This alternative focused on a smooth loop around the site for RVs to drive on. The design had one entry on the north side of the site which would lead to a one-way road that would loop around south, east, and then back north. It located all amenities in the middle of the loop as a common area for all spots. This alternative did not leave space for future expansion and had conflicts with the location of the septic tank and some pads.
This alternative features a half loop with entry points on north and south of the site. On the outside of the loop are four RV pads spread across the site. Within the loop are two extra RV pads and a common area that features a bathroom area, a gazebo, and multiple picnic tables. Also in the south east corner of the site is a parking lot for personal vehicles. This design’s primary flaw came with the RV pads within the loop as placing them there isn’t practical. Additionally, the pads being perpendicular to the main road isn’t convenient and is difficult to navigate.
Alternative three was designed to balance site expansion with efficient use of space. It included minor adjustments to the roadways and RV pad layout to allow for future growth while maintaining accessibility. Drainage and green property features were incorporated without significantly altering the natural landscape. However, this alternative prioritized practicality and expansion over aesthetics or amenities.
Alternative four focused on long-term expansion potential. Its redesigned layout created space for additional RV pads or future infrastructure. Roadway modifications were also made to support easier expansion. However, this alternative placed less emphasis on landscaping and aesthetics.
Alternative five was a loop design, focused on achieving a high capacity while also fulfilling all other needs of the client. Users will enter from the south entrance, looping to exit from the north entrance, and backing into their spots. The loop road is designed to be as wide of a turn as possible, while also fitting pads along the East side of it before the wash. Finally a space for a bathroom was made next to the road in the common area, and space for a laundry room was saved next to the road near the well housing, with plans for their design to be developed later.
To evaluate the different design options for this project, a decision matrix was used to break everything down in a clear and structured way. This approach helped us compare each design objectively based on the factors that mattered most to the project and the client. Following the decision matrix evaluation, alternative five was chosen as the final design for the project due to its ability to maximize capacity, provide essential facilities, and allow for future expansion.
Back TO TOP
The layout guarantees that the location can support the necessary quantity of RV pads while preserving usability and accessibility. The roadway plan has been adjusted to guarantee smooth traffic flow, and site improvements have been made to improve operation without needlessly disturbing the land.
Back TO TOP
The combined construction and lifecycle costs offer a clear view of the project’s total financial footprint, from initial build to long-term maintenance and future replacements. Construction remains the largest cost, factoring in labor, materials, installation, and equipment rental. While site amenities and solar panels come at a relatively lower cost, earthwork demands more resources due to the use of heavy machinery and the high cost of importing suitable soil. Concrete work represents the most significant expense, with over $200,000 allocated to RV pads themselves. Road and sidewalk construction followed, totaling more than $260,000. The final construction cost comes to around $750,000.
