Our project is composed of three common modes of transportation, including a load-bearing member, so creating a non-traditional, very energy-efficient, environmentally friendly, space-saving transportation hub was our main motivation.

We chose the bridge as our central hub and the other three structures as auxiliary hubs.

As we all know, the cable car is mainly used as a viewing vehicle, with a slower speed and a higher altitude, and is mainly used by pedestrians or tourists.

Bridges serve as lower-altitude transportation for vehicles, pedestrians, and even trains.

As a high-speed mode of transportation, trains allow pedestrians to reach their destinations quickly.

---

 

Combining the above points, when we want to build a transportation hub that occupies a small area and saves resources, I have designed the following three combinations:

1, The combination of bridge and cable car:

The pylone of the cable car can be used as the pillar of the bridge at the same time;

2, The combination of bridge and retaining wall:

Retaining walls can also serve as support for bridges;

3, Combination of bridge and track:

Where the bridge deck can support the railway track.

---

 

In order to achieve an analysis of the above three combinations, first we need a complete list of materials:

 

Brick	brick	1	3.56	0.271	0.05	0.1	0
Cement	RC	167	3.26	0.822	0.177	0.065	0
Fly Ash	RC	56	0	0.0025	0	0.78	0
Coarse Aggregates	RC	1127	0.0035	0.016	0.0018	0.0018	0
Fine Aggregates	RC	831	0.0023	0.0053	0.009	0.009	0
Reinforcement	RC	135	2430	225	0.71	1.85	0
Steel	steel	1	2430	225	0.71	1.85	0
Cement	RC	167	3.26	0.822	0.177	0.065	0
Fly Ash	RC	56	0	0.0025	0	0.78	0
Coarse Aggregates	RC	1127	0.0035	0.016	0.0018	0.0018	0
Fine Aggregates	RC	831	0.0023	0.0053	0.009	0.009	0
Reinforcement	RC	135	2430	225	0.71	1.85	0
Cement	PRC	504	3.26	0.822	0.177	0.065	0
Coarse Aggregates	PRC	1050	0.035	0.016	0.0018	0.0018	0
Fine Aggregates	PRC	555	0.0023	0.0053	0.009	0.009	0
Brick	BR	880	2.73	0.232	0.02	0.002	0
Cement	BR	60	3.26	0.822	0.177	0.065	0
steel cable	SH	78.5	121413.6	56005.35	0	106.967	12.01593
steel	steel	78.5	121413.6	56005.35	0	106.967	12.01593
concrete	RC	25	5.7487	3.67245	0	0.00542	0
cement	RC	16	93.76	77.12	0	0.12624	0.014176
Polyester resin laminated part (GFRP, 30% glass fibres)	SA	1400	2327.22	6421.94	0	9.3856	0
Polyethylen hoher Dichte	FH	2100	106960.4	30736.02	0	137.9753	0
Ballast	BT	1127	0.0035	0.016	0.0018	0.0018	0
Asphalt Cement	BT	167	3.26	0.822	0.177	0.065	0
Steel	BT	1	2430	225	0.71	1.85	0
Steel	RH	1	2430	225	0.71	1.85	0
Steel	ST	1	2430	225	0.71	1.85	0
Wood	ST	56	0	0.0025	0	0.78	0
Cement	FST	504	3.26	225	177	65	0
Fine Aggregates	FST	831	0	0.01	9	9	0
Steel	FST	1	2430	225	0.71	1.85	0

 

---

---

 

The following result is then calculated based on the basic cost:

---

	CO2	NOX	SO2	costs
Steel Pylone as column	691787	283325	661228	1.77
PRC-Wall as column	16602880	1572364883	15869462	42.5
FST-deck as abutment	691786.7	65515203	661227.6	1.77

---

---

---

Combined with the above analysis, we can get that the retaining wall as a bridge support will cost a lot and produce relatively more polluting gases, we can no longer consider this scheme, but the emission results and cost of the other two schemes are very good. It can be seen that in the analysis of the overall LCA, the transportation hub can fully meet our energy-saving and environmental protection requirements and purposes.