2.  The Project Team › Design, Planning & Construction:  Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. (HRC)  Grissim, Metz, Andriese Associates (GMA)  O’Neal Construction Incorporated (OCI) › Stakeholders:  University of Michigan – Architecture, Engineering & Construction (AEC)  University Departments  City of Ann Arbor  Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA)

3.  Overview & Introduction › Scope of Work & Project Goals  Location & Function  Improve safety, capacity and ADA Accessibility  Infrastructure improvements  Create a multi-modal “Place” for all transit  Provide a striking yet complementary architectural design › Funding  ARRA through AATA  STPU through U of M  5307 Funds through AATA  Local (U of M)

4.  Location & Function DIAG N. UNIVERSITY STATE ST. S. UNIVERSITY CHEMISTRY CC LITTLE RUTHVEN MUSEUM DENTISTRY N. UNIVERSITY UM Bus Stops

5.  Improve Safety

6.  Multi-modal improvements

7.  Planning and Schematic Design › Project Data  Posted speed: 25 mph  North University ADT: 7200  Pedestrian crossing peak hour volume: 1000  Pedestrian peak hour volume along N. University: 700  Bus volume along N. University: Approx 75 per hour › Scope of Work  Project budget: $4,000,000  Maximize project goals  Accelerated schedule

8.  Planning and Schematic Design › Options explored & studied  Bus storage area needed  Pedestrian travel patterns  Pedestrian capacity analysis and bus loading evaluation  Shelter capacity analysis and expansion considerations  Traffic and turning movement study  Roadway improvement options & recommendations  Sustainable design studies & recommendations  Bicycle lane configuration and location

9.  Planning and Schematic Design › Options explored & studied (Continued)  Lighting options & recommendations  Options to enhance median area  Wayfinding opportunities  Options for dynamic signs and kiosks  Construction staging and temporary bus stop options  Options to reduce scope to meet budget  Evaluation of bidding project (lump sum versus unit price)  Project justification report for University Regents

10.  Detailed Design › Schedule:  March 2009 – Notice to proceed  August 2009 – Schematic design complete  January 2010 – Final plans complete › Infrastructure Improvements  Watermain replacement  Storm sewer improvements  Road reconstruction

11.  Detailed Design › Multimodal improvements  Consolidate pedestrian crossings  Provide bicycle lanes  Improve University plaza areas  Consolidate bus stops (AATA and University)  Provide ADA Accessible site  Install bicycle racks to meet demand  Construct bus stop shelters on both sides  Wayfinding (static & dynamic signs, kiosks)

12.  Detailed Design › Custom Bus Stop Shelters  Drilled piers & steel structure  Glass enclosures  Translucent panel roof › Maintenance of Traffic & Construction Staging  Full road closure  Coordination with City and University  Work not to start until after school (May)  Road to be open during Ann Arbor Art Fair (July)  Work to be complete prior to school start (September)

13.  Detailed Design – Layout Plan

16.  Construction › Aggressive schedule  Pre-purchased steel  Infrastructure improvements & site work  Structural elements  Roof panels  Amenities (bike racks, wayfinding, pavers, etc.) › Site constraints & requirements  Small project area  Road open by Art Fair  Maintain ingress/egress to University buildings

17.  Construction › Challenges  Unanticipated utilities  Material changes  Delays › Solutions  Fast-track decisions & design changes  Contract negotiations  Overtime and additional manpower

18.  Construction Progress

21.  Before and After

23.  Before & After

26.  Questions?