Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1994, 2 - OPTIONS FOR LOCATING ACCESS TO THE JENNIFER STREET BRIDGE FROM THE WEST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD. �9plm n MEETING DATE: � WlVyll���l 1p�pll city of sa l luis oBispoi DECEMBER 13, 199 ITEM NUMBER: uUUUIII COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Z FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Direct&T'� Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT: Options for locating access to the Jennifer Street Bridge from the west side of the railroad. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Consider the recommendations of the Bicycle Committee and, by motion, authorize staff and consultants to pursue access Option #1 (access near the southern end of Osos Street). A. REPORT IN BRIEF The design of the pedestrian-bicycle bridge crossing the railroad at Jennifer Street is going forward. Staff seeks City Council direction on locating access to the bridge from the west side of the railroad. When making this decision, the Council should consider possible future changes to the area's pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation. This report evaluates three access options. The City Council should choose one of these options or identify a preferred alternative. B. DISCUSSION 1. Background of Bridge Project The City received a $400,000 Proposition 116 grant to build a bicycle-pedestrian bridge across the railroad near Jennifer Street. The purpose of the bridge is to provide convenient bicycle and pedestrian access from the Ella Street neighborhood and a planned bicycle path along the east side of the railroad to the downtown. Bridge Location: The City hired RRM Design Group to establish a specific bridge location and prepare preliminary and final construction plans. A questionnaire was distributed to and received by 696 area households asking residents to identify their preferred crossing location for the bridge. A neighborhood meeting was also held at the triangular park on Osos Street on August 11, 1994. RRM received 118 responses to the survey — a 17% response. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the residents responding to the survey supported the need to construct a bridge over the railroad. Seventy-two percent (72%) indicated that they would ride a bicycle or walk more often after a bridge is constructed. While five different bridge locations were identified and received varying levels of resident support, the Jennifer Street location by far received the greatest support. (Reference Exhibit "A" for summary results of the neighborhood survey.) Both staff and consultants believe that the Jennifer Street crossing best serves the needs of area residents and provides convenient access from the planned railroad bicycle path. Unless the Council provides alternative direction, the staff and consultants will proceed with designing a bridge at the Jennifer Street location. z-� City of San WI S OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Design Specifics: RRM Design Group is continuing to work with Southern Pacific Railroad to establish • the precise location for bridge piers within the railroad area. A ramping system that uses the Jennifer Street right-of-way is being pursued for access from the east side of the railroad. Establishing an access point on the west.side of the railroad warrants Council direction. The location of this access point raises questions about the relationship between the bridge and connections to existing or potential bicycle-pedestrian routes in the area and vehicle circulation. 3. Related Transportation Issues (a) Osos Street Bikeways. The Bicycle Transportation Plan does not identify bicycle routes to the downtown from the south (see attached Exhibit B). The Bike Plan suggests that bikeway options for Osos Street be further studied. The Circulation Element designates Osos Street as a truck route and an Arterial Street. If Osos Street is to be used as a bikeway, bicyclists would either have to share the traffic lanes with vehicles (Class III route) or curb parking would need to be removed from one or both sides of the street and bike lanes installed (Class II lanes). Both of these options were considered and rejected by the City Council in 1993. (b) Neighborhood Traffic Cahning. The City has received complaints about traffic speeds on Santa Barbara-Oros Street. People are concerned about the safety of pedestrians crossing the road to access neighborhood services. Some have suggested that devices be installed to slow traffic down. Others have suggested that stop signs or signals be installed to provide gaps in the flow of traffic to make it easier for pedestrians to cross. A comprehensive traffic calming approach could make the street more comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists which could warrant its designation as a Class III bike route. However, traffic calming is not recommended for arterial streets. The Circulation Element identifies the Osos Street corridor as part of a larger area for which a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan will be prepared. The management plan will identify strategies for dealing with traffic speed, pedestrian-bicycling safety, and traffic intrusion or diversion within the area. (c) —Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard. Creating a Bicycle Boulevard on Morro Street was considered by the City Council and rejected when the bike plan was being adopted. A bicycle boulevard may necessitate the installation of some type of stop controls at the Santa Barbara Street - Morro Street intersection. Through vehicle traffic on Morro Street would be blocked, the stop signs removed and through bicycle traffic encouraged. Morro Street is a lightly-used local street that could provide direct bicycle access to the downtown. It could also link up with bike lanes on Marsh Street with connections to north city areas. (d) The Santa Barbara-Santa Rosa Street Connection. The Circulation Element includes the following program statement: 8.13 During Fiscal Year 1995-96, the City will evaluate the feasibility of establishing an arterial street connection between Santa Barbara Street and the south end of Santa Rosa Street. z-z 411111111� ity of San Luis OBlspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT If this street connection is eventually made, traffic levels in the railroad square area could significantly change. The analysis of this street connection should be combined with the preparation of the area's Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan because it could significantly change neighborhood traffic patterns and shift traffic impacts. (e) Extension of the San Diegan. Expanded passenger rail service is expected to begin in the Fall of 1995. A layover facility (a siding where the train is serviced over night) will be constructed adjacent to- and east of the existing railroad tracks across from the AMTRAK passenger terminal. The construction of the layover facility may increase conflicts between trains and pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the rail yard. It has been staff's goal of pursue the completion of the Jennifer Street bridge to remove the potential for these conflicts. Choosing an access option must be done with some understanding of all the transportation issues affecting the area. Since these background issues will take some time to resolve, the bridge access solution chosen at this point should be capable of working under a variety of future conditions. C. CONCURRENCES The Bicycle Committee is scheduled to consider this issue at its quarterly meeting on December 8, 1994. The Committee's recommendations and input will be orally presented to the City Council at its December 13th meeting. A written memorandum of the Committee's actions has been placed in the City Council's red file prior to the December 13, 1994 meeting. D. FISCAL IMPACTS The City has received a $400,000 state grant to fund this project. Refined cost estimates will be made as the design of the bridge proceeds. It is likely that a supplement to the project's budget will be needed to construct it. Staff will be presenting more information concerning project cost as part of the draft FY 1995-96 budget. Regarding the various access options: Option #1 may reduce access costs since part of the bridge and ramps could be located within the Osos Street right-of-way and on City-owned land. Option #2 might involve additional right-of-way costs since the alignment of the bridge would not be within an existing right-of-way. Option#3 may involve additional right-of-way costs if the ramps extending toward Morro Street encroach on railroad land. Options #1 and #2 will require the removal of some-parking from the lot in back of Cafe Roma Restaurant (a maximum of about 10 spaces). Land costs could increase if these parking spaces are replaced on property currently owned by Southern Pacific. Option #3 may remove about 3 parking spaces but would probably not involve additional land costs. z-3 ��► ► �hill�ll���U�U City 4 San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT There is little difference in the construction cost of each of the three access options. There may be some differences in right-of--way costs depending on the extent of railroad property affected. E. ALTERNATIVES Staff and RRM Design Group have identified three alternatives for locating access to the bridge on the west side of the railroad. The pros and cons of each are provided on the following pages. Staff and the consultants are recommending Option #1 (access from the southern end of Osos Street) because it provides a very visible access point and can be adapted to serve a variety of future circulation conditions in the area. OPTION #1 DIRECT OSOS STREET ACCESS Construct a bridge with access from the west near the southeastern end of Osos Street. Pros Cons ❑ Most visible pedestrian ❑ Remote from Morro Street if developed access location which as bicycle boulevard. fosters safety ❑ Direct access to Railroad ❑ Encourages bicycle use of Osos Street Square area facilities which is a truck route and bus route ❑ Current informal access routing ❑ Will remove a maximum of 10 parking spaces for Ella Street neighborhood along the east edge of Railroad Square parking lot residents ❑ Bikes& Peds have clear route to/from the downtown(Oros Street) and the north City (Santa Rosa Street) ❑ Will allow for extension to the south if a bicycle boulevard is created on Morro Street ❑ Minimizes conflicts with the railroad and land costs ❑ H the Santa Barbara-Santa Rosa connection is made, bicyclists and pedestrians would cross at a "T" intersection. ❑ Southbound bicyclists can use existing left tum pocket on Santa Barbara Street at the triangular park to gain access. z-y •r. .• - �.- .,,,�.. • � i y iL'.'�t � �L4lZ �•M .` �' y/^'lti {S � 4 \ ,�r(.v N� �?~ `■fit` C,�� •'t� eft . � �� �� - ,�, .y � .r to './ �� mei►• ;L.. V �.,. 7 'J4 Vit. ;{� ?",e •.� \ '+�" qL �I, t��II=�=�I�� ',1� _��jyyys ,r�/•. f �f r' �� 4'''. Ater r°' •�.-�s�a• � ` .. _ � �i -' `� / -b;z v Y S Via- t � � ..I � MLR - y`. �� • * ��, � / p V� :. � f V .f0 �` � :� ry `1' • 'y.+v� ��� .r �. 7 f" _ 'lrrt[�` r ���� '��, A�"r4�,•' � •. �...: �,. ��L �� � R "rte '� .?�i ��� �+�4�� ..t.5 - S'�► r• ♦ ' "'JT W PA law ._ ' Is 61 '. Pia a f )RIP df h' t , n. •F tt V l•AL ' J • `- }`T -� ,. t 4 yam..,-•��a ♦ Y 111111111I110111 ill city of San WI S OBI SPO - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OPTION #2 ACCESS TO RAELROAD SQUARE PARKING LOT Construct a bridge with access from the west at the southern end of the Railroad Square parking lot. Pros Cons ❑ Only minor diversion from ❑ Ped access point hidden behind building railroad square area facilities with reduced security ❑ Bilte connection to a possible ❑ More bicycle and pedestrian circulation in parking Morro Street bicycle boulevard lot is more obvious. Provides equal-length access to either ❑ Greater diversion of bicyclists who want to use Morro or Osos Street intersections Santa Rosa Street ❑ Could function as an interim ❑ If Santa Barbara Street- Santa Rosa Street solution until a Morro Street bike is implemented, would encourage mid-block boulevard is created crossings ❑ Southbound bicyclists can use ❑ Increased conflicts with railroad property and higher existing left turn pocket on Santa land costs Barbara Street at the triangular park to gain access ❑ Will remove a maximum of 10 parking spaces along the eastern edge of the Railroad Square parking lot ❑ Longer bridge may be needed to clear railroad areas and locate the western bridge pier on City property OPTION #3 CONNECTION WITH MORRO STREET Build a bridge within the existing Osos Street:right-of-way with access near Morro Street. Pros Cons ❑ Makes direct linkage with ❑ Requires pedestrians to divert 400 feet potential Morro Street bike to the south. Could encourage continued boulevard which is a much less illegal at-grade crossings congested route for bicyclists to access the downtown ❑ Significant diversion for cyclists who want to use Santa Rosa Street to connect with ❑ Enables bike and ped crossing north City areas at a stop controlled "T" intersection ❑ Increases costs due to the need to provide bicycle and pedestrian access from Santa Barbara Street. ❑ May require some changes to Santa Barbara Street (stop signs, left tum pocket or both) to allow southbound cyclists to access the bridge. ❑ An elongated ramp system may increase aesthetic imps WI, • t' �'�'S.�� J fi "� r� �y xS• � - . � �� 'd'• .•.Rr•fit . a� "® ' r. � il.iil���lY• 'JI � --fiyr .�1-- �♦♦♦♦♦ yr a �yµb -i� °hhy • `}�"' �r X` �• �' i _ 1 ..� It -'�' 4C � �Qv , .,7 '?S F .T_tom •"ylr�r— , i t ' .a'Y, , .n. _ � � y 4 r��� ". �yQ'.r.� x' � 1! 47�u, a r�l '�`�1i' ���rll r. ;. ♦ A�[ �' L Ali• �•J � .rt Sill 37 41 IAN IL WE ir _ �ic • • r '� r rr ♦,• •. .�j�,` ) �-O � • t-7 O♦♦ ?^J1.ur•�. � � fie•. V • • T'" � OTS ♦i 1,.-OC t i�'O T,i4 ♦4' + �i7T !' •1 ♦ /-{i. /t 4. VVV---R :a � 4f '�I ��-s � ♦<-O ,*rb 43P1 ♦ -�'1 .i � . 1 � � - r+ 1[c iii` ,r, ` ' .. 7,1 419 . � 1 ♦ a � � �'.�# �:� ,.per �F"t J � .x•1 f ' 1► ti i � � 1 • � `~wm a.,�'��� a`J �'d� .�ti.�'�oi Fy 7 �(_y '` ,1 � i� '� ...�r ,i. ��' �'k`^",:. .r'^• 7v��,� a %\ a, -mss � �-�-�-�-�� 1 '4• s1kL,fi ,N � r; fes', 1 1 C ( Y • 1 3. r��^,^. a.,� w)�7L7 S • 'r j t!�i-.. �L` � �^y. . I etii / Y.-i `r,.' Al OF c i { ♦ •`l: �� � �}} ` ' �..rid ` �'� - ,. • �a<K _ ;rte �i'4 44 y . �, � '. t a ` Yai• +a4: +; .y. {, .t' •� �Y/ S'i•-r let '. • �y�'`{ it ..v� �, ny V'=mow yn, y - � - S!r '+" ♦ - if .7 • .~ • •t' ol•r r i S :t • �• � i ��� yi'��,SpFti '.� �.~ ''�'R.4TYx`'_d'1S'+n-Y III l ,s e j iron T.a Y�.�.'• :. "y • T .r �..r _ w •g r' uF7 - ���I" � A• 'r` � ` � ,� .i l `F�1�C.c'S L•�, 'moi r�'y. - .•::r 1 .. t • ti IC k r. - _•cif !1' e i •'.'y ;S� 1 � ♦ „T 1' ����ii�►�►�IVIIIIIII�II►���U�I1 city of San Luis OBisPO 4i;% COUNCIL-AGENDA REPORT It is possible to combine Option #1 with Option #3 to provide for direct access to both Osos Street and to the Santa Barbara - Morro Street intersection. The Osos Street connection could be constructed as a first phase (Option#1) with the pier holding up the ramps designed to accommodate additional ramps at a future date. If a bicycle boulevard is created on Morro Street in the future, additional ramps could be added (with additional cost). For additional comments on the three options presented above, reference attached Exhibit C, a memorandum from Mr. Dean Benedix, RRM's project engineer. ATTACEMIENTS Exhibit A: Summary Results of Neighborhood Survey Exhibit B: 1993 Bikeways Map (from adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan) Exhibit C: November 28th Memorandum from Mr. Dean Benedix, RRM Design Group v60 _..,. EXN► w i r co� IN o _... . p . cea�' �`°� ��j► •�S e . 5��e tea`��`�'� � ? `��� �0 c CI* Terrace Hill 541•.Cn 4-0 _ a d - m — m : Rachel 3•r� i �• . !Q S eet m • `D Cto ylv(aFledr fit o : : 3 K% ORNE 5 Ave. Fie aSo Q ;SOth UTH • St. 5 n Carlos v ..+ • _L1 wE:asR:+:fR'+Pi.:::ryke•i::YY:::.ai:zi;ik.i }:h?nIYY\.:U::iy:WX>i:n.'..iF:\tt",.::a>:,3i' , , R AARUig. ENNIFE STREET= RIDGEQUESTYO. i RE:. �a ;•A.. ,:.r::.y s o�6i.:ti; Yk;4'.`k:si<:.3.. .'k '&iY`7(u qs'a is'.`.�o$.'w.Li" )::::�:F:. a' p. i''3.>�.3:&� V...': 'Y.;... ^;: ni:Yf.ty...Y...�.> Vs:x'C.v� : , ri'.n>c::>i:::: >:.�,::...: ..'. .::.x..'�,v.... .,;i�: Aso entemier::7<:;1 a't}:��<::;. �< . .+a .L .�<r...: � 4io ..q,. ,YAAet} ,.ti::.>:.�. w.t:. ...�:`".,., � ::xi,ri.::..x'-i:•..x;>'-r.:Si•: x.i':::, ,�::;.^,iil?[k::: :lq 'Y...: .ibi::.%.yt��•}.�',..,Yr n.iriy ,s:. .•A�%kkt:'sif:: �>C:v-::'.,\:%.da:y;`:.:i:.:':?.t:i':.Sbg::.x;9... y.x:>7.t.. ::aL3o-`:xJ: ,:.Yt.:..}Si;.. •y<.>.. <�a:" Received i;i.7590�"":QU,:meste�•id,b/S�;.n, *NIM �< ± ih'€:kR;} rry,17%::} kiY:•:.;:'.> i:;wxmERYi:axavnvoo::�:rdko»::aaozwo-sy>:a}e>r,Rm�v ::.:"?#:. RESPONSES SITE NuME8 STREET NAm NuM33ER PERCE-TrAGE #1 Henry Street 28 24% #2 Jennifer Street SS 47% #3 Swazey Street 12 109ro #4 Penny Lane 10 8% #5 Rachel 10 8% No bridge None 3 3% Z-io w - F W LL( E- CQ r4 U W d d d d a a E. ZI ra W d W O W O 11' E- W o -!t U N)N rE--4Flu , I W C!2 ' 1 101 4 .1 —1 I r ^ b 1 - - { 10J t I' "J C/_ l !I d J J A I I � /\ 1� b yl F II J IJ 0 < V N 11/28/94 14:52 1®'805 543 4809 RRM DESIGN GROUP 1@001 1r-� 7— i.: , --� ,.. �; ... , 20y . i K R M U E S 1 G N G R O U P An•1li MM.•Pla?mvlg FJk0WMMq Intaiars-[aruT:aW l mr &dura MEMORANDUM Date: November 28, 1994 To: Terry SaavMe City of San Luis Obispo - Via FAX@ 781-7198 From: Dean Benedix Job Name: Jennifer Street Job No.: E94823 Re: Jennifer Street Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge Ramp Exit Circulation This memo provides comments on three conceptual ramp egress options for your consideration and discussion with the City Council prior to our preparation of schematic bridge and ramp designs. As you directed on November 28, we will = provide sketch alternatives with this memo. Considerations for each alternative are: Ontion 1 (switch back with ramp egress to the north): May require no right-of-way from SPRR dependent upon alignment Project could be constructed without SPRR right-of-way assistance. • Egress centered around "huh" area of railroad station parking lot circle island, Osos Street east end terminus, and generally presenting egress toward the railroad station activities to the north of the ramp location. • The "feel" of this egress alternative is toward the center of activity of the railroad station area. • Provides most central egress for pedestrians and bicycles with destinations south, west and north. a Minimum bridge span length (+130') uecessary at location of minimum railroad right-of-way span- 0 Most cost effective ramp construction. a Minimum backtracking of ultimate destination for users. • Visually protected from Osos Street viewshed. yab$nuih 11feuera!'w"t,.'.an Luis Miga.Q1if6mia 9)461 "e!/!•1-=7% xoax-a:eh Sm:es,Mwlcaar,Colifumia ySJi� wy�31i 7'J4 A t:144mea un..anvw,Yuar SW,fat,M.Arlbt,.n.Y„-r w.-Yn,u,nM, z�z 11/28/94 14:52 $805 SA" 4809 RRM DESIGN GROUP 1@002 Mr. Terry Sanville Page 2 November 28, 1994 Option 2 (perpendicular to right-of-way crossing - northerly egress): • Requires ±20' additional bridge length due to wider overall crossing. Requires obtaining right-of-way from SPRR for bridge alignment to construct outside of Jennifer Street existing right-of-way. 0 Egress from north end of parking lot requires backtracking to north for northerly bound destinations. • May require reconfiguration of existing parking lot aisle at sough end due to 24' ramp landing width. • More ramp structure hidden by Railroad Square buildings as viewed from Osos Street viewshed than Option 1. • Suggests egress to the south toward Morro Street, although a significant distance (±200') from Santa Barbara Street • Increased cost due to extended bridge length. • Same impact to existing parking spaces as Option 1. Ogtion (straight ramp - south egress): • Visually excessive ramp length of approximately 360 feet • Requires extensive backtracldng for northerly bound destinations from egress point • May encroach into potential Santa Barbara Street to Santa Rosa Street circulation connection. • May likely have most minimal or no effect upon existing parking spaces on the City parking lot • May require the most extensive casement from the railroad depending on location (i.e. if outside of City owned property area). + Nominal cost differences from Options 1 & 2. . • Egress terminus point at a relatively remote location adjacent to vacant railroad yard area. • Increases the disturbed soil area beyond that of Options 1 & 2. z-�3 11/28/94 14:5 '2805 541 4609 RRM DESIGN GROUP 2003 Mr. Terry Sanville Page 3 November 28, 1994 a Closest immediate egress point to Santa Barbara and Morro Street intersection, i.e. within 60 feet of street right-of-way. It appears that the maximum number of parldng spaces in the City lot which could be effected would be ten, dependent upon the availability or success of obtaining railroad easement property. These spaces would be effected in Options 1 and 2. Option 3 would likely effect a maximum three spaces because the ramp superstructure would be elevated above any spaces below. It is our recommendation that Option 1 be designated for the beneficial reasons stated above. Initial schematic review work indicates that the total length of ramp on the west side is approximately 360 lineal feet including five foot long ramps at every five foot vertical grade change. Attached is UBC Section 3106A(f) regarding pedestrian grade separations. This provides an exception when the grade differential or the walking surface of a grade separation exceeds 14 feet due to required height clearance and grade conditions. The enforcing agency may find that because of right-of-way restrictions, topography, or natural barriers where wheelchair accessibility would create an unreasonable hardship, such accessibility need not be provided. Slopes could be increased to one vertical to eight horizontal with a five foot maximum rise requirement for a five foot minimum length landing. Tbis results in a ramp slope of approximately 1212%, and could reduce the ramp length and likely the construction cost by approximately 20%. For example a 1:8 slope would require 260 feet of ramp instead of the 360 feet indicated above. The magnitude of cost reduction is in the range of $40,000 based on the initial assumptions of the project costs. It may be timely to provide information to the City Council requesting their input as to the use of the slopes in this condition. cc: Nolte and Associates (Steve Hiatt) Via FAX (916) 641.9222 Erik Justesen, RRM zJdb jenstsan P a • it � ■, — e;:: ��>���, �°• s FIE l Now MAC J _ ■■ �. ♦ o ♦ S •_. a ■■ 9.��i' �.�♦® .fir. � � , ell AM (I■i;����iwy�o oA�:��gWN� .. �rA pr _MM WNW, pr . � . ,, 4 c J -