Rochester Public Works
Memo
To:
Mayor and City Council
From: Richard Freese
CC:
Doug Nelson; Tony Knauer
Date:
2/9/2016
Re:
Downtown Bus Shelter Information
This memo is in response to several Councilmembers asking for additional information
relative to the decision-making process and resultant cost of the downtown bus shelters.
Throughout this memo the term “Project” will mean the reconstruction of 2nd Street SW from
1st Avenue to 6th Avenue including the construction of new transit shelters at the downtown
bus stop hub.
Background:

2006; The City Council authorizes staff to apply for federal funding for the Project.
Federal funding approved in an amount of $2,420,000 for FY 2009.

2007 City receives notice of $509,126 in federal funds for Downtown Bus Stop
improvements. 20% local match required.

June 2008; The City retains the professional services of Yaggy Colby Associates to
prepare the plans and specifications for the construction of the Project.

Summer 2008; Public Works staff invites representatives of Mayo Clinic’s Facilities
and Transportation Divisions to participate on a Project Design Committee. Also
included is a representative of Rochester City Lines and a member of the City’s
Transit Advisory Committee. Doug Knott, representing City Administration, is also a
member of the Committee. The Design Committee meets regularly over the course
of the next 12 months to provide direction and input on the Project, including the
design of the downtown bus stop shelters.

Fall 2008; The Design Committee recommends that the Transit System users be
surveyed on potential improvements / enhancements to the downtown bus stop. The
results from 600 respondents surveyed on 11/12/2008 showed:
1
o 87% felt it was important or very important to provide more shelter from rain
and wind
o 75% felt it was important or very important to provide heat in the shelters
o 75% felt it was important or very important to provide real time information
on the status of bus arrivals
o 75% felt it was important to provide more lighting in the shelters
o 65% felt it was important to provide security cameras in the shelters
o 60% felt it was important or very important to provide more seating in the
shelters

November 2008; Utilizing, in part, the results from the Transit user survey, the Design
Committee establishes the following Goal and Objectives for the downtown bus stop
component of the Project.
o Goal: To develop a plan for a safe, efficient, convenient, and aesthetically
pleasing transit hub that addresses the current and future needs of buses
and other vehicles, riders and pedestrians.
o Objectives: The Downtown Bus Stop improvements will:
 Clearly identify the project area as a transit hub.
 Blend the bus stop improvements with the downtown environment
 Promote transit ridership by creating a hub that is identifiable and
easily understandable to users.
 Accommodate both short (5 to 10 years) and long term goals (10+
years) for the Rochester Transit system including the U of M
expansion, future transit modes, etc.
 Provide a distinct architectural identity for the transit hub that is
compatible with the existing architecture.
 Provide safe and accessible connectivity between pedestrians and
bus.
 Provide safe environment for the pedestrians through the design,
location and control of crosswalks.
 Provide efficient circulation for bus activity.
 Promote the use and viability of the Downtown area.
 Create an attractive and comfortable streetscape experience.
 Include sustainable design elements.
 Create an environment for transit users that protects them from the
extremes of wind, rain, snow, cold, exhaust fumes and noise.
 Create a design that provides adequate sidewalk width to
accommodate both transit users and pedestrians traversing the
area.
 Create a well lit and secure environment where transit users feel
safe waiting for their bus, regardless of the time of day.
 Provide adequate lane width for safe and efficient movement of
vehicles.
 Provide general transit information and real time schedule
information in formats and locations convenient to transit users.
 Page 2



Integrate art into the functional elements of the Project (shelters,
lighting, furnishings, etc).
Maximize the use of limited pedestrian areas and reduce clutter
through the integration of streetscape elements, whenever possible.
Utilize durable high quality materials, with attention to service and
maintenance needs incorporated into the design process.

March 2009; State of Minnesota Historic Preservation Office determines that the
proposed shelter design has “no adverse affect” to historic properties (Plummer
Building).

Spring 2009: City receives notice that in $1,467,608 in Federal Transit Aid funds have
been approved and authorized for use on the transit components of the Project.
Federal funding requires that public art be incorporated into the Project. No local
match required as these are ARRA Stimulus funds.

April 6, 2009; City Council approves Agenda Item D-18; Request for a Hearing for
Reconstruction of 2nd Street SW from 1st Avenue to 6th Avenue SW (J7247).
o Council Action Requested:
 Ordering a Project Hearing to be held for April 20, 2009.
 Ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
 Ordering an Assessment Hearing for May 4, 2009.
 Accepting the Feasibility Report.
 The Feasibility Report contains Project Background
information, proposed Safety Improvements, Roadway
Enhancements, Recommendations, the Engineer’s Project
Cost Estimate includes Transit Bus Stop including shelters,
cameras, etc for estimated cost of $1,826,034.50; Special
Assessment information, Funding Distribution ($2,010,734.13
in Transit funds; grants and reserves).

April 14, 2009: Public Works staff conducts Project Information Meeting Open House.
Proposed streetscape and downtown bus stop shelters design available for public
comment.

May 4, 2009; City Council approves Agenda Item D-22; Advertise for Bids;
Reconstruct 2nd Street SW from 1st Avenue to 6th Avenue SW (J7247). RCA Project
Background indicates that funding sources include federal funds and that the project
includes the replacement of bus shelters.

October 19, 2009; City Council approves Agenda Item B-18; Contract Award;
Reconstruction of 2nd Street SW from 1st Avenue to 6th Avenue SW (J7247). RCA
includes Project Background paragraph that indicates funding sources include federal
funds and that the project includes the replacement of bus shelters. RCA awards
contract for $5,344,534.21. Engineer’s estimate $5,150,938.50.
 Page 3
Project Transit Costs and Revenues:

The following Project Items are attributable to Transit based on the awarded low bid;
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Mobilization (39% of Project)
Clearing and Grubbing
Topsoil
Irrigation System
Plant Material and Mulch
Sidewalk De-Icing (Snowmelt system)
Architectural Relief Tiles (Art)
Salvage Bus Stop Shelter (6 existing shelters refurbished
for reuse elsewhere in City)
Concrete Sidewalk
Relocate Bus Shelter to Ozman Building
Grade Beam Restoration at Plummer Building
Waste and Recycling Receptacles
Bus Shelter 1
Bus Shelter 2
Bus Shelter 3
Bus Shelter 4
Bus Shelter 5
Electric Power System
CCTV System (Security cameras)
Shelter Work (Rehab existing 2nd Avenue Shelter)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54,600
5,000
11,072
8,400
2,386
56,790
5,600
39,600
$167,708
$ 50,000
$ 20,000
$ 16,200
$275,000
$286,000
$286,000
$287,000
$287,000
$ 14,722
$ 27,413
$ 35,000
TOTAL BID TRANSIT COST
$1,934,991
TOTAL TRANSIT REVENUES
$2,010,734
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost from Feasibility Report
$1,826,035
The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost from the Feasibility Report for each shelter was
determined as follows:







General Conditions; (Overhead and Profit, Contingency, Cost Escalation)
Site Work & Demolition; (perimeter drain tile)
Concrete; (footings, walls, piers)
Masonry; (limestone veneer, cast stone caps, eco block artwork)
Metals; (structural steel, roof support members, misc fabrications, metal studs)
Woods & Plastics; (treated blocking, exterior plywood)
Thermal & Moisture Protection; (foundation waterproofing, fascia & soffit
$
$
$
$
$
$
$



panels, membrane roofing, roof sheathing, flashing, insulation, chalking)
Glazing; (fixed glazing, glass panel roof, removable glazing, glass art work)
Finishes; (Misc. painting, powder coating of exposed steel)
Specialties; (Transit signage, electronic message boards, CCTV)
$ 39,670
$ 3,200
$ 33,000
 Page 4
47,323
800
22,800
47,000
31,480
3,000
41,100


Furnishing; (bench seat backs, trash and recycling receptacles)
Electrical; (wiring, light fixtures, electric radiant heaters, timers)
TOTAL estimated cost for each shelter
$ 5,000
$ 11,200
$285,573
Conclusion:
 Significant public input was sought for the features to be included in the design of
the downtown bus shelters.
o Survey of transit system users
o Design Committee
o Public Information Meeting Open House
 Design Committee establishes Goal and Objectives for the design and function of
the downtown bus shelters many of which impacted the shelter cost.
o Clearly identify the project area as a transit hub.
o Provide a distinct architectural identity for the transit hub that is compatible
with the existing architecture.
o Create an attractive and comfortable streetscape experience.
o Create a well lit and secure environment where transit users feel safe
waiting for their bus, regardless of the time of day.
o Provide general transit information and real time schedule information in
formats and locations convenient to transit users.
o Integrate art into the functional elements of the Project (shelters, lighting,
furnishings, etc).
o Maximize the use of limited pedestrian areas and reduce clutter through the
integration of streetscape elements, whenever possible.
o Utilize durable high quality materials, with attention to service and
maintenance needs incorporated into the design process.
 The Project as designed and constructed meets the goal and objectives set by the
Design Committee.
 City Council receives and approves three (3) separate RCAs with information on
the cost of the downtown bus shelters.
 The downtown bus shelters were funded entirely with federal transit funds. No
local tax levy funds were used to construct the shelters.
 Page 5