Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/1998, 5 - COUNCIL UPDATE ON MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTERS AND AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A DOWNTOWN TRANSFER SITE DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT0 council Agenda nepoRt C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O Meetin[ Due It. N..hn S /!w FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director Gok Prepared By: Harry Watson, Transit Manager Al Cablay, Public Works ManagerG SUBJECT: Council update on Multi -Modal Transit Transfer Centers and authorization to award a Downtown Transfer Site Design Service Contract CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive a report on the status of the Multi -Modal Transportation Center (MMTC) and Downtown Transfer Site facilities and endorse the concepts presented therein. 2. Award a contract to Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design to prepare design and construction documents for the Downtown Transfer Site in the amount of $46,000 plus a contingency of $4,000 for a total of $50,000. REPORT IN BRIEF This project has a long history. Beginning in the early 1990's, the need for a better transit transfer facility was identified and a series of reports were commissioned from two consultants who specialize in transit facilities. As a result of these reports, significant time and effort was unsuccessfully spent working to acquire an "off- street" site on Higuera Street north of Santa Rosa Street. After it became apparent that no progress could be made at that site, an alternate site near the Amtrak station was chosen to fulfill both the regional and local transit needs for a good transfer site. Because of the importance of the downtown, both as a source of employee use and visitor /shopper use direction was also given to create a downtown transfer site that would maintain the viability and attractiveness of the downtown to transit users. A study to determine impacts to the transit system of the dual site (railroad/downtown) facility found that: a) the railroad site would be needed/desirable in the future; b) would have beneficial use in the interim time -frame; but c) would have significant detrimental affects on system users and on- time performance if the major transfer point were located at the railroad. As a result, the study recommended that the major transfer site continue to be located downtown and the railroad site be purchased and be primarily used in the shorter term for the Amtrak passenger parking and SLORTA bus parking; although the site will have greater utility to the City in the years ahead when the population and the transit system grows. Staff developed three concept plans for the consultant's preferred downtown layout, submitted those to Community Development and obtained a Negative Declaration finding. The next steps are to hire a firm to prepare working drawings of the project and then construct the facility. Although Council Agenda Report - Transit Transfer Sites - Downtown and Amtrak Page 2 the scope of the project for the railroad site has changed, the need to acquire and proceed to meet Amtrak and SLORTA short-term and City longer -term needs. Staff is pursuing property acquisition and planning the revised facility and site improvements for this site. At this time, the.City Council is being asked to endorse the concept of the major transfer point in the downtown and authorize a contract for design services to implement improvements to the downtown facility. DISCUSSION Background This report describes the current status of the transit center project; reviews what has happened since this project was last brought to the Council in January 1997; and recommends a preferred concept and implementation thereof. The MMTC /Amtrac site and Downtown Transfer site project has involved multiple agencies: the City (as lead agency), San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority ( SLORTA), the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), and the County. Various other stakeholders such as affected property owners, transit advocates, bus drivers, Sierra Club, ECOSLO, Air Pollution Control District, Business Improvement Association, Mass Transportation Committee and concerned citizens were also consulted with during various stages of the project. The need for better transit transfer facilities was first identified in a Short Range Transit Plan (1991- 1996) prepared by Nelson/Nygaard which pointed out: a) the safety concerns of having buses on both sides of the street next to City Hall, and b) the need for a safer and more efficient site with an "off- street" facility preferred. Customers were commonly darting across the street, between buses, to make connecting transfers at the existing site. An "off- street" facility would remove both buses and customers from the local street system. Nelson/Nygaard was then retained to perform a site selection study of both `ton- street" and "off - street" sites limited to the downtown core. All sites were ranked and, by process of elimination, it was determined that there was not a single site that was both "off street" and could accommodate the future needs (envisioned at that time) of both SLO Transit as well as CCAT (SLORTA's fixed route service). An expanded facility next to City Hall ranked high, but was still an on -street facility and it was then Council's preference to pursue an "off- street" site. Next, Wilbur Smith Associates was commissioned to do an expanded site selection study that included new areas northerly of Santa Rosa Street. Both "on- street" and "off- street" sites were studied and among those new "off- street" sites studied were the Shell Service Station, the former Spring Toyota site and the former Kimball Motors site. Preliminary engineering layouts were developed for all three locations, and eventually for the final top four sites (two "on- street" and two "off- street "). Those top four sites were: s -z Council Agenda Report - Transit Transfer Sites - Downtown and Amtrak Page 3 • The Spring Toyota site: on Higuera Street • The Kimball Motors site: on Monterey Street • Palm Street: from Osos to Santa Rosa • Osos Street: from Mill to Palm and using a portion of Palm The Council gave direction to pursue the Spring Toyota site because it was available and was a preferred "off- street" site to the Kimball Motors site. Shortly thereafter the Kimball site was purchased by the County, who also expressed their objection to the Palm site because of the location of their air intake facilities. The consultant found the Shell site to be too small to accommodate both transit systems, unless a multi-story parking and an underground transit facility were developed. Staff did pursue the Toyota site for a number of months, until it became apparent that property contamination and purchase price costs were far in excess of funding available. Most "recent" Recommendation At Council meetings of May 7, 1996, and June 4, 1996, direction was given to pursue a newly identified "off- street" site near the Amtrak station (1940 Santa Barbara St.). Because of its distance from downtown, staff was also directed to pursue a second "on- street" site next to City Hall on Osos Street (Downtown Transfer site) to assure no loss of passenger service to the downtown. In January 1997, direction was given to proceed with the two site project by obtaining preliminary engineering concepts and environmental analysis for the MMTC /Amtrak site and sufficient analysis to assure that service levels would remain high. Staff retained the firm of Nelson/Nygaard to perform a route impact analysis of the impacts of moving the main transfer point out of the downtown and to the railroad site. The study was to include the ability to make on -time schedules and to report on gains or losses in ridership. The results of the Nelson - Nygaard study revealed a paradigm which had not been apparent to staff and was further documented in the consultant's report that stated, "... shifting all transfer activity to the MMTC /Amtrak site would impose an unacceptable impact on local transit riders within the city..." However, the study also found: a) that the railroad site would be needed in future years as the City grows, and b) it should be purchased now and used for a convenient bus stop and additional Amtrak parking. The study also recommended that: a) the primary transfer point remain downtown and b) that the location be kept on Osos Street between Mill and Palm. They provided schematic plans of two variations for a Downtown site, but preferred the Osos Street site (City Hall Option - Exhibit A). With the preferred plan, SLO- Transit buses will meet westerly of Palm Street. SLORTA buses will decrease in the number meeting at any one time and will load/unload easterly of Palm Street. SLORTA buses will park at the railroad site, instead of in front of the County building and would discontinue commuting to their present parking location on Buckley Road. Staff has reviewed the analysis with representatives of SLORTA, SLOCOG and the County and all feel the recommendations of the analysis are valid and should be pursued. The preference for an "off- street" site is noted and, with good long range planning, a site can be acquired now that will function well in the future. It is appropriate at this time to acknowledge that an affordable, available and usable "off- street" location in the downtown is not possible at this time. An "on- 5-_3 Council Agenda Report - Transit Transfer Sites - Downtown and Amtrak Page 4 street" location is available on Osos Street and will provide an efficient and safe transfer point for the many transit patrons. The City and its partners should proceed ahead with the best possible transit transfer location available. However, and in part depending on what happens on Osos Street in the future, it should still be the City's long -term plan to have an appropriately located off -street downtown transfer center. Listed below are benefits that are projected to be derived from the dual transfer point system (two - site project)and, as indicated, these changes would eliminate many of the problems that currently exist at the Osos Street site. Both Sites: • Transit riders on both SLO Transit and CCAT could conveniently transfer within and between systems; • Two transit transfer locations will allow for additional transfer options and therefore be more convenient for riders. Downtown Transfer Site: • There would be less confusion about where connecting buses are if they were all on the same side of the street, and CCAT buses were all grouped together in the same location; • Riders would no longer be darting in and out between buses into oncoming traffic, while trying to cross the street to get to connecting buses; • Customers transferring between systems would use crosswalks connecting the two systems, • Fewer buses would be in front of the County building and would be there for shorter periods. MMTC /Amtrak Site: • CCAT will save many miles of deadhead travel daily by storing buses at the Amtrak site, rather than traveling out past the airport as they presently do. CCAT routes could potentially lay over for several hours twice each weekday; • The Amtrak project preserves the historic freight building. Eventually the building will be restored either where it currently resides or, more likely, be relocated to a new site within the project's boundary, when funding for the restoration and/or relocation has been secured; . • Additional Amtrak parking will ease the current level of parking demand at Railroad Square. Thus the major difference between the past recommendation and this final staff recommendation is that the major City transfer point is located downtown. Both sites are still needed and both sites need necessary improvements. Staff has pursued the needed studies to determine if the railroad site is available and environmentally acceptable for negotiation purposes. Likewise, the "project" for each location has been developed and submitted to the City Community Development Department for environmental review. The Downtown Transfer site project has been given a Negative Declaration and more data is being required for the railroad site prior to a determination. Next Stems What are the next steps for each of the projects; when will those steps be implemented; who will manage each project; and when will the community actually see results? S— ,Z� Council Agenda Report - Transit Transfer Sites - Downtown and Amtrak Page 5 I. Downtown Transfer Site 1. Council endorses the concept of a future MMTC to be located at the Amtrak site (1940 Santa Barbara St.) and a Downtown Transfer Site located adjacent to City Hall. Three proposed layouts of the Downtown Transfer site are attached to this report (see Exhibits B, C and D.) a. Included in the Downtown Transfer site are passenger facilities such as benches, planter seating, kiosks, vending facilities, shelters and possibly rest rooms. b. There will also be extensive planting, trees, and possibly terraced elevations between bus stops. 2. Council authorizes Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS &E's) to be prepared by Wilbur Smith. 3. The target date to issue bid documents: 6/1/98. 4. A target date for construction to begin: 11/1/98. 5. City Public Works - Transportation staff will manage the project. 6: The City's long -range plan would indicate the future desirability of an appropriately located off -street downtown transfer center. Il. NMTC /Amtrak Site 1. Council reconfirms the concept of a future MMTC at the Amtrak site and a Downtown Transfer Site on Osos Street adjacent to City Hall. A preferred conceptual layout based on an eventual full -blown MMTC project has been established. (Exhibit E) 2. Complete required additional environmental data for Community Development: 1/98 3. Receive environmental finding from Community Development: 2/98 4. Apply for State obligation of Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) funding of $582,000: 3/98 5. Target date to bring to Council a contract for Plans, Specifications and Estimate's (PS &E's): 5/98. 6. Receive State obligation of Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) funding: 6/98 7. Complete, property acquisition (both parcels): 4/99. 8. Target date for construction to be out for bid: 5/99. 7. City Public Works - Transportation staff will manage the project. Contract with Wilbur Smith Associates Staff is recommending the award of a contract to the firm of Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design for preparation of PS &E's for the Downtown Transfer site in the amount of $50,000 including contingency. Attached is their proposal for this project. This contract is a "sole source" award and is recommended due to Wilbur Smith Associates' recognized national expertise in transit system design and a long history with this project. Wilbur Smith has been the City's consultant on: 1. The Expanded Multi -modal Site Study (beyond Santa Rosa St.); 2. Preliminary Engineering for the Spring Toyota, Kimball and Shell locations; 3. Preliminary Site Designs for the MMTC /Amtrak site. i S 'S Council Agenda Report - Transit Transfer Sites - Downtown and Amtrak Page 6 The consultant is very familiar with the needs of both San Luis Obispo Transit and CCAT, and is also familiar with both system's bus routes and directional flows. Added to their proposal is the local firm of Rademaker Design, who has been a part of the Stakeholders Group and provided numerous drawings of possible downtown improvement schemes. Rademaker Design would bring the knowledge acquired, via the Stakeholders meetings, as well as an intimate knowledge of design issues in the downtown. SLOCOG contracted with Rademaker Design for more detailed site designs on the present bus transfer location on Osos Street adjacent to the County Government Center. The proposal includes a value analysis of the previously submitted staff concepts, followed by schematic design within 60 days from notice to proceed, and then final PS & E's. The proposal cost for this project is $46,000, plus a contingency of $4,000, for a total of $50,000. (This represents about a 17% design fee, which is appropriate for this size and type of project). This allocation is a portion of the "Study and Design" costs listed under the Budgeted Expenses section identified in the Fiscal Impact section of this report. Nelson/Nygaard, a next logical choice for a qualified consultant, does not perform construction plan preparation. Since few firms other than these two have ever responded to RFP's for bus related projects in the City of San Luis Obispo, staff felt it prudent and justified to request sole source approval as a means of keeping the project on schedule. CONCURRENCES The Mass Transportation Committee had discussed this new dual- transfer point concept (Downtown Transfer and MMTC /Amtrak Sites) at its May 28, 1997 meeting and has endorsed it. Various stakeholders included throughout the process have also had the opportunity to dialogue about the dual transfer site system, including property owners and County personnel. After meeting several times over the course of this past year, the stakeholders reached a consensus and mutually agreed to recommend the dual- transfer point system and their related site improvements. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted Revenue: Local T DA Funds $ 27,000 State T C I Grant $ 582,000 State Prop 116 Grant $1,016,000 Federal STP Grant $ 500,000 Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Grants 600,000 Total Revenue $297259000 sr & Council Agenda Report - Transit Transfer Sites - Downtown and Amtrak Page 7 Budgeted Expenses: Land Acquisition $1,996,000 Study $ 45,000 Design $ 84,000 Construction $ 590,000 Construction Management 10,000 Total Expenses $297259000 The Downtown Transfer site portion of the project, although a stand alone capital project, shares the budget and expenditures with the MMTC /Amtrak site. The projected revenue and expense for the two projects is shown above, with the expense portion, as staff's best estimate at this time. Since the City already owns the land for the Downtown Transfer site, the only expenditures will be for design, construction management and construction. Construction could run $300,000, with design and contract administration of construction about $60,000, for an approximate total of $360,000. The balance of the budget would be applied to the MMTC /Amtrak facility for land acquisition, environmental work, review, design, management and construction. It is important to point out that all grants are time sensitive. Both authorization for grants and expenditure of the grant money must be completed within a fairly short time schedule. As such, it is incumbent on the City to demonstrate to SLOCOG its commitment and progress in meeting these deadlines. At some point, it may also be appropriate for Council to meet jointly with SLOCOG and SLORTA to discuss this progress. /_�INYDU7ON YU *y Downtown Transfer Site At this point in the planning process, there is not a staff preference as to the lg= of the Downtown Transfer Site. Consequently as part of their contract, the consultant, Wilbur Smith Associates, will conduct a Value Analysis of the three concepts and then make. their recommendation. Staff will in turn review their findings and have the following options: 1. Agree with the consultant's recommendation in its entirety and pursue the preparation of the construction documents (PS & E's); or 2. Agree with the consultant's recommendation, with staff modifications, and then pursue the preparation of construction documents (PS & E's); or 3. Disagree entirely with the consultant's finding and staff would then develop another recommendation. Upon completing that task, staff' would pursue the preparation of construction documents (PS & E's). Numbers 1 and 2 above are the most likely. 5'-7 Council Agenda Report - Transit Transfer Sites - Downtown and Amtrak- Page 8 MMTC /Amtrac Site - This project has already been studied by the consultant, Wilbur Smith Associates, and several concepts were generated and have been reviewed by the stakeholders. As a result, once the property is purchased from Union Pacific Railroad, the construction documents can be prepared. Therefore, in staff's opinion no alternative is needed or recommended. Attachments: Exhibit A - Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design proposal with .Fee Amendment Exhibit B - Concept One /City Hall Option Exhibit C - Concept Two /City Hall Option Exhibit D - Concept Three /City Hall Option. Exhibit E - Future concept of N MTC /Amtrak Site 11CAR/Downtown Transfer Center V s -� "jkv� 9929611 VAIN vEn Wilbur S mith associates 221 Main Streets Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 896 -0670 • Fwc: (415) 896 -0195 • E -mail: rtilles @wilbursmith.com To: Wayne Peterson From: Dick Tilles Firm: City of San Luis Obispo Date: December 17, 1997 Fax: (805) 781 -7198 Job Number: 044204 Pages: 1 Res Downtown Transit Center WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS 221 MAIN STREET. SUrrE 1200- SAN FRANCSCO CA 91106.1915 - (419) 896-4/0 • SAX (a 16) 690 -01W) December 18, 1997 Mr. Harry Watson Transit Manager City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Downtown Transit Center Design Services -T Dear Mr. Watson: Wilbur Smith Associates Is pleased to submit this proposal in association with Rademaker Design to assist the City define and implement plans for an Improved passenger transfer facility Downtown. This effort would build upon our previous planning efforts and would be supported by Rademaker Design's familiarity with overall downtown urban design and planning Issues/objectives. Work Scope A four step process is proposed to complete the schematic design plan. 1. Value Analysis of Three Concepts; 2. Select Preferred Plan; 3. Development of Schematic Design; and 4. Develop Cost Estimates 1. Value Analysis of Three Concepts This initial task would be combined with the project kickoff meeting. It would Identify how the Downtown Transit Center would function with respect to transit services and also with the planned train station multimodal center. At the outset of the project WSA would review the City's mapping on the project area and would obtain any available aerial photos. These mapping tools would be employed to sketch out critical constraints and issues In advance of the kickoff meeting in order to facilitate discussion. Following discussion at the kickoff meeting, several schematic alternative site plans would be developed to evaluate functional alternatives for basing buses at the Osos Street site. These altematives might include: schemes for bending bus loading areas around onto Palm and Mill Streets; and benefits of sawtooth versus tandem loading bays. ACCRA (dF~ - ALBANY. NY - ANAHFWL CA - ATIANTA GA - BALTIMORE MD - BANGKOK. THAILAND - CARACAS VENEZUELA - CHARLESTON. SC COLUMBIA. SC - COLUMBUS. OH - DES MOINES. IA - FALLS CHURCH. VA - HONG KONG - HOUSION. IX - KUWAIT - KNOXVILLE. TN LEXINGTON, KY - LONDON, ENGLAND - MILWAUKEE. WI - NEW HAVEN. CT - ORLANDO. Fi. - PITTSBURGH. PA - RALEIGH. NC RICHMOND. VA - ROSELLE. IL - SAN FRANCISCO. CA - SAN .IOSF CA - TALLAHASSEE. FL • TAMPA. FL - TORONTO. CANADA - WASHINGTON. DC EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY S2'd 9670 968 Sib 00SI0NF%:J NHS bSr1 Wdb2:E0 L.6, 9T 03a (�F� Mr. Harry Watson December 16, 1997 Page 2 2. Select Preferred Plan The strengths and weaknesses of the functional alternative site plans would be identified for the City to select a preferred plan. As curb space Is known to be tight, it would be prudent at this point for the city to test using traffic cones critical maneuvers with its present bus fleet to ensure that minimum transit center dimensions are viable with the present fleet A brief memo would be prepared highlighting the pros and cons for the alternatives to facilitate decision on the preferred plan. 3. Development of Schematic Design Following selection of the preferred plan, the final plan would be plotted onto the AutoCAD base map, and a number of key project features would be defined. Rademaker Design would define a conceptual streetscape plan including passenger shelter facilities. Rademaker Design would provide additional sketches, photographs and other documentation to clearly describe the related amenities associated with transit operation. These elements may include sheltered bus stops, hardscape features, Information structures, etc. WSA would assess the benefit and need for a traffic signal at Osos and Mill; identify potential ITS concepts for consideration and work with Rademaker Design in defining a signage program. 4. Develop Cost Estimates A preliminary construction cost estimate of the project would be prepared including the reconstruction of Osos Street We would confer with City staff regarding relevant local cost experience In defining unit cost relationships. Schedule and Fee The proposed work would be completed within 60 days of notice to proceed. A fee of $24.100 is estimated for this work as detailed below: Task WSA Rademaker Total 1 5,900 2,750 8,650 2 2,800 750 3,550 3 6,600 -3,00-0 8 600 4 800 1,500 2,300 Total $16,100 $8,000 $24,100 A total of three trips to San Luis Obispo are included In this budget for WSA. 9710-12 'S S/E'd S6T0 96B STb 0JSI3N1J6J NHS HSM Wd42:E0 L6, 9T 03CI Mr. Harry Watson December 16, 1997 Page 3 Your signature below will indicate acceptance of this proposal, the attached General Terms of Agreement and your authorization to proceed. Please sign both copies and return one to me for our files. Please contact our Project Director, Peter Martin at 415 - 898 -0670 if you have any questions regarding this proposal. Very truly yours, WILBUR S ASSOC ES City of San Luis Obispo wllfam E. Hurrell, P.E. Regional Vice ]?resident Signature WEH/PCWpfh 044204 Enc. Title Date cc Pierre Rademaker /Z, 9710.12 S/b'd SGTe 9se STV 0JSIJNU2U NUS tlSt`1 WdSZ:E0 L6. 9T 73a Mmass WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES �e0vo General Terms ®f Agreement 1. This document will serve as a Contract for the proposed professional services. 2. The proposal is valid for a period of 60 days, after which the Consultant reserves the right to review and revise the estimated fee, time schedule, and other terms speci5ed herein. 3. This Contract is not assignable except with the prior written consent der this Contract_ and no assignment shall relieve the undersigned of any obligations 4. The undersigned agrees to pay the consultant for work performed in accord with the terms of this Contract, without regard to the success of the project. 5. Payment of the Consultant is expressly not conditioned upon the undersigned receiving any payment from third parties who are not a party to this Contract, such as other properly owners, developers, or funding agencies. 6. The individual executing this Contract, if acting on behalf of a partnership, corporation, or funding agency, represents that he or she has the authority to do so. 7. Where public hearingstmeefmgs are involved, a minimum of two weeks notice to the Consultant is required for proper preparation, including appropriate graphics and other visual aids. S. Accounts rendered are due and payable upon receipt of invoice. 9. Interest is presumed to be applicable to all unpaid accounu'bcgimmg 30 days after receipt of the invoice, with interest calculated at the established prime rate by Chase Manhattan National Bank, New York, N.Y. 10. In the evcm that the client defaults in making payments pursuant to this contract, the client shall be responsible for all of the Consultant's correction costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. October, 1997 mWS S/S'd S6t0 %8 SUP OOSIOWH U NUS bSI WdSZ:EO L6, 9t 03Q CONCEPT ONE BULB OUT MILL ST. 171- I. L SEATING WALL ,,,--SHELTER //-RESTROOMS------i �-YENDING AREA PALM ST. X+H(IBIT B CONCEPT TWO M I L L ----------------------- E-i pfif';", 'dell BULB OUT--"*'� S T. /-SEATING WALL PALM ST. SHELTER CONCEPT FULL—LENGTH— SHELTER i. ALL CONCRETE TEXTURE /—RESTROOMS c/) 0 c/) 0 4f EXHI IT CC CONCEPT THREE MILL ST. ---------------- BULB OUTS m - i- i- -�-�-'-i III / I i � I i i i I ri c I f 1 6 PALM LL It ST. finsi API VENDING KIOSKi RESTROOMS T N! 0 SHELTER II EXHIBIT D ro ajw V/- ljl� ID 0 Z11