HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/1996, 2 - ESTABLISHING A PREFERRED ALIGNMENT FOR THE EXTENSION OF BISHOP STREET TO CONNECT WITH SOUTH STREET WEST OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD. QHipl�p�ll���l�ll�� T MEETING DATE:
city of san tui s osi spo � -5-9-6
u I c�`"'77
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director '
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner ('
SUBJECT: Establishing a preferred alignment for the extension of
Bishop Street to connect with South Street west of the
Southern Pacific railroad.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: After receiving report from the City's transportation
consultant, by motion:
A. Support the Conclusions and Recommendations of
the Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis
Interim Report (which recommends alignment
Option B-1 or possibly B-2 using Santa Barbara
Street and Roundhouse Avenue); and
B. Authorize CCS Engineering to proceed with the
second phase of the traffic impact analysis of the
Broad Street Plaza project.
L REPORT IN BRIEF
CCS Engineering has completed a report that evaluates five optional alignments for connecting
Bishop Street east of the railroad with South Street at Broad Street (Route 227). Two of the
alignment options would pass through vacant land just south of the.City's new headquarters fire
station and connect to Bishop Street via an overpass (Option A-1) or an underpass (Option A-2)
at the railroad. Three other alignment options would use Santa Barbara Street and Roundhouse
Avenue to connect with Bishop Street via an underpass at the railroad (Options B-1, B-2, and B-
3).
The Consultant recommends that the City Council endorse alignment Option B-1 and possibly
B-2.
II. DLSCUSSION
A. BACKGROUND
1. Selecting A Street Alignment. In November, 1994,the City Council adopted the General
Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element recommends that South Street be extended
to connect with Bishop Street as a two-lane residential collector street (reference Figure#4, page
28, item A.6).
city of San Wit; OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
During the public hearings to adopt the Circulation Element,the Public Works staff recommended
that South Street should connect to Bishop Street via Santa Barbara Street and Roundhouse
Avenue. The City Council decided not to include a specific alignment in the Circulation Element
-- leaving the decision to an unspecified later date.
Albertson's Stores wants to build a shopping center (Broad Street Plaza) on vacant land fronting
the east side of Broad Street between the City's new fire station and MidState Bank. A
preliminary site plan of this project is available in the City Council office for review. The
developers are asking the City to abandon right-of-way for South Street that extends east of
Broad Street toward the railroad. Using this existing right-of-way to extend South Street to
connect with Bishop Street will not allow the proposed shopping center to be built. Conversely,
building the shopping center will limit the City's options for making the South-Bishop Street
connection.
Now is the time for the City Council to make a decision on a preferred street alignment so that
processing of the Broad Street Plaza project can proceed or be terminated. The Council also has
the option of reconsidering the desirability of the South-Bishop Street project and initiating
pertinent changes to the Circulation Element to delete it.
2. Hiring a Consultant to Study the Issues. On December 6, 1995, the City Council
authorized the CAO to sign a contract with CCS Engineering to prepare a traffic impact study
and circulation analysis. The study is being paid for by Albertson's Stores while the consultant
is under contract with the City of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Mike Kennedy is the project manger
for CCS Engineering and has significant experience in San Luis Obispo working on the City's
Circulation Element (as project manager for DKS Associates).
Public Works staff worked with the developers, Caltrans officials and the traffic consultant to
prepare a scope of work for the study which is divided into two parts:
❑ Phase 1 involves an analysis of alignment options for connecting South Street with Bishop
Street. The intent of this analysis is to present the City Council with pertinent
information needed to make an informed decision on selecting a preferred alignment.
❑ Phase 2 of the traffic study will evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed shopping
center and present specific mitigation measures. Phase 2 of the study should not be done
until the City Council decides on a South-Bishop Street alignment. If the Council
chooses an alignment that runs through the shopping center site (eg. Options A-1 or A-2),
the shopping center project will be abandoned and Phase 2 of the traffic study will not
be necessary.
3. A Brief History of the South-Bishop Street Extension Project Early planning of
residential subdivisions and planned developments in the Terrace Hill area assumed that Bishop
Street would someday connect with South Street west of the railroad. The Public Works
Department prepared an alignment for the right-of-way and railroad overpass. Over time,housing
projects were required to set back from this right-of-way although official building setback lines
= city of san WIS osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
were never adopted. In 1982, the City updated its Circulation Element. The Bishop-South Street
extension project was evaluated at that time but was not included in the Element adopted by the
City Council.
In 1994, as part of the Circulation Element's public hearing process, the City Council included
the Bishop-South Street extension project. The Council supported the project because it may
provide (1) convenient access between the Johnson Avenue neighborhood and the downtown and
Madonna Road shopping area, and (2) more direct emergency vehicle response to areas east of
the railroad from the new headquarters fire station. It was felt that providing improved
emergency access could reduce the need to retain the City's Fire Station on Laurel Lane.
The staff did not support the project because it will be expensive and may not carry significant
traffic (estimated to be 6,000 to 7,500 vehicles a day). The General Plan's EIR recommended
deleting the project because it will introduce disruptive traffic into residential areas east of the
railroad In certifying the final EIR and adopting the Circulation Element, the City Council
adopted a"statement of overriding considerations" for the Bishop-South Street connection project.
Once the Council decided to include the project in the draft Circulation Element, staff studied
the option of using Santa Barbara Street and Roundhouse Avenue as an alternate alignment with
an underpass constructed at the Southern Pacific Railroad. This routing was recommended to
the Council who decided not to identify a preferred alignment in the final Circulation Element.
B. EVALUATION
The evaluation of alignment alternatives is addressed in the Interim Report prepared by CCS
Engineering -- attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Michael Kennedy will present the report's findings to
the.City Council at its March 5th meeting and will be available to answer questions.
The Consultant concludes that alternatives B-1 and possibly B-2 (that utilize a Santa Barbara
Street and Roundhouse Avenue alignment) are superior to alternatives that extend South Street
directly eastward toward the railroad (alternatives A-1 and A-2) because:
❑ They avoid creating a very large intersection at Broad Street and complicating traffic
operations at that location.
❑ They may have fewer land use, visual and access impacts.
❑ They may be less costly to implement (depending on the extent and cost of removal of
contaminated material from the railroad area).
Should the Council take the recommended action at its March 5th meeting, the Consultant will
complete the second phase of the traffic analysis which evaluates the specific traffic impacts of
the Broad Street Plaza project. The Consultant recommends that the City defer a final decision
on a preferred "B" alignment (either B-1 or B-2) until completion of Phase 2 of the traffic
operations analysis.
�-3
°1N° I��II�UI����1I�III city of san Lkis osispo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Once the consultant makes final recommendations for which "B" alignment is appropriated after
the completion of Phase 2 of the traffic analysis, the staff will bring forward an amendment to
the General Plan Circulation Element to include the recommended alignment and preliminary
design for the street connection.
II. CONCURRENCES AND OTHER AGENCY COM114ENT
The draft report was reviewed by Chief Neumann of the Fire Department. Chief Neumann
primary concern is that any option selected by the City Council not cause traffic to block the
driveway to the Headquarters Fire Station on Santa Barbara Street. The consultant's report
indicates that Option B-1 would not cause the driveway to be blocked and that option B-2 could
work with a phasing of the traffic signals that control the Broad-South-Santa Barbara Street
intersection. Also, City fire vehicles will have the ability to preempt normal traffic signal
phasing at this intersection to ensure access.
A copy of the report was sent to Caltrans District 5 officials. Staff reviewed the alignment
options with Mr. Abe Delgato of Caltrans. Mr. Delgato indicated that Caltrans would have
problems with Options A-1 and A-2 (extending South Street) since adding a fifth leg to this
intersection (which currently operates at Level of Service D) will require additional signal
phasing and result in additional congestion and traffic delays on other links of this intersection.
Mr. Delgato indicated that Option B-3 came the closest to providing a workable option, although
there are traffic safety concerns (weaving movements for northbound Broad-to-Santa Barbara
Street vehicular and bicycle traffic) that may be difficult to resolve.
M. FISCAL UKPACTS
In itself, giving tentative approval to a preferred street alignment will not have a direct fiscal
impact on the City. An indirect fiscal impact may be felt if the Council selects an street
alignment that limits the extent of revenue-generatingdevelopment on vacant land west of the
railroad.
Eventual construction of the South-Bishop extension project will have significant fiscal impact
and most likely will require support by the City's General Fund. The capital cost of the project
varies depending on optional alignments and project configurations -- eg. whether to build an
overpass vs. an underpass at the Southern Pacific railroad. The interim report provides an
analysis of costs in its appendix with costs ranging from $6.7 million to $7.2 million.
The City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program identifies the Bishop-South Street extension project
as an eligible project. However, the TIF program assumed that the project would cost $4.3
million and that only 31% of this cost could be supported by traffic impact fees. Since the cost
estimates made by CCS Engineering are significantly higher ($6.7 to $7.2 million), the TIF
program's contribution to funding the project's construction would decrease from 31%to 19-20%
unless traffic impact fees are increased to make up the difference.
,2-�
���H�► ��I(IIlfl�pn ll�Ill MY Of San LuIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The South-Bishop extension project is not a part of the City's Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). Funding sources other than the TIF program needed to support 80% of the project's cost
have not been identified. Given lack of funding, limited eligible funding sources and higher
priority projects, construction is not expected in the foreseeable future.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:
1. Identify an Alternate Alignment Direct staff and consultant to study an alternate
alignment (Council to identify) not evaluated in the interim report. Staff does not see
any significant options at this point.
2. Not Take an Action: Decide not to select an alignment alternative at this time. The
issue would come up again at the conclusion of the second phase of the traffic impact
analysis of the Broad Street Plaza project (assuming the developers would proceed
without a Council decision).
3. Delete the South-Street Extension Project Direct staff to initiate an amendment to the
Circulation Element to delete the South-Bishop Street extension project.
4. Continue Action for Further Discussion
ATTACEMENI S
Exhibit A: Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis: Interim Report on Bishop
Street Alignment Alternatives (CCS Engineering, February, 1996)
02-.)
CITY CLERK MEMORANDUMY. ,��5�9� 2
:.::::,..:. Xx
:::::.X::::::.
xX
I..
March 6, 1996
TO: City Council
FROM: Kim Condon, Assistant City Cler
SUBJECT: BISHOP STREET EXTENSION
During last night's public hearing on the South Street/Bishop Street Connection, Dan Smith
presented a petition containing over 90 signatures declaring opposition to any Bishop/South
connection. A copy of the petition is available in the Council Office for inspection. The
original will be retained in the City Clerk's Office.
c: John Dunn, CAO
Ken Hampian, ACAO
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
G
7
is ���—✓,�—�� ���i �,s � �t, �9-�-�_�i�
Ll
/O 0 T-evor
- q
pal—�, f 2Z 8q L6CCZVCt' U SLa SyY 4�z7z -
�2.
P.
-yam--- - Sys- ;7z7- -
J.
z7-7� S�9� 7
;Z$. of �• � �' �3SZ tl i, de�lC v 5q-?
g - 2a 9 � Q Com- S 'f 4 8766
3 . -07 lllel,�p ate _ ����—
31. 6w . v
al�_7uLr `rA Cif.. -v Fcl
/ �s7
SLD 9�1-3-P/D6
3 cam= Sc� ss�9--�3
®
2 L73L
-3
y X35 b gy5 �\ Sk- q 54-5
Vie.
S_Lo
d)-� 7016 df/lb s Dr. 'Szo
313M — - — /�lS���ur�vs
vw -ic-ME
.
hq el C 64A
167
?J �3/�'(0 14 -
009P S SAY—d X37
- ,T
I
Ace,- XS1—l,,(�j .
l ( _
X313 G .nbc< ( tf1u _ /z�I J�. -/3- 7 Z�2 g
ZS-5' sn„�
33I_q v ,�ei� /07s Sacs
VIA&
JD
3(3
_3_`� 2 6 - - 5-43!:18 )0
AA 11
3 q� 183 sem,. �,,
`3�3��� �,=�-7'•�' l a 8 3_ ,J - - 5,I a - asai 7
'O;aA
7 GI
e
ii
i'
i.
,
17
/Pal
5�4 P/
b� viY� 0?, syy-3G3
- 033
i
7, � ►��Gti., �`( i �c?�/ Z �(i� � co -cam I� �{ S�(3- Gro G
le AS ULz Sclq- 7&,S
a
kIZ- 4e�-';I- T/fes /��3a vE c o.�.�scnotis
f 04 qI r�vo W cc.c� 3 — 3 — c7&
3 - 3 9�
1pooglogiSTau mo;o
,,4q-enb ail anj2swd00noD aqi agm of 8upaaw alp of awoD ,
OZOZ.read aii ur Arp jad salonlan
0009.10 asn paiaafwd a hien mnS io»ailoD lelluapisag
e io;anisuodxa ooi sl V IV 9L I`L S 3o isoo polewpsa oq]L
'(900101 Z6# HDS `b661
`isnSny `uodaa loeduq lquowuonnug leut3 :aouaiaja-d)
mog oMerJ anoadw[lou Ipm uopoauuoo pasodoid ai,l,
•poogjogqStau mb jo
digrnb a p jade dlleopuurwp wm uopoouuoo pasodoid aqs
:suos"m
2umollo;aii iol suopoauuoo iinoS/doislg a p of uopisoddo
uz paiaiie2 samisugls 68 Surncwgns am sioggStau ino)L :S1 I d.13 Q
13381S WIN 866
Sd38WUH3 113N003 A113 DIS :3a3HM
Wd 88U
ld
9661 `S H3HUW `AUGS3H1 :N3HM
•uoiiaauuoa glnoS/dogsig aql sumluoa
gaigm ivau.Iaig uoilulnaliD pasodoid
SjIu030.1 aql 3o u011dopu aqi 2uissa.ippe
fugDow iiauno3 )(I!:) aqa QNgjly :MOH
;;x:.'•i'�i^i.+�4:� .rti;in.::.::::...:vriikr
........ ..:................../.x•s J..n.:R...rv... "...:....n:w:'�::��::;:.....:::::J,:ti';:i::of�?:';'.Lk` c.fi:' ,::}Rr
,../ i..:.....�. ... .,...,. <
.E... ..
..�.::f...: ,.xi..}1::.k;:}�:{'+.;%:::..::... t�7:::,.:.:4:Y+s.33>:,k•. u4 £� ...C'.
r:+.4Y>Y..
......„R,.,...>....,u......,..:Y,..::::,...,... fi :r.. :i::......n,.s;..:.::.:'r 3;i;i. .....n.::.;.:..;{:.}:... a'•a..u:t
.:O
,:,y... ..:..:::..,..::,.:,4:4't:.n.::,..::.:::. .� w>•"3:.3 3:33:;2::4}}'r.. .::l:.:Ca.:...,..:..:4::.......:.::.:,::.:.:n. ,. ts.. .,Fl,`sRa:.
n•'is.x,.,,..: :.k.:.._:..:.,.�. :.f:.:,.:n:?':4:�. 4'84. ..,�J+;'in
v::
.....,.. ..:,:...:.,,k..,.}::.v:.:.i:.r +n.n,:a:R4::: ny.. J �:�.,R..1.tY.,.4.i4>:':i:.>':,"}f.v}::..i,n...:•....R:::..: ....,.n. :t;.3x t: ••
3L<:•�;;s;
.�. .:+4.t:.Q,} }4;^Jh,�C.p•i.,y.+4;,.,a£;,.
:f k2�:3k:^:3k;:;{{%�ri:::.1.:::o:•f•W::;::;h ;a\.4,.r,4,..J:>..',':4y/� M . GtG
....,+;./..:..;c:::•.::.:.t4.n..,��s'tR},r.�y ''''% '^'+k;i:.W,�:�,,:.�v(.•'`:i::,.t?'kx.:,�
Y.•.'<:. ..ri-:........:&"¢4.r..`i.Y;
:r:v.�..: ..): :.vY. +?:' :..bc.+6:::.3. r •a• ,.ps:;s�:
„{::.f.....+:t:
R....n`Y.�..
.r....4 ..CkC:. •i.i,y: 3}5:s.
/:
is
•.:4i;:! 'S•4 SkE s..:::: .. JJ.v.:F , ..F:. ..a�.:ff.....n:r.'r': ';�"':r"`; .;"..: .+
.�:.. 4�.:."�:v •.
FP.C; :4a .r:'f.' .:,'+�}s;`�'Y;:
"(,:...kJ4"''�.��.��.:w,> ^,"laSf.9. .a�,.
x.:
� :F .tr+b��, MO.
.f:i� :'Y,
•:f.'kk,..v.:
:
�4+3?,$�
:f>.,
N r>: 4. n.tn
F:.. ✓ .''ftxFJk,: :4v.
V.
t.
:rr J
3
}
a. %:.':V'4.; r is
i '
..... ..... ..":.. r., .�f i,t#'A�'�.:. },
.,.5.: ,JL.,. :}}}s..;...s: S.}:..f>::...: :� ..,�,r,.�.,.u:.:. ,. ��� ..tt,;^.r�'S;<"'+`':�:�.f'�C'^`++:¢�!
x:�:;:�.}s;•4,:,4.:.: `:f ^'•k. :<.}.:..R..h .,t�:r:+) �::4:t.:.: .f h3rn.,
4: �O:.n...., ,�
......i.R+/l.,tri, •;n:4t:n. ..v,; f.ix:•;J:'Ri'�i;"hY. C.YF..:iA:.f .i}}.:. 'Avsa
::.a:n:,,:4}} :.,r:6 ;:3::3:.;:4.Jt.;>F, .s•.,. :}5 }y:,N3.::::t;.:.t.;.n:.,:f':.. yf.+�':::..i;i v+:::}:K.:s...,..t.4::: }&, : "., ` tA.'$+ ..,D.:fd;:k
' ..�G.
:.v:::fnkn.:J:.'rn4 ":4�i}�.n, .n... xtr....:{Yne•.tf,:5:..::.::::3:.J:f.•::..ftief':}3.::.;.:.. ;:J:: i ..W: n4�'' n4::1.'4............:Y F: ::�:,
;l;v .tp:: V/'
:¢}Cn::.� '.SM1 y?�.•. �f .;�,r`,.
?�::::r;::�'.;:i"v.•4 S':4�,, a3:?: �'»;;u'<. > .,5: 't,f � .:l >„' '.(t
:h% ,3:
� JY
r:
.'3'yf. .JrFik!:?c:: ;y t:,; 'b:.,.,y,:a X,•,•J}rY. .,'£�+�.•+,.:.r;t
's� •Y
:1�:..•„ .,R�. ..
�'.
4Y,>4J:.. g., i' ;t. ✓• "e#:yte`'Ff. >r t '.:3 ';p k;' :.Lwx'44:4 '}<',`
i�.
r:.�tts�' � �'%�Y:f:i:..< :y' � 'lR Yvy4 4: tC `;l�i ]•vt;•.v'l�n�4 F', ..Y
,.',F�K<.n9'6f�`.J�iG%4.}}.::.,.c: . aRt'F;�� .4..{:v�:•: �b Y$:� ��.0 ;:'S,.'.:,.::v.�a ht�?:i �Y?<. P, .Y
r:33r2k:4xm � y:.;t SAY 9• k:� .��
:.:Y,.:4,..,:�� ..�k.: ::/..0 .,#..:.....,.v..:.:' .::xk t R.x :.:3:.:5 :k::::'F�:���>���',:.t.. :�,rE, h`•??.A .�,� f: �::
t':�.;.,::: r{9,`.F r:�.....N >3°i;�iin::,::�1 �::`.3:.......... Si �g .i;>,,.� •..2:•;s#$...a'. n Rt:#i b':
£:fr.i:.:.7.+.u.G.c,x:�.t, :4.tt:::,..::.Src.f},.....{'s:.::.: ca. f{' ...... r,r3'..n.. y� '�;•`” ..r.
} £ ..,:::::.,.:•.:. ::.::::c. S:. ....}::.J:::::::.};:4 �+s.. 4..';::;•n.� ::iRS.�3.N4CY
::.:::..:.::.. ............:..:... .nn..:::... y,..x.:v:::;.R•::4:;;,;,....::� ..:::... ,:..�i}nC`<k3:,;t:•R. 'fkti43t :S,,•,,::.c 3,}.n::,
`i.;.:;i}::f S.::,f't:...:�.: :..y .tkx,: :>A:': :.7:+�3:.. ::x7 'i:4•.r
i::::....:"
:::.:4i.... �' .33i�:4.:.:.,.+:: :..JES.:+ '•'tr \}
1 l • J
9661 `VI XiEcuga3
£L£9=£9b (80t)
Z.L 196 Vo 'esor ues
1 laails iayojy 06
•au) JAuedwo0 pue sewoyl.)Iaew
' gjIm uoilmoosse ui
' L60L-999 (OLS)
6£5ti6 V3 ';uowaJ=
' L al)ng �peoa poo6sO 080Zti
•ouI luuoaudua Pm 2u- --- -
SDD
Aq palipps
1
1
' odsigp sinq uz.S ;o Ate
' ioj pa.n=da.id
t
1
san.17OU QJJV luauiu2 TV 1000 .S dousig
podall tuo liolul
SISx'IvNv
.LDVJM DI3AVUL. Vzvgd ZEla.LS GVOWEI
t
City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza D-4k Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' Section 1
INTRODUCTION
1
This interim report documents the first phase of a traffic analysis of a commercial development
' proposed by Albertson's in San Luis Obispo. The proposed project, referred to as the Broad Street
Plaza, is located on the east side of Broad Street between South Street and Alphonso Street (see
Figure 1-1).
' The fust phase of the two-phase study addresses alternative alignments for a westerly extension of
Bishop Street to Broad Street, as specified in the City's adopted Circulation Element The Bishop
' Street extension would potentially impact the Broad Street Plaza development, depending on the
alignment followed
' A specific alignment has not been selected to date for the Bishop Street Extension but two conceptual
alternatives have been previously identified by city staff. The southerly alignment would connect
Bishop Street across existing railroad tracks directly into the existing Broad Street/South Street
intersection. This alignment would traverse the Broad Stmt Plaza project site, precluding the
development entirely. A more northerly alignment alternative would connect Bishop Street across
the railroad tracks to Roundhouse Street, which then connects to Santa Barbara StreeL This
' alignment would serve the Broad Street Plaza project site without traversing it, and hence is
compatible with its development.
This first phase study is intended to evaluate both previously identified roadway alignment alternatives
to assist the City of San Luis Obispo, with input from Caltrans, in selecting a preferred alignment.
If the southerly alignment is selected,no further traffic analysis is anticipated since it would preclude
the Broad Street Plaza development as currently proposed If the northerly alignment is selected, a
second phase traffic analysis will be conducted to address the potential impacts and mitigation of the
development.
' A third possible alternative,not addressed in this study,is to delete the Bishop Street extension from
the Circulation Element This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment which is beyond
' the scope of this analysis. However,it could potentially be selected as the preferred alternative if the
analysis indicates that neither alignment is feasible or acceptable to the City. In this case,the second
phase of analysis would consider impacts of the commercial development in the absence of the
' connection.
1
1
1
CCS Page I - 1
1 .
1
oa
sf
0
f
w
CO
In
r
' c.
Ca
CO
Y
'
Roundhouse N
d
C
L
South St. 2
1W m
o g;
3 oz`s
Funston p�Qr
' St. 4
1 �
O�
cPf
Legend
• 1 Study Intersection
1
' Figure
SITE VICINITYCCS
-
.:o a%projeom99eWO73%gl-l.flA
' C'ty of San Lis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Duffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
tSection 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1
The project area is served by Broad Street, South Street and Santa Barbara Street, all of which are
' arterial streets. Bishop Street currently terminates east of the project area but is proposed to serve
the area in the future. Below is a description of these routes.
' • Broad Street is four lanes wide with a two way center left turn lane adjacent to the project
site. South of South Street, Broad Street is designated as State Route 227 and continues as
a five lane arterial, providing access to the San Luis Obispo (SLD) airport and to the south
' County. Its fronting uses south of South Street are primarily commercial. North of South
Street,Broad Street continues for two short blocks as a five lane arterial but then narrows to
two lanes north of its intersection with Chorro Street. The two lane section is largely fronted
by homes and is classified as a Residential Arterial. Continuing north,Broad Street provides
access to the western side of downtown San Luis Obispo. Broad Street is a Principal Bicycle
Route along its full length, and bike lanes are striped along both sides near the project site.
Broad Street is also used by SLO Transit Routes l and 3.
• South Street extends from Broad Street to the west, and is designated as a continuation of
' State Route 227. Near Broad Street, South Street is four lanes wide and is fronted by a mix
of residential and commercial uses and a city park South Street does not continue east of
Broad Street. At Broad Street, South Street curves northerly from its original alignment in
' order to align with Santa Barbara Street, forming a four-legged intersection. South Street is
designated as a Principal Bicycle Route and SLO Transit Routes 4 and S both operate along
it..
1 • Santa Barbara Street extends northeasterly from the Broad Street/South Street intersection,
providing access to the commercial center of downtown San Luis Obispo. It is two lanes
' wide with parking on both sides. Santa Barbara Street is classified as an Arterial and is a
designated Principal Bicycle Route. Two bus routes (Nos. 4 and 6) operate along Santa
Barbara Street
' • Bishop Street is on the east side of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company(SP)railroad
tracks, extending from Bushnell Street to Johnson Avenue. It is a two-lane street fronted by
' residences. The General Plan calls for extending Bishop Street westerly to connect to Broad
Street for intra-community circulation and improved access to the medical facilities along
Johnson Avenue. Bishop Street and its extension are classified as a Residential Collector.
' Other streets in the general project area are largely local or collector streets that are discontinuous.
Roundhouse Avenue is an unimproved two-lane street that runs east-west from Santa Barbara Street
' to the railroad. Alphonso Street is a short street that runs along the south boundary of the project
site.
' CCS Page 2 - 1
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Tra,,wc Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' Existing Traffic Volumes
Available daily traffic counts were obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo and from Caltrans for
' streets in the immediate project vicinity. Table 2-1 summarizes daily and peak hour volumes from
these counts. Broad Street south of South Street carries the highest volumes in the area,with 26,000
daily vehicles. About 8.5 percent of its traffic occurs in.the PM peak hour. Traffic levels are lower
' at the other three locations, with Broad Street north of South Street carrying slightly fewer vehicles
than either South Street or Santa Barbara Street. On all of the streets, PM peak hour traffic is evenly
split between the two directions of travel.
' In addition, PM peak period intersection turn volume counts were recorded at four intersections:
' • Broad Street/South Street
• Broad Street/Alphonso Street
• Broad Street/Funston Avenue
• Santa Barbara Street/Roundhouse Avenue
Figure 2-1 summarizes the existing PM peak hour volumes and daily traffic counts in the project
vicinity. During the PM peak hour,highest volumes were observed on southbound Broad Street just
south of South Street, with northbound volumes being almost as high. North of South Street, PM
peak hour volumes are fairly evenly divided between Broad Street and Santa Barbara Street.
' F.zisting Levels of Service
' For this first phase of analysis, an estimate of level of service (LOS) was made for the Broad
Street/South Street/Santa.Barbara Street intersection,which is signalized. Based on Highway Capacity
Manual 1994 methods, the intersection is currently operating at LOS "D". Calculations are
' appended The other three study intersections are currently unsignalized, and no level of service
analysis was done at this time. Additional analysis will be done in the second phase, however, to
address potential future levels of service at all four study intersections.
1
1
' CCS Page 2 - 2
1
' Table 2-1
Existing Roadway Counts
Weekday Peak Hour
Location Count Sourcem
' Date ADT NB/EB SB/VVB
Broad Street South of 1/92 1 25,511 1,065 1,113
t Lawrence Drive
7/92 1 26,131 049 1,082
Brad Street South of 5/92 1 11,323 462 512
' Buchon Street
Santa Barbara Street South of 3/93 2 13,321 632 552
' Osos Street -
South Street West of 6/92 1 14;566 642 617
LawWn Street
' South Street West of 10/95 1 14;016 589 608
Broad Street
(1) Sources 1 -calums
2-City of San Luis Obispo
1
1 "
0
O�
f
m yam•
m
V)
1 Rouni hous
c
South St. 2
--- -- m
°.+
o.
„� 3 os
' Funston
St. 4
�A
R 23 Lis Cd
m io m
4- 2 � .� m 4-180 �f
Ir %L or 18 xi 4 m43e f
_ Ramdl'rouse Saeh Smite Berbera
4f @ 74-0
co m m 253-► N m ro
7- m 2-54-%y n o w
1 N a \
4 3
' cm 93
�= N 1L 53
jr 23 Fug 4 Lmend
' t 10 0-0 vi 1 Study Intersection
o 4 u-* m a m roc PM Peak Hour Volumes
9-%e
m m
EXISTING PM PEAK Figure
C TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2-1
e ee • r e e r e v
GApr°jBd1199G1950731fiQ2-1.fh4
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' Section 3
CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
' Three basic alternatives were considered for extending Bishop Street to Broad Street, as shown in
' Figure 3-1. The fust two alternatives follow a common alignment which extends westerly from the
end of Bishop Street opposite Bushnell Street and then curves southerly across the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company (SP) railroad right of way to intersect Broad Street opposite South Street
' Alignment A-1 crosses over the railroad tracks while Alignment A-2 goes under the tracks. The third
alternative, Alignment B, follows a more northerly alignment It extends westerly from Bishop
Street, crosses the railroad, follows Roundhouse Avenue to Santa Barbara Street and then connects
' to Broad Street For this alignment,only an underpass of the railroad is considered because there is
insufficient length to allow an overpass structure to touch down early enough to retain access to
properties and roads on the north side of Roundhouse Avenue. Several options have been identified
' for connecting these three alignments to Broad Street on the west end, as described later.
The alignments were prepared on "Autocad", using available base mapping provided by The City of
San Luis Obispo,and show horizontal and vertical profiles. The resulting concept plans are available
' on standard plan sheets separate from this report.
It should be noted that future traffic projections were not available to guide design during this initial
phase of study. Therefore, the assumed lane configurations (particularly on the west end of the
extension) may need to be revised in the second phase to accommodate future traffic volumes.
' Table 3-1 compares the design characteristics of Alignments A-1 (overpass to South Street), A-2
(underpass to South Street) and B (underpass to Roundhouse Avenue). Below is a detailed
' description of the alignment alternatives and the options for connecting them to Broad Street on the
west end.
' Alignment A-1: Southerly Alignment Over Railroad
In Alignment A-1,the new roadway goes over the railroad tracks and curves to the south. To provide
' adequate vertical clearance over the tracks and an acceptable vertical profile along the roadway, it is
necessary to begin the new road east of Bushnell Street and to rise from that point Consequently,
Bushnell Street would have to be cul-de-sadd north and south of Bishop Street and a new outlet
' would have to be provided on the south end of Bushnell Street A high retaining wall would be
needed alongside the existing home on the southeast corner of Bishop Street and Bushnell Street,
replacing a lower retaining wall that already exists.
' West of the railroad, the new road would curve back to an east-west direction, resulting in a
compound reverse curve. The roadway grade in this segment would be a relatively steep 10 percent,
' which is almost as steep as the existing portion of Bishop Street just east of the railroad. Due to the
required horizontal and vertical alignments, the minimum design speed would be 20 MPH, which
could be a safety problem.
1
' CCS Page 3 - I
1
s
o� m
1 vs
r
mR y
Alignment B cQ`
c
1 N
Roundhous
n c
L
South St.
C
f- ASO
cc
Funstori
' St .
e
' Alignments A-1, A-2
od
�i
' Legend
nnwwn Street Alignments
1
1
ALIGNMENT Figure
' Ccs ALTERNATIVES 3- 1
- -
- -- - A�uu+i0 wo dawFsmwa - - cAprojeefl1996\95073\fi 1^3
1
1
' Table 3-1
Summary Comparison of Alignment Alternatives
' Design Characteristics
OPTION A-1 OPTION A-2 OPTION B
' ISSUFS/tr UTURES Over to South Street Under to South Street Under to Roundhouse
Avenue
Alignment Bishop to South; Street Bishop to South; Street Bishop to Soutb;
' goes over RR goes under RR Street goes under RR
Bridge 60'wide by 259 long. 70' wide by W long.. Same as A-2.
' Three spans,combination Single span and closed
prestressed cast in place face abutment. Steel
and precast girder girder with concrete deck
' concrete structure
NrMimum Design Speed 20 mph 35 mph 35 mph
' Roadway Length 1,600 feet 1,600 feet 1,100 feet
BikelPedestrian'Provisicns Construct under the Construct 200' long Construct 200' long
in Railroad Corridor proposed bridge separate bridge separate bridge
' Retaining Walls 500 feet long; max 560 feet long, max height 560 feet long; max.
height of 16; roadway of IT; roadway depressed height of IT; roadway
elevated depressed
' Cut/Fill All in fill, with All in cut,with maximum All mat with maximum
maximum fill of 35 feet cut of 23 feet cut of 24 feet
1 .
1
1
t i ]
l
• � 1 I r i + t� T 1 � r rl T`y '
' I J
� U I
1fr
1I ' ,• 't
- 1 J
lk
i
• pt
J
.. r. i I: •1. yY
r ..
. • .; 11, ,y• I,_ -� I IIS-' �
. S
r I J •.�,i
y r
' City of San Lis Obispo Interim Report
Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
This alignment is a variation on one developed previously by the City of San Luis Obispo. To
provide a slightly higher design speed, while still providing adequate clearance over the existing
railroad tracks, the vertical profile was modified from that assumed by the City. The vertical curve
could be further modified to increase the design speed. However, this would increase the height of
the retaining wall on the east end by another four feet, for a total height of 16 feet. The horizontal
alignment was also modified on the east end so that the same alignment will accommodate an
underpass variation (Alignment A-2). In other respects, Alignment A-I is the same as the City's
' alignment, and both alignments are equally feasible.
No discussions have been held with Southern Pacific (SP) to determine whether the bridge should
' span the entire railroad right-of-way. In a typical situation, SP.would only require the bridge to span
existing plus potential future tracks. The only question is where SP would allow bridge columns to
be located within the SP right-of-way. In this alternative,the proposed bridge would allow up to four
' tracks.
For Alignment A-1, there are two variations on the west end:
' In Option A-1,the Bishop Street extension connects directly into Broad Street opposite South
Street, forming a five-legged intersection, and other nearby intersections remain unchanged
' (Figure 3-2). The Broad Street/South Street/Santa Barbara Street intersection would continue
to be signalized, but signal phasing would be modified to accommodate the fifth leg. All
movements would be allowed at the Santa Barbara Street/Roundhouse Avenue intersection.
' Depending on projected future traffic volumes,the Santa Barbara Street/Roundhouse Avenue
intersection would either be stop sign controlled or signalized; as a worst-case signalization
has been assumed
' Option A-2 would form the same five-legged intersection at Broad Street/South Street but
would prohibit all left turns at the Santa Barbara Street/Roundhouse Avenue intersection by
' signing (Figure 3-3). Roundhouse and the commercial driveway (Pizza Parlor) opposite
Roundhouse would be stop-sign controlled. This option is intended to avoid the need for a
traffic signal at Santa Barbara Street/Roundhouse Avenue, thereby minimizing operational
' conflicts with the nearby Broad Street/South Street/Santa Barbara Street intersection.
' Should either Alignment A4 or A-2 be selected,further analysis would be needed m order to evaluate
the two options on the west end and to evaluate potential traffic signalization needs
'
in both cases, to make the connection at Broad Street, South Street would be widened on the west
side of Broad Street so that the existing four legs and one new leg would all align with each other.
Because of a median island, Lawton Street would be limited to right turns in and out where it
' intersects South Street. Alternatively, it may be desirable to close Lawton Street where it intersects
South Street in order to reduce traffic conflicts near the Broad Street/South Street intersection.
' It is assumed that a double left tum lane would be needed on northbound Broad Street in either case
since some of the intersection capacity would be lost due to the fifth leg being added and because
the Bishop Street connection would add more traffic to the intersection. With the added widening,
' the overall size of the intersection would be increased.
' CCS Page 3 - 4
1
1 r6` r2`
i
�9 h
O
ROUAIDHOU56 �.
1RIW
1 FOC
11 R1w
FOC
`1 a
1 wW
F00
1 RA10 s
I SAND -9.
Ab
�d-
1 r R_
r n
SOUTH
m -
1 ?��s � � otic, R`6s • q 1 SDP
1 R \ \ \'w ,
FO
FDC Z
1 6\ \ti\ti
#1 #2 b 1\' r N1 N2 �y �2 #1 #2
y1 y2
' j1 #2 PHASING
q1:BROAD/SOUTH
0 25 50 100 N2:SANTA BARBARA/ROUNDHOUSE
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET OPTION A-1, SOUTH Figure
1 J� CCS ALIGNMENT 3-2
PLAN Q AN ENaM RWG
11U r n
1 15u1Ny
7 �
ROUNDIWOUS6
R/W .
FOC II I
1 i i R/w
FOC
1
12'12'12'
ti
1 ,0
1 , R,w
FOD
1 6��
15UlND
b
N
R/w
1 Foc I R/W \1 b
,\2
.FDC
1 b ! SIGNAL PHASING FOR
BROAD/SOUTH INTERSECTION
0 25 50 100
1 APPROX. SCALE IN FEET OPTION A-2D SOUTH Figure
1 J� CCS ALIGNMENT 3-3
PLANMNO AND ENOMEI ( 0
11'fl I •
c . 0 • I I D
City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaut Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' Alignment A-2: Southerly Alignment Under Railroad
In Alignment A-2, the new roadway follows the same horizontal alignment as in Alignment A-1 but
' goes under the railroad tracks instead of over these. This would result in a better vertical profile
along the roadway. Again, it is necessary to begin the new road east of Bushnell Street. With the
underpass, the new roadway would be cut below the existing road, again requiring Bushnell Street
' to be cul-de-sac'd north and south of Bishop Street and a new outlet to be provided on the south end
of Bushnell Street. The retaining wall alongside the existing home on the southeast corner of Bishop
Street and Bushnell Street would be lower than the retaining wall for the overpass in Alignment A-1.
' West of the railroad, the new road would curve back to an east-west direction as in Alignment A-1,
resulting in a compound reverse curve. The roadway grade in this segment would be a relatively flat
' 2 percent, which would provide an improved minimum design speed of 35 MPH.
For this alternative (as well as Alignment B below), the railroad would be on a bridge constructed
' above the roadway. The bridge would only be constructed for the existing two tracks. In some cases,
SP might require constructing the bridge abutment to accommodate future tracks,but this would only
require modification of the wing wall of the bridge to be parallel to the roadway, and should not
' significantly increase construction cost.
The two options for connecting to Broad Street on the west end of the alignment, Options A-1 and
' A-2, would be identical to those described above for Alignment A-1.
Alignment B: Roundhouse Avenue Alignment
' This alignment extends under the railroad tracks and follows the existing Roundhouse Avenue right-
of-way to Santa Barbara Street Since Bishop Street and Roundhouse Avenue are lined up with each
' other, there is no curve in this alignment. As in Alignment A-2, passing under the railroad results
in a better vertical profile along the roadway than would an overpass. The roadway grade would
begin on the east end at the existing roadway's 11 percent and then flatten as it continues under the
' railroad and to the west to less than 1 percent, providing a minimum design speed of 35 MPH as in
Alignment A-2.
' As with Alignment A-2, it is necessary to begin the new road east of Bushnell Street and it would
be cut below the existing road, again requiring Bushnell Street to be cul-de-sadd north and south of
Bishop Street and a new outlet to be provided on the south end of Bushnell Street. The retaining wall
' alongside the existing home on the southeast comer of Bishop Street and Bushnell Street would be
lower, however, than the retaining wall required for the overpass in Alignment A-1.
t For Alignment B, three variations for its connection on the west end with Broad Street were
developed for study purposes:
• In Option B-1 (Figure 3-4), the Bishop Street extension simply 'Tees' into Santa Barbara
' Street where Roundhouse Avenue currently intersects Santa Barbara Street
• In Option B-2 (Figure 3-5), a curved alignment is used such that Bishop Street becomes the
' CCS Page 3 - 7
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' continuous route to South Street,and Santa Barbara Street is maligned to Tee into the Bishop
Street extension. ,
' Option B-3 (Figure 3-6) creates a single, extended intersection between Broad Street, Santa
Barbara Street and the Bishop Street extension is order to avoid the closely spaced
intersections created in the other two options. Option B-3 is similar to that developed by the
architects for the Fire Station.
The Bishop Street extension is not expected to increase left turns from northbound Broad Street to
westbound South Street, and could even reduce volumes on that particular movement. Nevertheless,
it is conservatively assumed in all three cases that northbound Broad Street would be widened for a
double left tum lane onto South Street. This widening would allow more"green"time to be allocated
' to other intersection movements where traffic increases may occur because of the Bishop Street
extension, the Broad Street Plaza and other traffic growth in the area. (This is consistent with the
assumption made for the southerly alignment) The need for a double left tum should be evaluated
in the second phase of the study.
' Possible traffic signal phasing is indicated on the figures, and varies among the three options. In all
cases the signal phasing would have to be coordinated between the Broad/South and Santa
' Barbara/Roundhouse intersections because of their close proximity. In Option B-2, right turns from
northbound Broad Street would be signal-controlled(Le.,no right-tum-on-red),with right turns being
made during the northbound through movement phase. This would eliminate queues in front of the
Fire Station.
1
1
1
' CCS Page 3 - 8
1
R/W
F00
I
R/W
/ FOC ROUNDHOUSE
O,
R/W
1g 6 RIW
19
' 61
a 13 , FDC
' 1
1
1 �
1 �
1
1
� 1
S �
i
i
i
i
' o
'L b
1
ti
' 1ti 1112 1 FOC
R/W RAW
' FOC
I14 8 ( i d
#1 #2+ b t l- #1 #2 y #1 #2 #1 #2
' #1 /12
PHASING
#1:BROAD/SOUTH
#2:SANTA BARBARA/ROUNDHOUSE
' 0 25 50 100
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET OPTION B-11 ROUNDHOUSE FIgUr9
' LL= JLL CCS ALIGNMENT 3-4
1111 PD.�G Arm Er¢v Ee G
D O D r O D i l D
1 '
1 m
m
1 R/W
h
1 FOC
12'i2l r2 RAW FOC
Ro90 �
B� f Al
1 r
1^ �
lu
r�
d 6 1 FOC
R1w
\2 `� R=3o�
1 �� l
R/w
FOC
0
1 11
1
Spp1K R_30, `� 4
R/w
\2\2\
1 FOC
1 _ _
8 8 ( d
#1 #2 #1 #z 11 # #1 #2 #1' #2
1 #1:BROAD/SOUTH PHASING
#2:SANTA BARBARA/ROUNDHOUSE
1 0 25 50 100
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET OPTION B-2- ROUNDHOUSE Figure
1
L. JLLcos ALIGNMENT 3-5
?LAN G ANO ENGM EWNQ
I'II a a . 1 0 . I f 0
z
1
�A
a e .eaunro/{OusE
C 12' 12 121
' FCC
R/W
FOC
R=50' RIW
,
it
PAINTED
R-50, ISLAND
-�� RAq
1
5ry`2
011SN Ra4y ,2�2 � FOC
' R
ILAuDSLAN-
R
' R/W
x _ x
x dli�'1 x 1� r x
4
#1 #2 8 i x , ~
#1 #2 #1 #2 x #1. #2
#1 #2 PHASING #1� #2
' #1:BROAD/SOUTH
#2:SANTA BARBARA/ROUNDHOUSE x --
#1 #2
' 0 25 50 100
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET OPTION B-3[ ROUNDHOUSE Figure
JL CCS ALIGNMENT 3-6
PlY Ano ENOmDP ( D
c Co11 e 1 0 I [ o
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Tra k Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' Section 4
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
1
This section compares the alternative alignmentsfor extending Bishop Street to Broad Street. The
' evaluation considers the following criteria:
• Traffic Service
' Emergency Vehicle Service
• Bike/Pedestrian Travel
• Land Use Impacts
' • Railroad Impacts
• Capital Costs
• Other Environmental Considerations
' The comparative evaluation of alignment alternatives is presented in Table 41. Where appropriate,
' differences among the variations are also noted in the table. Details about the table entries are
provided below.
' Two considerations should be noted about the evaluation. First, no weighing or priority is intended
by the grouping and sequence of the criteria. Second, although environmental factors are included
in the evaluation, it is not intended to fulfill requirements for environmental analysis and
t documentation of the project.
Traffic Service
The fust set of criteria measure how well the alignment alternatives serve traffic, including traffic
' safety, circulation and operations.
' The Roundhouse Avenue alignment is judged best for traffic safety because the grades are not as
steep. As indicated by the higher minimum design speed that is achieved and because it avoids a
reverse curve in the horizontal alignment. The underpass to South Street also avoids steep grades,
resulting in a design speed comparable to the Roundhouse Avenue alignment,but still involves a tight
reverse curve in the horizontal alignment.
All three alternatives equally improve community circulation by providing a new connection between
Johnson Avenue and Broad Street. However,there are major differences in how traffic would operate
' on the west end of the extension. The differences would depend not only on the alignment but also
the specific variation (option) selected for malting the connection at Broad Street Until such time
that future traffic volumes are projected for the extension and other streets (the next phase of the
' study), only a qualitative comparison is possible.
• Alignment Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would create a large, five-legged intersection at Broad
Street/South StroWSanta Barbara Street which would reduce overall intersection capacity.
' CCS Page 4- 1
' Table 4-1
Comparative Evaluation of Alignment Altematives
Alignment —1 Alignment A-2 Alignment
' Impacts Overpass to South Underpass to South Underpass to Roundhouse
Traffic Service:
'
Traffic Safety Low design speed due to Higher design speed Higher design speed
compound reverse curve
and steep vertical profile.
' Community Improved due to extension Improved due to extension Improved due to extension;
Circulation but possibly less direct
route along S.Barbara
' Traffic Operations Five intersection legs will Same as A-1,but only one Higher capacity at Broad/
at Broad/South reduce green time for key signal required. South,but proximity of
Intersection turning movements,lower intersections will limit
'
capacity and lengthen cycle. queuing space in Options
Compensate by widening B-1,13-2. Option B-3
Coordinate 2 signals. avoids this. Two signals to
' be coordinated in all cases.
Local access impacts Eliminates access to some Eliminates access to some Good access to Broad
parcels east of Broad St. parcels east of Broad St.; Street Plaza. Option B-3
' reduces access to/from reduces access to/from
Roundhouse (right turns only) Roundhouse and Bishop.
' Emergency Vehicles
Fre Station Access Slight degradation due to Slight degradation due to No impact for Options B-1
added leg at intersection added leg at intersection and B-3. Option B-2
' impedes station egress
when nbd.cars are stopped
at S.Barbara/Bishop inter.
' Other emergency vehicles Improved access to Johnson Improved access to Johnson Improved access to Johnson ,
due to extension. due to extension. due to extension.
' Bike/Pedestrian Travel
Impacts on bicyclists Improved access to Johnson Improved access to Johnson Improved access to Johnson
' due to extension, but steep due to extension; grades due to extension; grades
grade. improved over A-1. improved over A-1.
At Broad/South intersection, At Broad/South intersection, Option B-3 creates difficult
bicyclists have long distance bicyclists have long distance weaves for bicyclists,and
to clear. to clear. No southbound prevents southbound left
left to Roundhouse. to Roundhouse.
' Impacts on pedestrians More difficult to get across More difficult to get across Options B-1,6-2 have no
Broad/South intersection; maj Broad/South intersection; ma impacts. More difficult to
require stops at median to require stops at median to cross Broad/South
reduce pedestrian clearance reduce pedestrian clearance intersection in B-3.
time for crossing South St. time for crossing South St.
Land Use Impacts
'
Building displacement Displaces/impacts 3 Displaceslmpacts 3 Displaces 2 storage
storage buildings off Emily storage buildings off Emily buildings on south side
of Roundhouse
1
t Table 4-1 (Cont'd)
Comparative Evaluation of Alignment Alternatives
' Alignment —1 Alignment —2 Alignment
Impacts Overpass to South Underpass to South Underpass to Roundhouse
' Land Use Impacts Cont'
Bushnell/Bishop Due to raised roadway, With depressed roadway, With depressed roadway,
Intersection retaining wall at comer retaining wall at comer retaining wall at comer
thouse would be raised to 16'. house would be 8'high. house would be 8'high.
S.Barbara/South area Impact on gas station Impact on gas station Impacts Laundromat parking.
' (unoccupied) (unoccupied) Displaces Water Conserving
Demonstration Garden.
Broad Street Plaza Precludes development Precludes development No impact
(Proposed)
Fre Station No impact. No impact. Option B-1 has no impact
' Options B-2,B-3 would
displace landscaping and
parking area.
' Railroad Impacts
Impact on operations No impact Double shoo—fly required Double shoo—fly required
' during construction during construction. during construction.
Other Environmental
' Visual Major impact due to high Impact of roadway would be Impact of roadway would be
roadway structure over reduced; may still require reduced; no signal bridge
railroad; may require signal signal bridge across Broad required.
bridge across Broad Street. Street.
Noise Impacts on homes east of Same as A-1 but impacts on Same as A-1 but impacts on
' Bushnell due to added traffic; west end would be reduced west end would be reduced
impacts are less on west end due to tunnel. due to tunnel.
since there are few homes.
' Contaminated Materials Little or no disturbance Potential major disturbance Potentaii major disturbance
of contaminated materials in of contaminated materials in
railroad ROW. Mitigate by railroad ROW. Mitigate by
' cleaning/removing. cleaning/removing.
Proiect Cost*
' Total,including allowance $72 Million $6.8 Million $72 Million
for right—of—way
' Planning level estimate for comparative purposes only. Cost of removing contaminated materials
in Alignments A-2,B are highly variable.
1
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' This could potentially be compensated by providing additional intersection approach lanes,
as assumed in the concept plans. Although queue lengths would also be increased,they could
be accommodated by lengthening of the turn pockets, if needed; no backups would occur
' through adjacent intersections.
The Roundhouse Avenue alignment (Alignment B) would avoid adding a fifth leg but would create
' other traffic operational problems of its own, the nature of which depends on the specific option for
connecting to Broad Street:
' In Option B-1, there would only be about 140 feet of queuing space on Santa Barbara Street
between traffic signals at Roundhouse Avenue (Bishop Street) and at Broad Street, which
could cause backups through adjacent intersections. The main advantages of Option B-1 for
' traffic operations are that it favors the existing Santa Barbara Street-to-Broad Street
movement over the new Bishop Street-to-Broad Street movement and it simplifies the South
Street/Broad Street intersection.
' By comparison,Option B-2 favors the Bishop Street-to-Broad Street movement over the Santa
Barbara Street-to-Broad Street movement More importantly,Option B-2 creates a very short
' queuing space between intersections,which would likely be inadequate to accommodate future
traffic levels with the extension. This option would only be favored if future traffic on
Bishop Street were to well exceed volumes on Santa Barbara Street (which is contrary to
' previous traffic projections made by the City) and if traffic progression could be maintained
through the two intersections. (These projections should be reviewed and refined in the
second study phase.)
' • Option B-3 differs from B-2 by tying the two intersections together with regards to
signalization, in effect creating one big intersection. This could avoid the back-ups into
' upstream intersections associated with Option B-2, but would reduce capacity of the
intersection because the Bishop Street traffic would not be able to move when other traffic
is moving.
• Option B-3 allows movements from westbound Bishop Street to northbound Santa Barbara
Street, but not in the opposite direction. Hence, more Bishop Street traffic to and from
' downtown would be concentrated onto Broad Street instead of Santa Barbara Street
Localized traffic access would also be affected by the Bishop Street extension. On the east end of
' the extension, all alternatives would cut off access between Bishop Street and Bushnell Street due to
the required grade differential;alternative outlets are possible,however. In Alignments A-1 and A-2,
several parcels in the area between Broad Street and the railroad would become landlocked. On the
' west end, there are possible differences in impacts because of the varying options for connecting to
Broad Street Option A-2 would restrict access to right turns at Santa Barbara Street to/from
Roundhouse Avenue and to/from the Pizza Parlor. In Options A-1 and A-2, access at South Street
' to/from Lawton Street would be limited to right turns only because of the presence of a median
extending back from Broad Street across Lawton Street Limiting movements to right turns only,or
alternatively closing off access to and from Lawton Street would also reduce vehicle conflicts near
' CCS Page 4- 4
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Tragic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' the Broad/South intersection. (This may be desirable for other alternatives as well if traffic volumes
increase in the future.)
' Emergency Vehicle Access
Impacts on emergency vehicle access is an important consideration, particularly in light of the new
Fire Station located at the southeast corner of Broad Street and South Street Fire Station egress
would only be modestly impacted by Alignment A, as the addition of a fifth leg to the Broad
Street/South Street intersection would increase the number of conflicting vehicle movements and
amount of traffic near the driveway. For Alignment B, Option B-1 would not impact Fire Station
egress significantly. Options B-2 and B-3 would impact fire station egress, but their impacts could
potentially be mitigated In Option B-2, northbound vehicles could become trapped in front of the
' Fire Station, blocking fire trucks. This could be mitigated by prohibiting right turns on red on
northbound Broad Street and using signal phasing as shown in Figure 3-5. In Option B-3, an island
would be installed in front of the Fire Station driveway. A standard raised island would block fire
truck egress. To mitigate this impact, the island should be painted (however, this is less safe for
pedestrians than a raised island).
' All alternatives improve overall emergency vehicle access and potential response times by providing
a direct connection between Broad Street and Bishop Street, assuming that the connection does not
cause additional delays at the Broad Street/South Street intersection.
' Bike/Pedestrian Travel
' Provisions have been made in the concept plans for on-street bike lanes on the Bishop Street
extension, as well as within the SP railroad right-of-way. All alternatives therefore improve bicycle
circulation. However, Alignment A-1 involves a steep (10%) grade which,coupled with the existing
'
11% grade on Bishop Street farther east, would not be as attractive to bicyclists as the underpass
alternatives.
' Impacts on bicycle travel along Broad Street and Santa Barbara Street would depend on the option
selected for connecting the Bishop extension to Broad Street Option B-1 appears to provide the best
service to bicyclists, retaining approximately the same condition as presently exists. Options A-1 and
A-2 would both adversely impact bicycle travel by adding a new intersection leg on the east side of
Broad Street Bicyclists traveling on northbound Broad Street to northbound Santa Barbara Street
would have to comingle with autos for a relatively long distance through the intersection, and
' northbound bicyclists staying on Broad Street would have an even longer distance to cross the
intersection; consequently, bicyclists would not necessarily clear the signal phases for northbound
traffic. Options B-2 and B-3 would also adversely impact bicyclists, particularly those traveling
' northbound on Santa Barbara Street from Broad Street In both options, bicyclists would have to
weave across a traffic lane to continue north onto Santa Barbara Street (which is the primary route
for bicyclists). This maneuver would be particularly uncomfortable in Option B-3 where a free flow
' right tum is provided for motor vehicles. Also,in Option B-3,bicyclists on westbound Bishop Street
would have to weave across a free-flowing traffic lane to continue south on Broad Street
CCS Page 4- 5
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' Impacts on pedestrians would be more modest, and would primarily be on the west end of the
alignment where it connects to Broad Street Essentially, Alignments A-1 and A-2 would make it
more difficult for pedestrians to travel along Broad Street and Santa Barbara Street because of the
' added intersection leg on the east side of Broad Street and the expanded intersection width on the
west side. (On the west side, a raised median would be installed to lessen the impact of the
intersection widening on southbound pedestrians.)
Options B-1 and B-2 are not judged to impact pedestrian travel as much. Option B-1 appears to have
the least impact on pedestrians, retaining approximately the same condition as at present (except
' perhaps additional lanes on some intersection approaches to accommodate future traffic growth).
Land Use Impacts
' The various options have the potential to adversely impact existing and future land uses by displacing
buildings, reducing setbacks and landscaping, affecting local access and precluding future site
' development Although the alignments have been designed to minimize these impacts, in all Cases
some right-of--way would have to be acquired. The impacts differ depending on the alignment as well
as the connection to Broad Street
' At the east end of the alignment, an existing home on the southeast corner of Bishop Street and
Bushnell Street would be impacted, particularly by Alignment A-1. The existing Bishop Street
' roadway is currently above the property, requiring a 4 foot retaining wall. Raising the roadway
elevation for the overpass in Alignment A-1 would require a 16 foot retaining wall, exceeding the
roofline of the home. Alignments A-2 and B (underpasses) would not have as much impact They
would lower Bishop Street opposite the home,resulting in an 8 foot retaining wall below the property.
West of the railroad, Alignment A displaces two storage buildings near Emily Street, and intrudes
' on a trucking office building. (All of these are within the boundaries of the proposed Broad Street
Plaza and are therefore subject to acquisition in any case.) Alignment B would have less impact in
this arra since it follows an existing road (Roundhouse Avenue). It would,nevertheless, intrude into
' two existing storage buildings on the south side of Roundhouse Avenue. These buildings, like the
others, would be acquired for development of Broad Street Plaza in any case.
' On the west end of the alignment, land use impacts differ among the various options for connecting
to Broad Street Alignments A-1 and A-2 would take a corner of a gas station on the southwest
comer of Broad Street and South Street;the gas station is closed down,however,and the right-of-way
t is City owned. Alignment B,on the other hand,affects other uses in the area. Intersection widening
would intrude on a portion of the parking lot for the Laundromat on the northwest comer of Broad
Street and South Street. This take would be greatest in Options B-2 and B-3 which realign South
' Street to the north. Options B-2 and B-3 would also require right-of-way in front of the new Fire
Station on the east side of Santa Barbara Street, displacing much of the landscaping as well as the
parking lot on the south side of Roundhouse Avenue. However, the Fire Station site was master
' planned with these losses anticipated should Option B-3 ever be constructed Options B-2 and B-3
would also displace the City's Water Conserving Demonstration Garden in the area between Broad
Street and Santa Barbara Streets.
1
CCS Page 4- 6
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaza Puffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' As noted previously,Alignment A would cut through the proposed Broad Street Plaza site,precluding
this future development in its present form. Alignment B would intrude into a small part of the
northerly corner of the site, affecting an access driveway and some parking spaces.
' Other Environmental Considerations
' A key difference between the three alignment alternatives is in visual impacts, with Alignment B
causing the least impact and Alignment A-1 the greatest The overpass alternative, Alignment A-1,
involves placing a major structure well above the existing ground elevation,making it highly visible
' from most nearby locations. Either of the two underpass alternatives (A-1, B) would greatly reduce
the visual impact of the roadway extension. Either of the southerly alignments (A-1 and A-2) would
also add major overhead traffic signal bridge across Broad Street at South Street which would be
' visually intrusive.
Another consideration not addressed above is that of contaminated materials. There are potentially
' underground contaminated materials within the railroad right-of--way due to its use in the past for
parking and turning around railroad cars. The type and depth of contaminants is not known. An
advantage of the overpass alternative is that there would be minimal disturbance of the soils for
' construction. In the case of the underpass alternatives, the contaminated materials would need to be
removed and/or cleaned, adding to the cast of the project An allowance has been made for the
potential removal cost, but it could vary considerably depending on the amount and type of material
' and the method of removal.
Underpasses typically reduce the extent of noise impacts compared to overpass structures. However,
' resuming that the Bishop Street extension carries relatively low volumes of traffic (say under 8-
10,000) daily vehicles and considering the lack of residences immediately adjacent to the structure
in all alignment alternatives, it is unlikely that noise impacts would affect the choice among
' alternatives. Noise impacts as well as other environmental factors such as archaeological resources
should be considered during future project planning. However, since these factors are not likely to
affect the choice among the current alternatives, they were not addressed at this stage.
' Construction Costs
' Planning-level cost estimates were made for each alignment alternative, and are detailed in the
appendix and summarized in the evaluation table. It is stressed that these estimates, which are based
on unit costs of construction in other recent projects elsewhere, are only intended to assist in
comparing the alternatives, and not for project budgeting. In a number of cases, general allowances
were made based on engineering judgement, in lieu of detailed analysis.
' Somewhat surprisingly, the costs of the three alternatives do not differ much. In most cases,
overpasses (such as in Alignment A-1) are found to be significantly less costly to construct than
underpasses. However, this does not appear to be the case here, as the cost of Alignment A-1 is
' estimated to be slightly higher than the cost of Alignment A-2. This appears to be due to the high
cost of earthfill for the overpass alternative,as well as a higher structural cost for the highway bridge
than the railroad bridge which more than offset the savings in cleanup/disposal of contaminants for
' the underpass.
' CCS Page 4- 7
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
' Broad Street Plaut Trak Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
' The estimated cost for Alignment B, with an underpass, is higher than the underpass alternative to
South Street (Alignment A-2) despite being slightly shorter in overall length. The difference is
largely due to the assumed cost to remove and reconstruct the roadway area on the west end of
' Alignment B, including in front of the new Fire Station.
As noted above, the costs of removing contaminants is highly speculative and could change the
' comparison. The cost of removing contaminants is the responsibility of the property owner(currently
Southern Pacific Transportation Company). Cost estimates provided in this report assume that the
City will assume that responstbilhy from the railroad and not seek repayment Therefore, a worst
' case scenario has been assumed for cost estimate comparisons. If, however, the railroad assumes
responsibility for cleanup costs,both underpass alternatives would be significantly less expensive than
the overpass alternative.
' All alignment alternatives would encroach into SP right-of-way, either in the form of a bridge
spanning it or construction of roadway and embanlanent/cut slope. As part of the railroad approval
' process, SP would require a service and maintenance contract, which would transfer the right to use
SP land for an overhead or underpass. Our understanding is that SP has not charged public agencies
for right-of-way costs,but the agreement would require costs of service and maintenance to be borne.
' In any case, the cost of service, maintenance and right-of-way, if required, should not differ
significantly among the alignment alternatives considered.
1
1
1
CCS Page 4: 8
' City of San Luis Obispo Interim Report
Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
1
Section 5
' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOAlMENDA17IONS
' The previous sections of this report describe and compare several alternatives for extending Bishop
' Street westerly to conned to Broad Street. The following conclusions and recommendations are
drawn from the analysis:
' Conclusions
1. All three alignments appear feasible from the standpoint of geometrics and constructability.
' 2. The underpass alternatives are, in our judgement, better than the overpass alternative due to
better design speeds, less visual impact and less impact on adjacent land uses.
' 3. The southerly alignment creates a relatively large, five-legged intersection at Broad
Street/South Street/Santa Barbara Street. The added intersection leg would complicate traffic
' operations and reduce traffic capacity on existing intersection approaches. The expanded
intersection would adversely impact pedestrian and bicyclist travel, and require addition of
a visually intrusive traffic signal bridge across Broad Street..
' 4. The southerly alignment creates a more direct connection with South Street to the west and
therefore might attract more traffic than the more northerly Roundhouse Avenue alignment,
although specific projections have not been made. Since Bishop Avenue is a residential
collector, high traffic volumes are not desirable.
' 5. land uses are significantly impacted by all alternatives, particularly on the west end of the
extension,and the specific impacts depend on the options. The southerly alignments eliminate
access to some existing parcels between Broad Street and the railroad and preclude
' development of the Broad Street Plaza. The Roundhouse Avenue alternatives, on the other
hand, impact the Fire Station and the City's Water Conserving Demonstration Garden.
6. Based on preliminary cost estimates, the underpass alternatives (Alignments A-2, B) would
be slightly lower in capital cost than the overpass alternative (Alignment A-1). One factor
included in the cost estimate for the underpass alternatives which could affect the comparisons
' is the cost of removing contaminated materials from the railroad right-of-way.
7. Under any of the alternatives,traffic operations are adversely impacted on the west end of the
' extension where it connects to Broad Street To date,these impacts have only been addressed
qualitatively. The nature of the impacts vary among the various options considered
' 8. For the Roundhouse Avenue alignment, the preferred connection on the west end is Option
B-1, based on analysis to date, but Option B-2 may also warrant further consideration. The
third option(B-3)should be dropped because it creates an awkward intersection configuration,
' CCS Page 5 - 1
Cityof San Luis Obispo Interim Report
Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis February 14, 1996
does not provide for all traffic movements to and from the Bishop Avenue extension,and is
' detrimental to bicycle and pedestrian travel-
9. Under any of the alternatives,. it has not been determined whether there is enough traffic
' capacity to accommodate additional vehicles to and from the Bishop Street extension.
Caltrans has therefore raised the question of the desirability of the connection. Further
analysis is needed to assess potential future traffic operations and resulting lane requirements
with or without the Broad Street Plaza development.. This could, in turn,affect the viability
of the alternatives..
' Recommendations
1. Based on the considerations detailed in earlier sections of the report, we recommend
' Alignment B (Roundhouse Avenue) over either of the southerly alignment alternatives. Of
the three options considered for connecting Alignment B to Broad Street,Option B-1 appears
best. Option B-2 may also warrant further consideration if Option B-1 is not feasible. The
' third option (B-3) should be dropped from further consideration.
2. The second study phase should develop specific lane configurations for the recommended
' alignment,including the number of lanes needed at the Broad Street/South Street intersection
and the number of lanes needed on Santa Barbara Street between Broad Street and
Roundhouse Avenue. Lane requirements and potential future traffic operations on the west
' end of the extension should be evaluated under future conditions amuning development of
the Broad Street Plaza.
3. Although Alignment B/Option B-1 is recommended as the alternative to advance into Phase
2, the City should defer a final decision on the preferred alignment until completion of the
Phase 2 traffic operations analysis, since this analysis may affect the conclusions and
' recommendations...
4. If cost.is an important decision factor between the alignment alternatives, the city should
further research the amount and type of contaminants affected, procedures and costs for
removal, and the extent of the city's responsibility for removal.
1
CCS Page 5 - 2
1
1 '
Appendix. A
Lever of Service Analysis
Broad Street/South :Street.
'I
l 7n 4' s
'L+ 1?d .. :. ,h)� �.�• I��X '� ,�
IHIGHNAT CAPACIiYiNANUAI" SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION.:PLANN[NG.',NETHOD�
SIGNAL OPERATIONSIWORKSHEET
' .Yri ` ,. 'I•Cr� 4n\yA msµ_ ..
p.
f ti
Frle,name:,. Date::. 11 24"; 19 96;:T me'IPeriod: 4:30-5 3O PX` «l��' P�
' _
Broad: (N/S) South/Santa Barbara Analyst ` TCL x c
a 1
EAST _ ; o
BOUND BOUND •80UND I BOUND r l' ,Ir r`�a l r d 1•rr,ytrlr
PhaselPlan:Selectron•from Lane Volume:Worksheet, y
, Critical through RT :vol` [193: 299 199- 335 222
L'7`'lane yo1 '[5) 78, 4611 . 340 ;72
ti r' 1
' ;deft'turn protectton:.(P/U/N). . P P P P 5 9 'i
Damnant left..turn (Indicate by
w3 �1 ry, 1 1
be as on'the3.
Plan 1 U . U UI -;U r t"�
t specifted!'left urn protection Plan 2a U P IU
= PFan 2b 'P U P U a : r
Y ` Indreates the dominant left turn Plan 3a *P'': P P Pi 1 1" I
' ' n.for eschoppost gl pair Plan' 36,: P' *P P •P r1 rL PY
Plan 4 N(:.. N N. "'N,
M
r I o
r�zq c 11, r
Htn ,cycles(Cmtn) 60�. Max ' cycle �(Cmax) �-
a
1 _ -
A.
EAST=WEST NORTH SOUTH , m
r Ttinin94Plan� i I , „
1 l:
= Value Ph 1 + Ph 2 Ph Ph1 1' Ph 2` •Ph 3 yp
F 1 - 1 ,! �• , 1r9
Movement codes a EWL WTL EWT HSL, NTL NST 1 I
], f � .1
Crttica`l' phase yol [CVl 78 383 299'` 72 268 222 st
— _
M1
Critical sum [C$]'� fs- 7322'x, _
r tµL Fl
GBD adjustment [CBD): ~
Reference esumk [R57 1624 7
Imo [ ,3' 3' 01 `3
{ 4Lost time/phase [PL] 3 0. rw f n.,p
I
Lost time/ccycle [TLI l 12 C'
Cycle length [cYC)f .1.64.r5, i, \
nrttme 15 2 14:.9' S 9' ' kr'10 6` a1T'8
e
" CrW aL'IV/c'ratio.-[XGIR]t 1, IWJI'D]
-on r i I
5e * $Cetus 'I 1 r er' ett
1
J I�F 1 1 Aq I s- f
r, Yh Y4
h,
y1 1 I
t•w 1 "1. 1 �t. •
Y
I ,
_ �'
/�vl I
a< '
u '
1. HIGHWAYsCAPACITY MANUAL,,SIGNALIZEDIINTERSECTION;PLANNING,METHO_D
p LANE VOLUHEWORKSHEET.
V.,
Fife name: Date 1 24 1996 .sTtme'Peniod: 4:30-5:30,PH
(E%W) Broad' (N/S) ,South/Santa`Baibara Analyst•:. TCL
Peak hour factor 95 'Comment:
Sam Luis Obispo J
EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH s
1 BOUND''BOUND BOUND' (BOUND
r
y
L'EF.T TURN MOVEMENT
7:
LT',4olume• 74 ..438,.- .323, 68. .
2. „Opposing matnCtne volume 196 .`507 549 753
3:A mber of exclusive LT lanes
14504,:222066=:17.7327 51204. .
E E IE E
p` Prot: Prot Prot ' Prot T q
i. LT adjustment factor- ' 95' . 95 95 :95, y
5. LT lane vol 78 461 340 72
RIGHT TURN-MOVEMENT `-
1 _.Lene•�Con1 r
Rightftgurattonr(E=Excl';. S=Shrd):. 'E :S E.:- `E
_ RTvolume- " 254 16... 285 105
' 7: Exclusive lanes. 1 'N/A -1 -:1.,:.-
8: RT adjustmentjaetor- 85 85 I.:85 85
96. Exclusi'ye RT Pane volume; " 299 0 335 124 '
10. Shared lane 'v'__0 I 0' 19' 0 0
J
THROUGH`MOVEMENt. '
1.1'_ Thru volume 1, - - 253' 780. 468 444'
12. Parking adjustments factor
13'., No of=thru'la 6! including, shared 1 11. 2 2'
14°_ Total approach{volumex 253 199 468 4447
' 19'. Prop of Left turns to hare'group• 10: 0 'p ,Or
M
16: Left turnrequtvaLence N/A N/A N/A N/A:
77: LT adj+,factor B/A N/A H/A N/A [
18c Through Caine-.'4o I LiTL; 253 199 234 !2227.
19: Critical lane?volume 299' 199 335,' -2221 .
` y - Y
Left Turn Checkt(tf (161l-;);"8) `
20; Permitted left turn sneaked capacity`:, 7200/Cmax
N/A N/A N/A. :N/A.
r
' Appendix B
' Cost Calculations
1
1
1
1
1
Aligriment:A-1 (South Street Overpass) with Option A 1 Connection
' Item
Unitauanti-" ..U-'t--Cost Total
Mobilization . _ . LS'` 1 $25,000.0 $25;000
LS' 1':_-$76F500.0 576;500
Signal Modification LS j $150 000.0 5150 000
Earthwork_(Fill)__
W. 100;0.00 $1,54 $1,500,000
EaithWdik (Cut) CY 350 _S1.0.0 -_ $3,500
Sidewalk ..Curbs &_-Gutter LF _4,380 $30.0 $131,400
Pavement _ SOFT 10=1,640 =52-5 5254,100
Land'sca in - LS - 1 53.5 000.0 _$3.5 j 00.0.
Retainin Walls_____ _ SOFT, _ _`: 8,000 . . $50.0 $400,000
Hi'`fiwa Brid e._= - SOFT-_ -1.5,000 _ :$120.0 $1;80.0,000
'
Right of Way (Res)`' LOTS _ 3 $100,000.0 5300 000
Right of Way_(Com)!' SOFT 61:,825.— $8.0 - $494,600
Utili Relocation : LS - T.-560 000.0 $60,000
' Environmental LS 1. S20 000.0 - $20000
Desi n_&_Administration_ 1.5°� 5787,515
Contingencies 20% :. _51-0207,523
Total -_$7,_245,1. 38
i .
1
1 '
Alignment A-1 (South Street Overpass) with 0,ption,A,2 Connection
Unit Quanti Unit Cost Total
Mobilization_. - — _ LS 1 $25,000.0 $25,000
Lighting _ LS 1: $76;500:0 $76,500.
Si nal_Modification _...._ - LS 1. $150 000.0 $150 000
Earthwork. (Fill) CY 100,000 $15.0 $1,500,000
Earthwork (Cut) CY -: . 350 dS10:0 $3,500
Sidewalk:Curbs & Gutter LF— T 3 960 $30.0 $118,800
' Pavement SQFT. ;- 96,600 $241,500
Landca in LS A35,000.0
$35,000.
Retaififfin Walls SQFT . 81000 $50.0 5400,000
' Hi_hway Bride SQ.FT 15,000 $120.0 $1,800,000
Ri hi af Wa Res)-; LOTS $1001000.0 5300 000
Right of Wa (Com)f• SQFT $494,600
Utilityn__ $6
, 0 ;000
' Environmental LS 1 '' $20 000.0 $20,000
Design & Administration 15,% G $783,735
' Contin encies - 20% _ 51,201,727
Total L _ .57,210,362
1
1 '
Alignment A-2 (South Street Underpass) with Option. A-1 Connection.
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Mobilization. LS 1 $25,000.0 $25,000
'
U� hting LS 1 $76,500.0 $76,500
Signal Modification LS 1 $15:0,000.0 $15.0 000
Earthwork (Fill) CY 0 $15.0 $0
' Earthwork (Cut) CY. 4615001 $10.0 $465,000
Sidewalk, Curbs &.Gutter LF . 43.80 $:30.0 $131,400
Pavement SOFT 101,640 '$2.5 _ _ $254,100
'
Landscaping LS 1 $35,000.0 $35,000
Clean Up- Disposal icy 4,000 4200.0 $800,000
Retaining Walls SOFT .. 6,720 _ H0.0 _ $336,000
' Ped/Bike Bride SQFT 2,000 $100.0 $200,000
Railroad Bride SQFT 4,200 $280.0 $1,176,000
Abutment SOFT 5;600 - .---$80.0 $448,000
' Railroad Shofly LS 1 $300,000.0 $300,000
Right of Way LOTS. 2 $100,000.0 $200,000
Relocate Fiber Optic LS 1 $250,000.0 $250j000
'
Utility Relocation LS 1 $60,000.0 $60,000
Environmental LS' 1 $20,000.0 $20,000
n
Desi & Administration 15%. $739,050
' Contingencies _ 20% $1,_133,210
:Total $6,799,260
1
1
' Alignment A-2 (South Street Underpass) with Option A-2 Connection
Item Unit i Quantity Unit Cost Total
' Mobilization LS 1 $25,000.0 $25,000
Lighting LS - 1 $76,500.0 576,500
Signal Modification LS 1 $_1.50 000.0 $150 000
Earthwork (Fill). CY 0 $15.0 $0
' Earthwork_(Cu )_ CY 46f5001 --$10.0 - $465 000
Sidewalk Curbs & Gutter LF 3,9601 $30.0 $118,800
Pavement SQFT 96,600 _ $2.5 $241,500
Landscaping LS 1 $35,000.0 $35 000
Clean Up Disposal CY 41000 $200.0 $800,000
Retaining Walls_ SQFT 6,720 -$50.0 $336,000
' Ped/Bike Bride SQFT 2,000 $100.0 4200,000
Railroad Bride SQFT 4,2001 $280.0 $1,176,000
Abutment SOFT 5,600 $80.0 $448,000
' Railroad Shofly LS 1 $300,000.0 $300,000
Right of Way LOTS 2 $100,000.0 $200,000
Relocate Fiber-Optic LS 1 _$250,000.0 $250,000
Utility Relocation LS 1 $60,000.0 $60,000
Environmental LS 1 $20,00.0.0 $20,000
Design & Administration 15% _ _ $735,270
' Contingencies 20% $1,127,414
Total 1 $6,764,484
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
' Alignment B (Roundhouse Street Underpass) with Option B-1 Connection
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost. Total
' Mobilization LS 1 $25,000.0 $25,000
Lighting LS 1 $80,000.0 $80,000
Signal Modification _ LS 1 $50,000.0 $50-j-000
Roadwork for Signal Modificati LS 1 $351,000.0 _ $351,000
Earthwork (Fill) CY 0 $15.0 $0
Earthwork_ (Cut) CY 46,000 $1.0.0 $460,000
' Sidewalk, Curbs & Gutter LF 4,260 $30.0 $127,8.00
Pavement SQFT 120r600 $2.5 $301,500
Landscaping LS 1 $35,000.0 $35,000
' Clean Up Disposal ICY 3,900 $200.0 $780,000
Retainin Walls SQFT 6,720 $50.0 $336,000
Ped/Bike Bride SQFT 21000 __$100.0. $200,000
Railroad Bride SOFT 4,200 $280.0' $_1,176,000 Abutment SQFT . 5 600 .- $80.0 $448,000
Railroad ShoffLS 1 $300,000.0 $300,000
Right of-Way LOTS' 21100,000.0 $200,000 Relocate Fiber Optic LS - 1 $250,000.0 $250,000
Utility- Relocation LS 1 $60,000.0 $60,000
Environmental LS 1 $20,000.0 $20,000
Desion & Administration 15% $780,045
Contingencies 20% $1,196,069
' Total $7,176,414
1
P
1
Alignment B (Roundhouse Street Underpass) with Option B-2 Connection
' Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Mobilization LS 1 $25,000.0 ----- $25,000
'
Lighting LS 1 $80,000.0 $80,000
Si nal Modification LS 1 . $1000000.0 $100,000
Roadwork for Signal Modificati LS 1 $283,000.0 $283,00.0
' Earthwork (Fill) CY 0 $15.0 $0
Earthwork (Cut) CY 46,000 $10.0 -- $460,000
Sidewalk, Curbs & Gutter LF 4,300 $30.0 $129,000
Pavement _ _ SOFT 121,000 42.5 $302,500
Landscaping LS 1 $35,000.0 $35,000
Clean Up Disposal- CY 3,900 $200.0 $780,000
'
Retaining Walls SOFT 6,720 _ $50.0 $336,000
Ped/Bike Bride SOFT 2,000 $100.0 $200,000
Railroad Bride SQFT 4,200 $280.0 $1,176,000
' Abutment SOFT 5 600 $80.0._ $448,000
Railroad ShoflLS 1 $300,000.0 $300,000
Right of Way LOTS 2 $100,000.0 $200,000
Relocate Fiber Optic LS 1 $250,000.0 $250,000
Utility Relocation LS 1 $60,000.0 $60,000
EnvironmentalLS 1 $20,000.0 $20,000
'
Design & Administration 15%. 1 $777,675
Contingencies 20% $1,192,435
' Total 1 $7,154,6101
1
1
1
Alignment B (Roundhouse Street Underpass) with Option B-3 Connection
' Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Mobilization LS.' 1 5251000.0 _ $25,000
'
Lighting LS 1 $80,000.0 $80,000
Signal_Modification LS 1 590 000.0 $90F000
Roadwork for Signal Modificati LS 1 $283,000.0 $283,000
Earthwork (Fill) CY 0 $15.0 $0
Earthwork (Cut) CY .- 46,0001 $10.0 _ $460 000
Sidewalk, Curbs & Gutter LF 4,300 _$30.0 $129,000
t Pavement SOFT 121,000 $2.5 $302,500
Landscaping _ LS 1. $35,000.0 $35,000
Clean Up Disposal CY 3,900 $200.0 $780,000
Retainin Walls SOFT 6,720 $50.0 $336,000
Ped/Bike Bride S.QFT 2,000 $100.0 5200,000
Railroad Bride SQFT 4j200 $280.0 All f 176,000
Abutment SQFT 5j600 $80.0 $448,000
Railroad Shofl LS . . 1 $300,000.0 $300,000
Right of Way LOTS 2 $100,000.0 _ _ $200,000
' Relocate Fiber Optic LS 1 $250,000.0 $250,000
_Utility Relocation LS 1 560,000.0 $60,000
Environmental LS 1 $20,000.0 $20,000
' Desi- n &_Administration 15% $776,175
Contingencies 20% $1,190,135
' Total $7,140,810
1
1
1
t