 600 SF 20.00 $ 12,000 Plug $ -
3 inch caliper Tree 4 EA 812.00 $ 3,248 38-C04/275+274 2006 $ 725 $ 812.00
Benches 8 EA 2,800.00 $ 22,400 38-C04/277 2006 $ 2,500 $ 2,800.00
Bike Rack 4 EA 1,680.00 $ 6,720 38-C04/279 2006 $ 1,500 $ 1,680.00
Detectable Warning Paver 120 SF 19.04 $ 2,285 38-C04/239 2006 $ 17 $ 19.04
Underdrain 120 LF 11.20 $ 1,344 38-C04/52 2006 $ 10 $ 11.20
Signage Tower 6 EA 10,000.00 $ 60,000 Plug $ -
Station Electrical 2 EA 12,320.00 $ 24,640 38-C05B/104 2006 $ 11,000 $12,320.00
Station Lighting 40 EA 300.00 $ 12,000 Plug $ -
Duct Bank to Far Side Station (3x2) 170 LF 56.00 $ 9,520 38-C04/130 2006 $ 50 $ 56.00
Excavation and Pavement Repair for Duct Bank 170 LF 41.25 $ 7,013 38-C04/139+65 2006 $ 37 $ 41.25
Electrical Pole Foundation 1 EA 3,584.00 $ 3,584 38-C04/149 2006 $ 3,200 $ 3,584.00
Electrical Strain Pole 1 EA 3,696.00 $ 3,696 38-C05B/47 2006 $ 3,300 $ 3,696.00
25 Power Source 1 EA 1,120.00 $ 1,120 38-C05B/83 2006 $ 1,000 $ 1,120.00
Hand Holes 6 EA 448.00 $ 2,688 38-C04/142 2006 $ 400 $ 448.00
Underground Conduit 1,000 LF 1.12 $ 1,120 38-C04/133 2006 $ 1 $ 1.12
Station Ameneties (trash cans, recycling) 1 EA 2,000.00 $ 2,000 Plug $ -
Price per 50' Station Pair $ 319,333
Station Pairs 16.5 EA $ 319,333 $ 5,268,996

Silver Line BRT System Ammenities

Date of Estimate:
Bid Item Unit Price Source

Description Estimated Unit Unit Price Price bid tab year
Per Pair
GPS Signal Prioritization (at signal) 28 EA 2,000.00 $ 56,000 PLUG
GPS Signal Prioritization (on bus) 10 EA 2,000.00 $ 20,000 PLUG
Pedestrian Signal System, Accessible 14 EA 2,000.00 $ 28,000 MDOT AUP 2010
AVL Upgrades 1 LSUM 75000 $ 75,000 PLUG
Total System $ 179,000

Silver Line BRT

URS Project No. 12942679
Date of Estimate: 11/15/2010
Description Price (Dollars)

Cost Code Cost Code Cost Code Cost Code
10.02 10.03 20.01 40.02 Total
1 Louis Street Station NB $ 6,472.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 9,024.00 $ 8,575.00 $ 29,571.00
2 Louis Street Station SB $ 6,151.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 17,286.00 $ 8,575.00 $ 37,512.00
3 DeVos Place Station NB $ 5,239.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 9,096.00 $ 9,075.00 $ 28,910.00
4 DeVos Place Station SB $ 5,728.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,411.50 $ 11,575.00 $ 30,214.50
5 Michigan Street Station NB $ 6,268.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 12,627.50 $ 6,075.00 $ 30,470.50
6 Michigan Street Station SB $ 6,268.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 16,825.50 $ 12,075.00 $ 40,668.50
7 GRCC Station NB $ 8,876.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 6,855.50 $ 8,575.00 $ 29,806.50
8 GRCC Station SB $ 8,876.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 17,604.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 38,055.00
9 Fulton Street Station NB $ 5,178.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,287.50 $ 8,575.00 $ 26,540.50
10 Fulton Street Station SB $ 5,178.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,538.50 $ 6,075.00 $ 24,291.50
11 Wealthy Street Station NB $ - $ 5,500.00 $ 5,863.00 $ 6,575.00 $ 17,938.00
12 Wealthy Street Station SB $ - $ 5,500.00 $ 7,713.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 19,288.00
13 Logan Street Station NB $ 8,441.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,449.50 $ 6,075.00 $ 27,465.50
14 Logan Street Station SB $ 5,728.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 6,828.00 $ 12,075.00 $ 30,131.00
15 Franklin Street Station NB $ 4,801.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 8,565.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 24,941.00
16 Franklin Street Station SB $ 5,728.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,355.50 $ 6,075.00 $ 24,658.50
17 Green Street Station NB $ 1,918.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 16,924.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 30,417.00
18 Green Street Station SB $ - $ 5,500.00 $ 12,774.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 24,349.00
19 Cottage Grove Street Station NB $ 5,993.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 15,806.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 33,374.00
20 Cottage Grove Street Station SB $ 5,993.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 19,075.00 $ 8,575.00 $ 39,143.00
21 Burton Street Station NB $ 5,178.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 16,901.00 $ 8,575.00 $ 36,154.00
22 Burton Street Station SB $ 6,454.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 17,121.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 35,150.00
23 Southview Street Station NB $ 6,268.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 18,785.50 $ 6,075.00 $ 36,628.50
24 Southview Street Station SB $ 6,268.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,656.00 $ 6,075.00 $ 23,499.00
25 28th Street Station NB $ 7,075.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 7,879.00 $ 11,575.00 $ 32,029.00
26 28th Street Station SB $ 6,757.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 6,473.50 $ 6,075.00 $ 24,805.50
33 60th Street Station (southern alternate) $ 5,728.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 18,783.00 $ 8,575.00 $ 38,586.00
Grandville Ave. Reconstruction from Oakes St to
34 Weston St $ - $ 244,780.00 $ - $ - $ 244,780.00
Logan St Resurfacing from Division to Sheldon
35 and from LaGrave to Jefferson $ - $ 54,750.00 $ - $ - $ 54,750.00
Jefferson Ave Resurfacing from Logan St to south
36 of Wealthy St $ - $ 43,925.00 $ - $ - $ 43,925.00
Ransom Ave Resurfacing from Lyon St to
Crescent St and Crescent St Resurfacing from
37 Ransom Ave to Bostwick Ave $ - $ 66,475.00 $ - $ - $ 66,475.00
37 Pavement Markings $ - $ 177,000.00 $ - $ - $ 177,000.00
38 Traffic Signage $ - $ 285,000.00 $ - $ - $ 285,000.00
10.02 10.03 20.01 40.02

Cost Code Totals $ 187,400.00 $ 1,053,430.00 $ 410,970.00 $ 244,475.00
Total Project Cost Estimate $ 1,896,275.00
URS Corporation 1
Silver Line BRT - Louis Street Station NB

FTA MDOT Pay Estimated

Code Item Code Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Price
2010 Dollars Dollars
10.02 Guideway - concrete bus pad
2040011 Pavt, Rem 142 Syd $ 6.00 $ 852.00
3010002 Subbase, CIP (12 inch) 36 Cyd $ 10.00 $ 360.00
3020016 Aggregate Base, 6 inch 108 Syd $ 5.00 $ 540.00
6020108 Conc Pavt, Nonreinf, 10 inch 108 Syd $ 40.00 $ 4,320.00
205xxxx Excavation and Embankment 1 LS $ 200.00 $ 200.00
402xxxx Manhole and catch basin adjustments 1 LS $ 200.00 $ 200.00
Total for FTA Code 10.02 $ 6,472.00
10.03 At-grade in Mixed Traffic

xxxxxxx Maintaining Traffic for Station Construction 1 LS $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00

2020004 Tree, Rem, 6 inch to 18 inch 0 Ea $ 500.00 $ -
2040006 Curb and Gutter, Rem 207 Ft $ 5.00 $ 1,035.00
2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 92 Syd $ 5.50 $ 506.00
208xxxx Erosion Control 1 LS $ 250.00 $ 250.00
3010002 Subbase, CIP (varies 4 to 9 inches) 16 Cyd $ 10.00 $ 160.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
8027001 Curb, Conc, Det E4, Mod 93 Ft $ 15.00 $ 1,395.00
8027001 Curb and Gutter, Conc, Det F4, Mod 38 Ft $ 15.00 $ 570.00
8030002 Sidewalk, Conc, 4 inch 1,006 Sft $ 3.00 $ 3,018.00
8030003 Sidewalk, Conc, 6 inch 140 Sft $ 3.50 $ 490.00
8160050 Slope Restoration 0 Syd $ 3.00 $ -
xxxxxxx Station Shelter 1 Ea $ - $ -
xxxxxxx Right-of-Way - Sidewalk/Grading Easement 0 Sft $ 10.00 $ -
40.02 Site Utilities/Utility Relocation

819xxxx Relocate Street Light 1 Ea $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
8250095 Hydrant, Relocate, Case 1 0 Ea $ 3,000.00 $ -
xxxxxxx Relocate Street Sign 0 Ea $ 500.00 $ -
825xxxx Relocated water line (6 inch) 45 Ft $ 120.00 $ 5,400.00
8190157 Direct burial pvc conduit (2-2 inch dia) 45 Ft $ 15.00 $ 675.00
Station Construction Cost Estimate $ 29,571.00
URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Louis Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 96 Syd $ 6.00 $ 576.00


2040006 Curb and Gutter, Rem 99 Ft $ 5.00 $ 495.00
2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 211 Syd $ 5.50 $ 1,160.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
8027001 Curb, Conc, Det E4, Mod 0 Ft $ 15.00 $ -
8030002 Sidewalk, Conc, 4 inch 711 Sft $ 3.00 $ 2,133.00
8160050 Slope Restoration 59 Syd $ 3.00 $ 177.00
xxxxxxx Right-of-Way - Sidewalk/Grading Easement 835 Sft $ 10.00 $ 8,350.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - DeVos Place Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 89 Syd $ 6.00 $ 534.00


2020004 Tree, Rem, 6 inch to 18 inch 2 Ea $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00
2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 182 Syd $ 5.50 $ 1,001.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

819xxxx Relocate Street Light 0 Ea $ 2,500.00 $ -
8250095 Hydrant, Relocate, Case 1 1 Ea $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - DeVos Place Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 98 Syd $ 6.00 $ 588.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 153 Syd $ 5.50 $ 841.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Michigan Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 108 Syd $ 6.00 $ 648.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 119 Syd $ 5.50 $ 654.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Michigan Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 108 Syd $ 6.00 $ 648.00


2020004 Tree, Rem, 6 inch to 18 inch 1 Ea $ 500.00 $ 500.00
2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 105 Syd $ 5.50 $ 577.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

xxxxxxx Relocate Street Sign 1 Ea $ 500.00 $ 500.00
URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - GRCC Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 156 Syd $ 6.00 $ 936.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 65 Syd $ 5.50 $ 357.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - GRCC Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 156 Syd $ 6.00 $ 936.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 65 Syd $ 5.50 $ 357.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Fulton Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 88 Syd $ 6.00 $ 528.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 54 Syd $ 5.50 $ 297.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Fulton Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 88 Syd $ 6.00 $ 528.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 131 Syd $ 5.50 $ 720.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Wealthy Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 0 Syd $ 6.00 $ -
3010002 Subbase, CIP (12 inch) 0 Cyd $ 10.00 $ -
3020016 Aggregate Base, 6 inch 0 Syd $ 5.00 $ -
6020108 Conc Pavt, Nonreinf, 10 inch 0 Syd $ 40.00 $ -
205xxxx Excavation and Embankment 0 LS $ 200.00 $ -
402xxxx Manhole and catch basin adjustments 0 LS $ 200.00 $ -
Total for FTA Code 10.02 $ -


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 104 Syd $ 5.50 $ 572.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

Note: Assume replacement of existing curb and sidewalk, but not pavement
URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Wealthy Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 0 Syd $ 6.00 $ -


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 155 Syd $ 5.50 $ 852.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

Note: Assume replacement of existing curb and sidewalk, but not pavement
URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Logan Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 156 Syd $ 6.00 $ 936.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 59 Syd $ 5.50 $ 324.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
8027001 Curb, Conc, Det E4, Mod 38 Ft $ 15.00 $ 570.00
8027001 Curb and Gutter, Conc, Det F4, Mod 0 Ft $ 15.00 $ -

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Logan Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 98 Syd $ 6.00 $ 588.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 120 Syd $ 5.50 $ 660.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
8027001 Curb and Gutter, Conc, Det F4, Mod 0 Ft $ 15.00 $ -
8030003 Sidewalk, Conc, 6 inch 0 Sft $ 3.50 $ -

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Franklin Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 81 Syd $ 6.00 $ 486.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 82 Syd $ 5.50 $ 451.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Franklin Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 98 Syd $ 6.00 $ 588.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 125 Syd $ 5.50 $ 687.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
8030003 Sidewalk, Conc, 6 inch 0 Sft $ 3.50 $ -

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Green Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 28 Syd $ 6.00 $ 168.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 156 Syd $ 5.50 $ 858.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
8027001 Curb, Conc, Det E4, Mod 8 Ft $ 15.00 $ 120.00

Note: Assume replacement of existing HMA pavement only
URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Green Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 0 Syd $ 6.00 $ -


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 86 Syd $ 5.50 $ 473.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
8027001 Curb and Gutter, Conc, Det F4, Mod 101 Ft $ 15.00 $ 1,515.00

Note: Assume no replacement of existing pavement
URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Cottage Grove Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 103 Syd $ 6.00 $ 618.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 60 Syd $ 5.50 $ 330.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Cottage Grove Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 103 Syd $ 6.00 $ 618.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 54 Syd $ 5.50 $ 297.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
xxxxxxx Right-of-Way - Sidewalk/Grading Easement 1,244 Sft $ 10.00 $ 12,440.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Burton Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 88 Syd $ 6.00 $ 528.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 122 Syd $ 5.50 $ 671.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00
xxxxxxx Right-of-Way - Sidewalk/Grading Easement 1,063 Sft $ 10.00 $ 10,630.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Burton Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 219 Syd $ 6.00 $ 1,314.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 87 Syd $ 5.50 $ 478.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Southview Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 108 Syd $ 6.00 $ 648.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 76 Syd $ 5.50 $ 418.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - Southview Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 108 Syd $ 6.00 $ 648.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 63 Syd $ 5.50 $ 346.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - 28th Street Station NB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 170 Syd $ 6.00 $ 1,020.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 66 Syd $ 5.50 $ 363.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - 28th Street Station SB


2040011 Pavt, Rem 117 Syd $ 6.00 $ 702.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 65 Syd $ 5.50 $ 357.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation


2040011 Pavt, Rem 216 Syd $ 6.00 $ 1,296.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 72 Syd $ 5.50 $ 396.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation


2040011 Pavt, Rem 223 Syd $ 6.00 $ 1,338.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 30 Syd $ 5.50 $ 165.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation


2040011 Pavt, Rem 117 Syd $ 6.00 $ 702.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 50 Syd $ 5.50 $ 275.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation


2040011 Pavt, Rem 117 Syd $ 6.00 $ 702.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 55 Syd $ 5.50 $ 302.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation


2040011 Pavt, Rem 108 Syd $ 6.00 $ 648.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 54 Syd $ 5.50 $ 297.00
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation


2040011 Pavt, Rem 115 Syd $ 6.00 $ 690.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 53 Syd $ 5.50 $ 291.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - 60th Street Station, Northern Alternate


2040011 Pavt, Rem 98 Syd $ 6.00 $ 588.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 55 Syd $ 5.50 $ 302.50
402xxxx Drainage 1 LS $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00

URS Corporation
Silver Line BRT - 60th Street Station, Southern Alternate


2040011 Pavt, Rem 98 Syd $ 6.00 $ 588.00


2040013 Sidewalk, Rem 54 Syd $ 5.50 $ 297.00
3010002 Subbase, CIP (varies 4 to 9 inch

Final Task IVision Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Final Task IVision Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Organization Name Phone # email Address Contact

Mobil Metro Task Force

Kent County Government - other

August 25, 2010

1.0 Public Meeting Details

Date of Meeting: August 11

Location: The Rapid Central Station

Time: 10:00 am – 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm

Date of Meeting: August 12

Location: Tommy Brann’s

Time: 10:00 am – 1:00 pm

1.1 Stakeholder Invitation

1.2 Meeting Format

1.5 Meeting Register

2. Monroe Avenue/Fulton Street

3. Monroe Avenue/Lyon Street

a. Northbound Station: Possibly relocate the station south of the pedestrian

a. Westbound Station: Michigan Street development and entrance for the

6. Ransom Avenue/Fountain Street

8. Division Avenue/Logan Street

9. Division Avenue/Franklin Street

- Recommend running Bus Route #1 Division and #2 Kalamazoo more frequently,

10. Division Avenue/Hall Street

11. Division Avenue/Cottage Grove Street

12. Division Avenue/Burton Street

13. Division Avenue/Alger Street

14. Division Avenue/28th Street

a. Northbound Station: Curb cut to business; possibly relocate station to the

- East and west transfers at 28th Street need to be properly accommodated.

15. Division Avenue/36th Street

16. Division Avenue/43rd Street

17. Division Avenue/54th Street

- Need to define bus turnaround at end of route.

*Locations proposed in the Environmental Assessment

Swift BRT vehicle and station from Everett WA

2003 2007 2009‐ 2010‐ 2011 2012

1.0 Meeting Details

Date of Meeting: September 30, 2010

Location: Tommy Brann’s Restaurant

Time: 9:00 am – 11:00 am

Date of Meeting: September 30, 2010

Location: The Rapid Central Station

Time: 1:30 am – 3:30 pm

1.1 Stakeholder Invitation

1.2 Meeting Format

1.3 Summary of Comments Received

Weather Protection & Maintenance Concerns

Sustainability Practices & Energy

Visual, Audio and Surface Accommodations

Advertisement & Naming Rights

Bicycle Advocacy & Accommodation

A comprehensive, bulleted list of all comments received is attached.

1.4 Meeting Register

Re: Invitation to attend Stakeholder Meeting 2 for the

Date: September 30, 2010

Time/Location: 9:00 - 11:00 am at Tommy Branns

1) Purpose and Objectives

3) Share with the Stakeholders

4) Work as a Team to Identify Station Elements

Las Vegas, NV – “Max”

San Joaquin, CA – “Metro Express”

BRT Station Adjustments

Emergency Telephone Route Map and Information Kiosk

Next “Bus” message Trash Receptacle

Closed Circuit TV Integrated Art

Integrated Art Bike Racks