No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Freitas Pkwy. Interchange Alternatives StudyAGENDA ITEM NO: 5 MEETING DATE: October 17, 1994 Lrt �V VO i]/ BOO Q La ]D C�0 u C�OMNC�OL SUBJECT: PUBLMPARTICIPATION ALTERNATIVES STUDY FOR THE FREITAS PARKWAY IN4irector'of NGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:��U(/GGfJ APPROVED BV' -� G/ Public Works (LS) CityyManager FILE REF: 05.01.44.01 07.02.32 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute the "Second Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services with CH2MHill for the Freitas Parkway Interchange Improvements" in order to conduct a "Public Participation Alternatives Study" for the amount of $72,600. The Amendment shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. Direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature requesting CalTrans to provide at least one participant to the "Alternatives Study Project Advisory Team" who will have irrevocable decision making authority regarding design parameters. 3. Direct staff to develop a "Project Advisory Team" participants list for Council approval. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: We recently had an item on the Council Agenda to develop a computer simulation of the Freitas Interchange to test out a signalization design concept. This item was continued in order to review the proposal with local community groups. After discussing the matter with Shirley Fisher of the North San Rafael Coalition of Neighborhoods, we have concluded that there is a real necessity for an "Alternatives Study" to be performed. Given that the Freitas Offramp/Civic Center Drive intersection is extremely complex and controversial, it does not seem prudent to perform any further technical analysis until a `design concept" can be mutually agreed upon by all concerned parties. We have recently performed similar public participation alternative studies with great success on the Andersen Drive and the Bellam/Irene Over -crossing projects. The results of the latter study is scheduled to come to the Council in December. We feel that such an effort will produce worthwhile results at the Freitas Interchange as well. We are currently under contract with CH2MHi11 to provide engineering services for the design of improvements at this location. They are well experienced and qualified to perform the proposed Public Participation Alternatives Study. tte I�Io' *-3 -_2Z. Cotincif Meeting ---- 1,7 q _ Oisoositio�n PROCESS OVERVIEW The process being proposed is described in the attached proposal. It basically would involve the formation of a Project Advisory Team comprised of the various "stakeholders" which would include residents, businesses and agencies. The make up of this group will be brought back to the Council at their next meeting for approval. It would be desirable if one of the Council members would be willing to be on this team and participate in the process. A series of four workshops would be held to develop and evaluate proposed design concepts. On the basis of detailed evaluation criteria developed by the Project Advisory Team, a preferred alternative will be selected to be carried forward into final design. One of the major problems that we have encountered with CalTrans related projects has been the reversal of their own staff directives by decision makers higher up in their organization. This has been extremely costly to us as a local agency. Therefore, we are recommending that the Council directly request that CalTrans provide participants to the "Project Advisory Team" who will have irrevocable decision making authority regarding design parameters. STUDY CO STS We have reviewed the proposed costs for the Alternative Study and find them to be reasonable for the scope of the work. The major cost is in the engineering analysis, much of which will have to be performed regardless of how we proceed with this project. By comparison, this estimated cost of $72,600 for this proposal is about half the cost of the Bellam/Irene Overcrossing study which was approximately $150,000. The original federal ISTEA funding for this project has been shifted to the Merrydale Overcrossing project. Consequently, the cost of this Study will be funded by Traffic Mitigation Fees. This will relieve us of the aggressive time limits and strict requirements imposed by the federal funding. ENCLOSURES: (2) 1. Resolution 2. Proposal FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 9239 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH C112M HILL FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER- ING SERVICES FOR THE FREITAS PARKWAY INTERCHANGEIMPROVEMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES AS The Director of Public Works and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of San Rafael, an amendment to an agreement with CH2M HILL for the "Freitas Parkway Interchange Improvements." Said amendment shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney, and is for the purpose of conducting an "Alternatives Study," a proposal for which is hereby attached and by this reference made a part of this resolution. I, JEANNE. M. LEONCINI, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 17th day of October, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. City of San Rafael • Department of Public Works AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH CH2MHILL CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR THE FREITAS PARKWAY/US 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Date of Agreement This Amendment No. 2 is made and entered into this 17th day of October, 1994 by and between the City of San Rafael, a municipality in the County of Marin, State of California (hereinafter called CITY) and CH2M Hill California, Inc., a corporation in the State of California (hereinafter called Consultant). Names and Addresses of Agreeing Parties City of San Rafael CH2M Hill California, Inc. Dept. of Public Works P. O. Box 12681 P. O. Box 151560 Oakland, CA 94604-4046 San Rafael, Ca. 94915-1560 Attn: Steve Castleberry This Amendment No. 2 shall amend the previous Agreement dated June 18, 1993 and Amendment No. 1 dated July 23, 1994 as per Attachment A. "Proposal for Freitas Parkway/Highway 101 Interchange Alternatives Study" as submitted by the Consultant and approved by the City by Resolution No. 9239. ATTEST: JkANNE M. LEONCI City Clerk AMPROVED ORM: �-�ARI'�-T RA�GHIANT7 City Attorney F SAN RAF L - . DAVID M. BERNARDI Director of Public Works CH2MHILL CA 1 OA, I n 0' RAN Manager, Transportation R E� 1994 SAN FRANCISCO Attachment A Proposal for Freitas Parkway/Highway 101 Interchange Alternatives Study This scope of work covers C112M HILL's involvement in conducting a cooperative process to address freeway access issues at Freitas Parkway/ Highway 101 in the City of San Rafael. The objective of this work is to define project goals, develop evaluation criteria, develop alternatives and prepare a recommendation to the City for approval. The deliverable for the project will be a Recommendation and Summary Report as outlined below. Task 1: Proiect Advisory Team Workshops The City will be responsible for selecting and appointing Advisory Team members. It is understood the Team will comprise 10-15 people representing various stakeholders who have an interest in access at the project location. Four workshops are to be held. C112M HILL will schedule, plan, facilitate, and record these workshops and coordinate the workshop logistics. Technical support to these workshops is described under Task 3-4. Each workshop is anticipated to run 4 hours and will be attended by 3-5 C112M HILL professional staff (including technical personnel). The general outline of the workshops are as follows: Advisory Team Workshop 1: Introductions and role of Project Advisory Team Review, discussion and definition of problem statement Discussion of evaluation criteria and weighting factors Advisory Team Workshop 2: Review and discuss final evaluation criteria and weighting factors Brainstorm and discuss alternative concepts (assume approximately 10) Preliminary Screening Advisory Team Workshop 3: Presentation of alternative concepts ranking Discussion of alternatives ranking Review of design alternatives Advisory Team Workshop 4: Presentation of engineering and cost data Discussion of Advisory Team recommendation Selection of preferred design alternative Task 2: Recommendation and Summary Report The results of the Advisory Team process will be summarized in a report to the City. Twenty copies of the report will be submitted to the City. Attachment "A" Page I Task 3: Eneineerins Evaluation It is assumed that all traffic volumes used for evaluating the alternatives will be provided by the City. CH2M HILL's tasks are described as follows: Task 3-1 Initial Data Collection C112M HILL will prepare the basic engineering information needed to support the Advisory Team. The intent of this task is to give the Team information required to understand the problems and constraints and thereby improve the quality of alternatives developed. This information will include an aerial photograph of the project area, profiles and cross sections, and a summary of relevant traffic data. Task 3-2 Alternative Concept Development Between the second and third Advisory Team workshops, C112M HILL will investigate up to ten alternative design concepts. For each alternative concept, we will develop plan geometrics, approximate design profiles, and conceptual opinions of construction cost. The intent of this evaluation is to identify possible fatal flaws in the alternatives and give the Advisory Team the technical information necessary to further screen the alternatives. It is anticipated development of the alternative geometrics will be an iterative process with both the City and Caltrans. The geometrics will reviewed as they are developed. Task 3-3 Refine Alternative Development Between the third and fourth Advisory Team workshops, C112M HILL will further refine geometrics for up to three alternatives. The purpose of this task is to confirm geometric and cost assumptions made in Task 3-2. In addition, additional profiles will be developed of critical geometric elements, such as curb returns, to confirm that Caltrans and City design standards can be met. Task 3-4 Advisory Team Workshop Technical Support Each workshop will be attended by the project engineer and geometrician to provide technical support to the Advisory Team. In addition, graphics materials as required for each workshop will be prepared. Attachment "A" Page 2 Freitas Parkway/Highway 101 Access Study Task 1: Meeetings O'Halloran Regos Eichhom Office Task 1 Labor Subtotal Task 2: Recommendation and Summary Report O'Halloran Regos Eichhom Office Task 2 Labor Subtotal Task 3: Engineering Evaluation Task 3.1: Initial Data Collection Angleman Task 3.2 Alternative Concept Development Angleman Ragland Castleberry Task 3.3 Refined Alternative Development Angleman Ragland Task 3.4 Technical Support Angleman Castleberry Task 3 Labor Subtotal Labor Subtotal Expenses Graphics/Production Misc Expense Subtotal Total Hours 48 92 80 40 6 24 12 16 3 204 12 8 32 16 Page 1 Dollars $6,480 $6,440 $8,000 $2,400 $23,320 $810 $1,680 $1,200 $960 $4,650 $800 $20,400 $1,440 $960 $6,000 $720 $3,200 $1,920 $35,440 $63,410 $4,000 $5,200 $9,200 $72,610 Attachment "A" Page 3 Attachment A Proposal for Freitas Parkway/Highway 101 Interchange Alternatives Study This scope of work covers C112M HILUS involvement in conducting a cooperative process to address freeway access issues at Freitas Parkway/ Highway 101 in the City of San Rafael. The objective of this work is to define project goals, develop evaluation criteria, develop alternatives and prepare a recommendation to the City for approval. The deliverable for the project will be a Recommendation and Summary Report as outlined below. Task 1: Proiect Advisory Team Workshops The City will be responsible for selecting and appointing Advisory Team members. It is understood the Team will comprise 10-15 people representing various stakeholders who have an interest in access at the project location. Four workshops are to be held. C112M HILL will schedule, plan, facilitate, and record these workshops and coordinate the workshop logistics. Technical support to these workshops is described under Task 3-4. Each workshop is anticipated to run 4 hours and will be attended by 3-5 C112M HILL professional staff (including technical personnel). The general outline of the workshops are as follows: Advisory Team Workshop 1: Introductions and role of Project Advisory Team Review, discussion and definition of problem statement Discussion of evaluation criteria and weighting factors Advisory Team Workshop 2: Review and discuss final evaluation criteria and weighting factors Brainstorm and discuss alternative concepts (assume approximately 10) Preliminary Screening Advisory Team Workshop 3: Presentation of alternative concepts ranking Discussion of alternatives ranking Review of design alternatives Advisory Team Workshop 4: Presentation of engineering and cost data Discussion of Advisory Team recommendation Selection of preferred design alternative Task 2: Recommendation and Summary Report The results of the Advisory Team process will be summarized in a report to the City. Twenty copies of the report will be submitted to the City. ORIGINAL Task 3: Engineerirkg Evaluation It is assumed that all traffic volumes used for evaluating the alternatives will be provided by the City. CH2M HILL's tasks are described as follows: Task 3-1 Initial Data Collection CH2M HILL will prepare the basic engineering information needed to support the Advisory Team. The intent of this task is to give the Team information required to understand the problems and constraints and thereby improve the quality of alternatives developed. This information will include an aerial photograph of the project area, profiles and cross sections, and a summary of relevant traffic data. Task 3-2 Alternative Concept Development Between the second and third Advisory Team workshops, C112M HILL will investigate up to ten alternative design concepts. For each alternative concept, we will develop plan geometrics, approximate design profiles, and conceptual opinions of construction cost. The intent of this evaluation is to identify possible fatal flaws in the alternatives and give the Advisory Team the technical information necessary to further screen the alternatives. It is anticipated development of the alternative geometrics will be an iterative process with both the City and Caltrans. The geometrics will reviewed as they are developed. Task 3-3 Refine Alternative Development Between the third and fourth Advisory Team workshops, C112M HILL will further refine geometrics for up to three alternatives. The purpose of this task is to confirm geometric and cost assumptions made in Task 3-2. In addition, additional profiles will be developed of critical geometric elements, such as curb returns, to confirm that Caltrans and City design standards can be met. Task 3-4 Advisory Team Workshop Technical Support Each workshop will be attended by the project engineer and geometrician to provide technical support to the Advisory Team. In addition, graphics materials as required for each workshop will be prepared. Freitas Parkway/Highway 101 Access Study Task 1: Meeetings O'Halloran Regos Eichhom Office Task 1 Labor Subtotal Task 2: Recommendation and Summary Report O'Halloran Regos Eichhom Office Task 2 Labor Subtotal Task 3: Engineering Evaluation Task 3.1: Initial Data Collection Angleman Task 3.2 Alternative Concept Development Angleman Ragland Castleberry Task 3.3 Refined Alternative Development Angleman Ragland Task 3.4 Technical Support Angleman Castleberry Task 3 Labor Subtotal Labor Subtotal Expenses Graphics/Production Misc Expense Subtotal Total Hours Dollars 48 $6,480 92 $6,440 80 $8,000 40 $2,400 $23,320 6 $810 24 $1,680 12 $1,200 16 $960 $4,650 8 $800 204 $20,400 12 $1,440 8 $960 60 $6,000 6 $720 32 $3,200 16 $1,920 $35,440 $63,410 Page 1 $4,000 $5,200 $9,200 $72,610 ROUTING SLIP FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT/AGREFI.IENTS/ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS G INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT/ AGREEMENT/ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL/AGENCY FROM: Date: !*RX 10/26/94 Originatinu Department: pW TITLE OF DOCUMENT: SRRA/SP.CC AGENDA TTEN DATE OF p1EETING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PROF. SERVICES WITH _ CH2MHILL CALIF. INC. FOR THE FREITAS PARKWAY/US INTER 101_ INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS �Iiead Signattre) r 1994 CITY ATTORNEY CITY l7 (LOWER HALF OF FORM FOR AI'PROVA.LS ONLY) REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE TO: DIRECTOR APP$JJ0 Rr4: APrROVED AS COUNCIL!/AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NOT APPROVED RE11ARKS : cc• Firtince D u oc• ort Attached is one copy of dncument. Please review Fnr financial LmpaCt. Whim- - - - - - -City Clerk's Office with Ori -final Document Crenn - - - - - -City Manager's Office DI ai, Caner,; - - - - -Originating Department `-;j Pink - - - - - - -Finance Director m� Goldenrod- - - --Prel.iminaty file Copy-)rioinating Depaitmnnt s� r y (Signature) i,9 WA ROUTING SLIP FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT/AGREEI.IENTS/ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT/ AGREEMENT/ORDINANCE/RESOLITTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL/AGENCY f1j(/SRCC AGENDA TTFI1 N FROM: Date: 10/13/94 ( Oct. 17, 19_94_ _ _ _) Originatinu Department: DF'W —DATE OF IiEETING TITLE OF DOCUMENT: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ALTERNATIVES STUDY FOR FREITAS PARKWAY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS— 1. 1. RESOLUTION 2. AGREEMENT WITH CH2M HILI_ S l 3 1994 Del? rtment Head (Signature) CRY ATTORNEY (LOWER HALF OF FORM FOR APPROVALS ONLY) REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER/EYECUrPIVE TO: PPR DIRECTOR AUNAPIROVED ,/AGENCY AGENDA IlFM ttorn SiJnR'a�:/ Lturtie) 17 � NOT APPROVED REMARKS: : cr• Finrnce Director: Attached is one ropy of dncumenL. Please revaew 'or financial impact. Whir-- - - - -City Clerk's Office with Orr•llnal Document i! Green- - - - - - -City Manager's Office n= Canary - - - - -Originating Department Pink - - - - - - -Finance nire ctor H, goldenrod- - - - -Preliminary file Copy -Originating Deparlmnnt i•A ci ,ENDUM T0: SRCC ITEM #5 (10/17/9.4) 720R7;;( SA& R,457ASd C90AZ* 7*70?2 09 RESIMS;MS A LJo.,c.Aa wa* &9"44r&* � t -5"U r f 114a" and %K�O�I/AtQiLOIG P 0. box 6642 Sac Ra#d &Ay!6uria 94903-0642 21 " t October 16, 1994 Nyn San Rafael City Council 1994 1400 Fifth Street, P. O Box 151560�Ct 1 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Dear Council Members: The Steering Committee of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents asks your support for the proposed Public Participation Alternatives Study for the Freitas Parkway Interchange Improvements Project. We strongly endorse a timely process including input from neighboring businesses, such as Autodesk, the Northgate Shopping Centers, the County and/or Marin Center, Caltrans, and local neighborhood associations to develop a long term improvement for this confusing, congested, and hazardous intersection. In 1990, the City Council included signalization of the northbound Freitas Interchange intersection in the final approval of the Merrydale Overcrossing Project when it was demonstrated by traffic studies from DKS Associates and from the North San Rafael Coalition that this complex intersection did not meet City traffic standards and would continue not to meet standards in the future unless it was signalized. In the summer of 1992, representatives of the northern San Rafael community met several times with City staff and consultants from CH2MHi11 to review plans for reconfiguration and signalization of this intersection. Although the plans were well received by the community and were approved in concept by the City Council in March, 1993, approval could not be secured from Caltrans. STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS MEMBERS AT LARGE CASA MARIN - DOROTHY MC CARTHY QUAIL HILL- RUTH AIRTH SUE BEITIEL MAY FROST JOHN SHELLENBERGER CONTEMPO MARIN 'DORIS MARTINI SAN RAFAEL MEADOWS -TCW FEWELL BONNIE BROWN COLLEEN JOHNSON DOROTHY SKUFCA LUCAS VALLEY -TOM EGAN SANTA VENETIA IJL - FRANCES NUNEZ CAROL COLBERT GABRIEL LEHRER FRANK SOLOMON MONT MARIN - KATHERINE MILLER SMITH RANCH HOMES -LEONARD RUBIN CAROL DILLON STAN OTT ERWIN WILLIAMS NORTHBRIDGE - RALPH MEROLA TERRA LINDA - HERMINE BOYADJUIN SHIRLEY FISCHER JOHN ROJAS JOHN YATES NORTH NOVA ALBION - CARL ATKINSON VILLA MARIN - FRANCES SPANGLE NSRCR, 3/28/94, Page 2 It is critical that an acceptable solution be developed for the northbound Freitas Interchange intersection --a solution that maintains or improves connection of communities and businesses on both sides of Highway 101 while decreasing congestion, eliminating driver confusion, and minimizing potential City liability for injuries due to hazardous traffic flow. We concur with the Department of Public Works that vacillation and conflicting information from Caltrans has been a major barrier to proceeding with this project. We urge timely action on DPW's proposal to develop an acceptable design for this intersection, because it is vital that improvements proceed concurrently with construction of the Merrydale Overcrossing Project. Thanks for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, A4," AN� Shirley R. Fischer September 18,1994 To: San Rafael City Council From: Shirley Fischer, for the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents Steering Committee Re: Freitas Parkway Interchange Improvements You have received a copy of the letter from the NSRCR Steering Committee thanking the Council for the appointment of the Freitas Advisory Committee and urging the Council to pursue the recommended interchange improvements. The Advisory Committee'splanning process was comprehensive. The recommended alternative best meets the criteria for improved traffic flow and safety, and, while the price tag is high, it provides a long term solution for this chronic problem. We urge the Council to accept the Committee's recommendation and pursue development and funding of the proposed alternative. Tonight I want to add to this letter and review some related long-standing concerns with you. Briefly stated, the City government has a credibility problem in the northern San Rafael community regarding the Freitas Interchange. There has been a big discrepancy between what the City has said is going on here and what our senses tell us as we drive through this intersection. There are three main issues: the reliability of traffic measurement and projections, the relationship between traffic capacity at the intersection and surrounding land use, and safety at this intersection. I. Reliability of traffic measurement. Historically the City measured the Freitas Interchange as two intersections, coming up with good Levels of Service of A -C. This did not match up with the long queues of traffic we experience at this intersection. In 1990 the Coalition did its own traffic study measuring the Interchange as ONE intersection and came up with LOS F. The City commissioned DKS to check our study --they also came up with LOS F. In 1993, CH2MHi11 did traffic counts and came to a similar conclusion. The City acknowledged these reports, but after the DKS study in 1991 went back to measuring the interchange as TWO intersections and continued to assign LOS A -C to it. During the meetings of the Freitas Advisory Committee, City staff were repeatedly asked what was the LOS of this intersection, and they avoided giving an answer, saying that the interchange would be measured as ONE intersection in the new traffic model. The Coalition asks, "What has been going on here for the last four years and why? And when will it stop? Will the City's analysis of the Freitas interchange as ONE intersection in the new traffic model match up with the results of the three previous studies or will there be continuing discrepancy between staff analysis and community experience?" It is critical that this discrepancy be resolved. The community must have confidence in the accuracy of traffic measurements and projections. The City must have accurate data on the traffic situation now and two years hence in order to evaluate the traffic model projections of changes in traffic flow due to the Merrydale Overcrossing Project. We all need to know how accurate the projections are as well as what the real level of traffic congestion is, since these are the data upon which planning decisions are made. 2. Relationship between traffic capacity and land use. The City has a similar credibility gap on this issue. The Freitas interchange was originally part of the Priority Project Procedure, which determines what projects can be built in a traffic -impacted area. In 1991, after the above traffic studies, Freitas interchange was REMOVED from the PPP, so projects in surrounding areas did not need to compete under limited traffic capacity. Freitas was not returned to the PPP until this spring after much questioning from the community, and it is still not clear how it is going to be used in the PPP for current projects. Questions about available, reserved, and future trips allocated to the Freitas interchange were not available during the Freitas Advisory Committee's work. We do know that traffic is expected to increase more than FIFTY PERCENT in the future. There is concern in our community that the City Council and staff do not sufficiently appreciate the impact of traffic congestion on the commercial and residential areas of northern San Rafael. There is concern that, in the pursuit of sales tax revenue or traffic mitigation fees, the City is pressing to approve additional projects which will have dramatically detrimental effects on the surrounding community and which, if measured accurately, will cause the City to exceed its own traffic standards. 3. Safety at the Intersection. City and Caltrans staff have maintained that there is no safety problem at the Freitas Interchange --that it is one of the safer freeway interchanges in California. This does not match up with the squealing brakes, broken glass, broken poles, and actual accidents that members of the northern San Rafael Coalition have witnessed at this intersection. One of our Steering Committee members was in an accident there last Fall. Last Thursday the center divider sign was knocked down --again. The examples go on and on. It is key that the City Council and staff and the community come to a shared understanding and goals for land use and traffic planning in the northern San Rafael area. As a beginning, the City needs to: 1) Commit itself to remedying the traffic congestion and unsafe conditions at the Freitas interchange. 2) Deal more openly with the community in honestly evaluating: a) what our current traffic situation is, b)how it affects projects currently seeking approval, c)how the situation will improve with the completion of the Merrydale Overcrossing, d)how many additional projects may be approved before this improvement degenerates below City standards again, e)what (if any) temporary improvements can be made to the Freitas interchange, f) at what point a more permanent, long term solution must be built. We are hopeful that the City's credibility gaps will be resolved as we move forward together in the planning process. The work of the Freitas Advisory Committee has been a large step in the right direction. We look forward to working with the City to resolve the above issues and come to a long term solutions for the Freitas interchange and our surrounding community. SUMMARY REPORT FREITAS PARKWAY / US, 101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Prepared for Prepared by CHM HILL July 1995 r; i _r, 4--.3 -zsy SUMMARY REPORT FREITAS PARKWAY/U.S.101 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Prepared for City of San Rafael Prepared by CWHII/ July 1995 SF010030D11.DOC Contents Section Page 1 Introduction............................................................................................................1-1 StudyPurpose.........................................................................................................1-1 ProjectHistory ........................................................................................................1-1 2 Study Recommendation......................................................................................... 2-1 3 Overview of Study Approach................................................................................ 3-1 AdvisoryGroup Meetings....................................................................................... 3-1 AlternativesEvaluation........................................................................................... 3-2 4 Study Results.......................................................................................................... 4-1 Identification of Issues and Concerns.....................................................................4-1 Establishment of the Study Goal............................................................................. 4-5 Development of Evaluation Criteria....................................................................... 4-5 Weightingthe Criteria............................................................................................. 4-7 Development of Alternative Design Concepts........................................................ 4-7 Measurement of the Criteria................................................................................. 4-22 Elimination of Alternative Design Concepts........................................................ 4-22 Calculation of Alternatives Score......................................................................... 4-22 Discussion and Analysis of Alternative Concept Score ........................................ 4-27 Selection of Preferred Alternative......................................................................... 4-27 Preparation of Final Recommendation................................................................. 4-29 Appendix A. Measurements, Ratings, and Scores for All Alternative Design Concepts Appendix B. Draft Construction Staging for Alternative Concept CLE Appendix C. Final Design Recommendations Tables 3-1 Advisory Group Members.................................................................................... 3-1 4-1 Criteria for Reconstruction of the Freitas Parkway Interchange .......................... 4-6 4-2 Weighted Criteria................................................................................................. 4-7 4-3 Scores..................................................................................................................4-27 3F010030D 11.DOC Contents (continued) Figures 1-1 Project Location Map...........................................................................................1-2 2-1 Concept CLE........................................................................................................ 2-2 4-1 Alternative No Build............................................................................................ 4-8 4-2 Alternative Concept A.......................................................................................... 4-9 4-3 Alternative Concept B........................................................................................ 4-10 4-4 Alternative Concept C........................................................................................ 4-11 4-5 Alternative Concept CLE................................................................................... 4-12 4-6 Alternative Concept D........................................................................................4-13 4-7 Alternative Concept E........................................................................................ 4-14 4-8 Alternative Concept F......................................................................................... 4-15 4-9 Alternative Concept F (modified)....................................................................... 4-16 4-10 Alternative Concept G........................................................................................4-17 4-11 Alternative Concept H........................................................................................4-18 4-12 Alternative Concept I.......................................................................................... 4-19 4-13 Alternative Concept J1....................................................................................... 4-20 4-14 Alternative Concept J2....................................................................................... 4-21 4-15 Refined Alternative Concept CLE......................................................................4-23 4-16 Refined Alternative Concept F........................................................................... 4-24 4-17 Refined Alternative Concept H.......................................................................... 4-25 4-18 Refined Alternative Concept J-2........................................................................ 4-26 SFO 10030D 11.DOC Section I Freitas Parkway Interchange Alternatives Study SFO10030D11.DOC Section I Introduction In January 1995, the City of San Rafael (the City) organized a community Advisory Group to analyze potential traffic flow and access improvements on the Freitas Parkway Interchange in San Rafael. The immediate study area included the Freitas Parkway Interchange, Redwood Highway frontage road, Civic Center Drive, and the northbound on- and off -ramp access to Highway 101. Figure 1-1 shows the project location map and the existing interchange configuration. The study involved educating the Advisory Group on the technical requirements and constraints associated with the design and construction of interchanges; this eventually led the group in developing alternative concepts and ultimately selecting an alternative that met group objectives. This report summarizes the study background, process, results, and recommendation. Study Purpose Due to strong community interest in the improvement of the Freitas Parkway Interchange, the City decided to invite representatives of the community, businesses, and transportation agencies to conduct an alternatives study. The goal of this study was to develop a set of alternatives and make a consensus recommendation that would meet the criteria of all stakeholders and interested parties. Four formal meetings and one interim meeting (between the first and second meeting) were held to develop and analyze alternatives. Upon completion of the study, the results were documented in a report to the City, and a recommendation made to City Council. Project History The Freitas Parkway Interchange provides east/west access across Highway 101. It was constructed to carry motorists across the freeway to allow them to travel north on Highway 101. As a result of commercial and residential development on the eastern side of Highway 101, a connection between Civic Center Drive and Redwood Highway frontage roads to Freitas Parkway was required. A connector intersection was constructed to provide access, but as development continued to grow on the eastern side of the freeway, traffic congestion at the connector intersection increased. To resolve the congestion at the Freitas Parkway Interchange, the City and Caltrans developed plans to build the Merrydale overcrossing project, which included a new northbound on-ramp from Redwood Highway just north of the Freitas Parkway Interchange and an overcrossing with bicycle lanes and sidewalks just south of the Freitas Parkway Interchange. The Merrydale overcrossing project was intended to redirect and accommodate traffic from the Freitas Parkway Interchange. SF010030D13.DOC 1--1 npvod Gia 101 Teri Lindy a ro M�N�EC g PREStD10 o° MARIN FREITAS fs BLVD. CENTER DR. J A4(1{NORTH GATE n MERRYDALE RD. MALL f OVERCRQSSING [under construction] = CEMETARY DR r- = 101 z MARIN COUNTY p CIVIC CENTER &LIBRY pQ` San Rafael O VISITORBUREAU 4�°¢ yP� Figure 1- I In 1991, a group of concerned residents, the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, prepared an independent analysis of the proposed Merrydale overcrossing with respect to traffic congestion at the Freitas Parkway Interchange and presented the results of that analysis to the City Council. The coalition's analysis was replicated by DKS Associates. The coalition evaluated the following issues: • Assessment of existing traffic • Assumptions regarding the redirection of traffic after construction of the new Merrydale Overcrossing • Projections of traffic from future developments • Analysis and conclusions regarding Freitas Parkway capacity and future traffic conditions Based on their analysis, the coalition concluded that additional improvements were needed at the Freitas Parkway Interchange and that construction of the Merrydale overcrossing project alone would not resolve the traffic congestion issues at the Freitas Parkway Interchange. In response to the coalition's study, the City Council commissioned a traffic study of the interchange. The City used the results of the traffic study to perform focused improvement feasibility studies of two separate alternatives. These were presented to the City, Caltrans, and the public. While the alternatives responded to some of the operational concerns, they raised additional questions about traffic safety; they were, therefore, not acceptable to Caltrans. As a result, the City decided to bring all interested parties together to develop alternative design concepts that would meet the needs of residents, businesses, and public agencies and would conform to required design standards. SF010030D 13.DOC 1-3 Section 2 Study Recommendation SF010030D 11.DOC Section 2 Study Recommendation The Freitas Parkway Interchange Alternatives Study Advisory Group held five meetings (four formally scheduled meetings and one interim meeting) beginning in February 1995, reached consensus on a design alternative, and finalized a recommendation in July 1995. The recommended alternative design concept, Concept CLE, is shown in Figure 2-1. The design concept proposes two separate signalized intersections (one at Redwood Highway and Freitas Parkway and the other at the northbound freeway off -ramp and Civic Center Drive), increased storage capacity on the off- and on -ramps, designated left- and right -turn lanes, and the elimination of the northbound on-ramp associated with the Merrydale overcrossing. This concept allows Golden Gate Transit buses to maintain the freeway bus pad and frontage road stops. The concept meets the criteria established by the Advisory Group shown in Table 4-1. The concept also reduced the number of uncontrolled crossings down to one for cyclists traveling from Freitas Parkway to Civic Center Drive. The Advisory Group specified the following supplemental recommendations for construction of the new Freitas Parkway Interchange. • Signalization - Signals will be timed to allow for coordination between intersections. - Signalization will not create a back up on some of the legs of the intersection, including the off -ramp. - Signage will be available to assign traffic in designated directions. • Pedestrian/Bicycle Access - Bus and pedestrian access will be safe and controlled. • Construction - Specified detour routes will be determined, especially for traffic traveling on Redwood Highway during construction. - Northbound off -ramp access to the west will be maintained during construction. - Preliminary construction staging plans will be developed. - A potential barrier may be required between the northbound off -ramp and on -ramps. SFO 10030D 14.DOC 2-1 The private driveway off of the intersection on the eastern side of Civic Center Drive and Redwood Highway uses the same right of way to minimize purchase of adjacent properties. The free right movement to the northbound loop on-ramp must be modified and the intersection must be tightened to eliminate widening of the bridge and to accommodate design concerns on this alternative. SFO10030D14.DOC 2-3 Section 3 Overview of Study Approach SF010030D11.DOC Section 3 Overview of Study Approach Concerned over meeting the needs of the community, businesses, and public transit providers, the City decided to conduct a study that would involve all stakeholders in developing alternative design concepts to meet their needs. The City hired CH2M HILL to facilitate the study process and to provide technical assistance. The process was designed to provide enough technical information to the Advisory Group to allow the group to develop draft design alternatives and to select a final design recommendation. Arriving at a final recommendation required holding Advisory Group meetings and conducting an alternatives evaluation process. Advisory Group Meetings The Freitas Parkway Interchange Alternatives Study Advisory Group was selected to provide a broad base of input into the reconfiguration of the Freitas Parkway Interchange. The focus of the group was to identify traffic problems and concerns; develop criteria, measurements, and objectives for the new interchange; brainstorm alternative design concepts; and select a final alternative that would satisfy the criteria. The selected Advisory Group members and their affiliations are listed in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Advisory Group Members Name I Affiliation Residents Shirley Fisher Hermine Boyadjian Jeanne Mann Bob Bonebrake Businesses Peter Galli Bob Holmes Matt Denko Local Agencies Andy Preston Nader Mansourian Jean Hasser Paul Cohen Art Brook Transportation Agencies Katie Yim Jerry Champa Alan Zahradnik North San Rafael Coalition of Residents Terra Linda Homeowners Association Quail Hill Homeowners Association Marin Lagoon Homeowners Association Northgate Mall Marin Association of Realtors Autodesk City of San Rafael/Engineering City of San Rafael/Traffic City of San Rafael/Planning City Council Member County of Marin/Public Works Caltrans/District 4 Representative Caltrans Headquarter Geometrician Golden Gate Transit SF010030D 15.DOC 3-1 The Advisory Group members were selected by the City. A request was sent to homeowner groups and businesses in the area requesting participation in the Alternatives Study and recommendations for representation. Requests were also made for representation from Golden Gate Transit, County of Marin Engineering, and Caltrans. Representatives from the City Council and staff members from the City's Department of Planning, Engineering, and Traffic were also contacted. All responses were compiled, and the Freitas Parkway Interchange Alternatives Study Advisory Group was formed. Alternatives Evaluation During the course of five meetings between February and July 1995, the Advisory Group completed a series of tasks leading up to the selection of the final alternative. With guidance from C112M HILL, the Advisory Group completed the following activities: • Identification of issues and concerns • Establishment of the study goal • Development of evaluation criteria • Weighting the criteria • Development of alternative design concepts • Measurement of the criteria • Elimination of alternative design concepts • Calculation of alternatives score • Discussion and analysis of alternative concept scores • Selection of preferred alternative • Preparation of final recommendation Selection of the preferred alternative design concept through consensus was completed at the third meeting on May 17, 1995. SFO10030D15.DOC 3-2 Section 4 Study Results SF010030D11.DOC Section 4 Study Results This section describes the results of the Advisory Group study that led to the final consensus recommendation. Identification of Issues and Concerns Prior to the first Advisory Group meeting, to expedite the initial phase of the process, each group member was interviewed over the telephone to determine his/her specific issues and concerns regarding the existing interchange and any requirements for the construction of a new interchange. Following completion of these interviews, the issues and concerns raised were compiled by CH2M HILL and presented at the first meeting of the Advisory Group. Understanding the Problem The first task of the Advisory Group was to clearly understand the problem the study was to address. At the first Advisory Group meeting on February 22, 1995, the Advisory Group reviewed (1) its role during the alternatives study, and (2) the engineering principles that would provide guidelines for final design of the selected alternative concept. Role of the Advisory Group The role of the Advisory Group was to work together to understand the concerns and problems related to the existing interchange and to develop alternatives that would satisfy those concerns while creating a feasible interchange alternative. The Alternative Study guidelines are as follows: • The Alternatives Study and Advisory Group will focus on the Freitas Parkway/Highway 101 Interchange. • No members will participate with preconceived solutions for a project alternative. • The process will be collaborative among all stakeholders involved. • Ownership of all decisions will be shared. Engineering Principles - Defining the Parameters During the first meeting, CH2M HILL presented the Advisory Group with information defining the constraints within which the study would be conducted. These included physical constraints, such as topography, engineering principles and practices, cost, and schedule. The following basic guidelines were used during the study: SF010030D16.DOC 4-1 • The study is based on future general plan buildout traffic volumes and includes improvements to the street network, such as the Merrydale overcrossing and the northbound Highway 101 on-ramp from Redwood Highway. • The existing configuration will be evaluated as one intersection. • Alternative analysis will be conducted based on the PM commute. • Alternatives will be developed based on the City's minimum standard Level of Service (LOS) D. Based upon the current and projected traffic volumes in the area and concerns voiced by the community, the Advisory Group established that maintaining the interchange in its current configuration would increase the existing problem. Major Issues and Concerns An overview of the issues and concerns expressed during the telephone interviews with the group members was presented to the Advisory Group at the first meeting, and additional issues were discussed and recorded. Additional issues combined into several categories: Safety Issues • West/east and east/west movements perceived as dangerous in the interchange • Overly fast traffic coming into the interchange from the northbound Highway 101 off -ramp • Prevention of additional traffic congestion or driver confusion during construction • Safety for pedestrians and drivers on the interchange • Driver confusion • City liability for accidents in the interchange • Maintenance of bus access (turning widths) in the interchange • Safety at the interchange during construction • Impaired visibility at the interchange • Increased hazard as a result of increased interchange usage • Adequate sight distance for motorists coming off of the freeway SF010030D16.DOC 4-2 • No increase in accidents in the area as a result of the selected interchange alternative • Clear designation of movement right-of-way in the intersection • Availability of accident data for the interchange and intersection Capacity Issues • Two lanes or more for stacking at the northbound off -ramp, if the ramp is signalized • Traffic flow controls on the bridge • Consideration of new development, such as Costco, so that Freitas design can accommodate new traffic levels as projected in the General Plan • No additional traffic congestion or driver confusion during construction • Consideration of effects of traffic from all roads converging into Freitas • Fairness in conducting traffic studies, and use of agreed upon and consistent measurements • Consideration of Freitas Parkway Interchange in City's competition for funding of interchanges operating at low levels of service, as required by the City's General Plan • Design and construction of Freitas to balance congestion in the area with other roads and interchanges • Negative impacts to traffic flow from construction of the northbound Highway 101 on-ramp from Redwood Highway • Improvement of traffic flow from Las Gallinas to Del Presidio to northbound or southbound Highway 101 • Alleviation, by design, of too much traffic and high speeds on Redwood Highway • Construction impacts on commuters, drivers during major commute times • Inadequate space for construction of a partial cloverleaf on east side • Inadequate traffic storage area on Redwood Highway for northbound Highway 101 entrance ramp SF010030D 16.DOC 4-3 • Sequenced signalization, if two intersections are considered • No negative impacts to freeway traffic • Preference to major movements within the interchange • Consist with standards for interchange level of service of City, County, and congestion management authority • Analysis of midday commutes and special events, as well as a.m. and p.m. peak commute hours Pedestrian Access Issues • Pedestrian access to bus stops on freeway and frontage roads (crosswalks, wheelchair accessibility, direct access) • No loss of bus stops, which must serve as transfer spots for freeway and frontage roads • Lack of signage of walkways between freeway bus pad and frontage road bus stops • Formalization (i.e., signing and paving) of pedestrian pathways • More clearly delineated access for pedestrian and bicycle traffic through the interchange • Use by pedestrians of shortcuts instead of existing paths Traffic Access Issues • Preservation of west to east and east to west access • No worsening of design for ingress and egress from Highway 101 to the Northgate Mall • Unwillingness of motorists to increase travel to use new Merrydale overcrossing • Improvement of traffic flow from Las Gallinas to Del Presidio to northbound or southbound Highway 101 • Useful left turn movement from west to east on Freitas • No negative impacts to Northgate shopping areas from final interchange design SF010030D16.DOC 4-4 Cost Issues • Selection of an alternative that meets the City's current funding budget of $1.5 million • Consideration of cost effects of staging or phasing construction Aesthetics Issues • Optimization of landscaping, and minimal visual impacts from retaining walls or widened streets Construction Schedule Issues • Construction within the City's schedule Establishment of the Study Goal After the Advisory Group reviewed the issues and concerns of all the Advisory Group members during the first meeting, the group brainstormed the phrasing for a study goal that would incorporate those concerns. The group developed the following study goal: Modify the interchange/intersection to cost-effectively accommodate vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by: • Providing adequate capacity without adversely affecting other streets and highways • Improving safety • Providing acceptable access • Minimizing confusion Development of Evaluation Criteria Once all the telephone interviews were completed and each Advisory Group member had expressed his/her concerns, these were reviewed and developed into specific criteria related to safety, capacity, access, and miscellaneous, such as cost and landscaping. C112M EM L developed measurements and objectives for each of these criteria and presented them to the Advisory Group for commentary. Ten criteria, measurements, and objectives were presented to the group based on written comments submitted by group members between the first and second meetings. Criteria relating to construction, pedestrian/bicycle access, and bus stop locations and access were considered and incorporated into the final recommended alternative. SF010030D16.DOC 4-5 Table 4-1 shows the criteria, measurements and objectives for the Freitas Parkway Interchange. Table 4-1 Criteria for Reconstruction of the Freitas Parkway Interchange Criteria I Measure I Obiective Capacity Congestion at intersection Congestion at surrounding intersections Congestion on freeway Safety Driver confusion Safety for pedestrians/cyclists related to vehicular traffic Safety at intersection Traffic Access Loss of access through intersection Miscellaneous Total construction cost Aesthetic treatment Landscaping Level of Service (LOS) A)Increase in critical volumes through Merrydale/ Las Galinas, Merrydale/Civic Center Drive, Del Presidio/ Las Gallinas B)Use of City of San Rafael's updated traffic model for surrounding intersections Level of Service Number of decisions Number of uncontrolled vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist conflicts Number of approaches below design speed of 25 mph Number of vehicle access movements reduced at intersection compared to existing Total construction cost Total surface area of concrete walls (retaining walls, etc.) Total surface area for planting 3F010030D 16.DOC 4-6 Maximize LOS A)Minimize number of "impacted" intersections below LOS D B)Minimize the increase of critical volumes at surrounding intersections Minimize impact to level of service on freeway Minimize number of motorist decisions Minimize number of vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist conflicts Minimize number of approaches below 25 mph Minimize number of access movements reduced Minimize cost Minimize concrete walls Maximize surface area Weighting the Criteria During the second meeting, the Advisory Group weighted each criterion in order of importance on a scale from 1 to 10. The first round of ballots was collected, and the averages of the scores were tabulated. A second weighting was conducted and tabulated. The results of the two rounds of weighting are shown in Table 4-2; the second round was used to calculate the alternative scores. Table 4-2 Weighted Criteria Criteria I Round One Average Round Two Average Capacity Congestion at intersection 9.2 8.1 Congestion at adjacent intersections 7.7 6.3 Congestion on freeway 7.0 6.6 Safety Driver confusion 7.4 6.4 Safety for pedestrians/ cyclists 7.9 6.8 Safety at intersection 8.4 8.5 Access -Traffic Loss of access through interchange 6.9 6.5 Miscellaneous Total construction cost 5.8 4.5 Aesthetic treatment 4.4 3.1 Landscaping 4.2 3.1 Development of Alternative Design Concepts Four alternative concepts developed by CH2M HILL and one developed by John Schellenberger of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents were presented to the Advisory Group to start the brainstorming process at the second meeting. After review of the first five alternative concepts, the group brainstormed seven additional alternatives, including a No Build Alternative to be used as a basis for comparison. All brainstormed concepts were reviewed by the group. Through consensus, two alternatives were eliminated from further analysis. Alternative Concept B was removed because it eliminated east/west access and did not conform with the goal statement of providing acceptable access. Alternative Concept D was eliminated because the main idea of the concept was incorporated into other brainstormed concepts that would be less costly than Alternative Concept D. An additional alternative design concept, Alternative Concept CLE, was submitted after the second meeting. Figures 4-1 through Figures 4-14 illustrate the brainstormed concepts. SF010030D16.DOC 4-7 qrts sip Ist a 0 190, Z" TO \ y z \ ry �\ v gres R 9"S ` I A, W J Q U N O z 1jeth Ot -N �\� � °ter oo �,. '\X 119 lk V. CVZ rbr- w 0 z If ;�Wl ime R 2% ' ° O N 0 ° O O a ZQ Y , z° n w 0 N Z%IZ V ul N O ul 012 7 7 —O Q uj 41 Y a Q r CC lw j . _ Cgs \F— owo . ..... ............. . c/ IN, I jig 14 IX CV? v% M. 4(b" cl 0 to N tb 1 10- A ;OA N Cl) C) z T-- UJ CJ) 7- LLI 0 CE CC LLI < (D IL z Cl) a: 1L AJ LL. I-- Measurement of the Criteria As a result of CH2M FULL's initial evaluation of the alternative concepts using the measurements developed by the Advisory Group for each criteria, it was determined that some of the alternative concepts did not meet LOS D and should therefore be eliminated, modified, or considered only as originally brainstormed and accepted by the entire group as a study alternative. Elimination of Alternative Design Concepts An interim meeting was called for the Advisory Group to evaluate the alternative design concepts that did not meet the group's criteria of LOS D. The meeting was called to describe CH2M HI LL's evaluation and to receive direction from the Advisory Group on which alternative concepts warranted further analysis. CH2M HILL presented the preliminary analysis results to the Advisory Group which decided, through consensus, to eliminate Alternative Concepts C, E, and G from further study. Slight modifications were made to Alternative Concepts F and I by the Advisory Group. After elimination of alternative concepts C, E, and G, the remaining alternatives were developed further. CH2M HILL submitted a letter to the Advisory Group, after further refinement of the alternatives, detailing design concerns in Alternatives A, I, and J-1. CH2M HILL presented these concerns to the Advisory Group at the third meeting and consensus was reached to eliminate further study of these alternatives. Figures 4-15 through 4-18 illustrate the final refined alternative concepts. Calculation of Alternatives Score A meeting was held with Caltrans and the City of San Rafael to review the remaining alternative design concepts to identify major design problems that may be unacceptable and to identify a design alternative that has the least operational problems and only minimal non- standard design features, The measurements, ratings, and scores of each of the alternative concepts were presented to the Advisory Group at the third meeting and are included in Appendix A. The alternative concept receiving the highest scores met the criteria of the Advisory Group most effectively. Through mathematical equations, the measurements of the alternatives were translated into rating values between one and five so they could be compared. These ratings were multiplied by the weight of importance attributed to each criteria by the Advisory Group during the second meeting. The outcome of the multiplication established a score for each criteria for each alternative. The criteria scores were added, and a final score was determined for each alternative concept. The alternative concept with the highest score was considered most valuable. CLE ranked the highest, followed in order by H, F, and J-2. SFO 10030D 16.DOC 4-22 F�w I nt -f, LU -i < Iti W U) 0 0 Z lucc U, CD < IQ - Z: C) IIQM t N rvz IN) ZVC, zl%t Cgs dCti Table 4-3 shows the final scores for the alternative design concepts as they were calculated. Table 4-3 Freitas Parkway Alternative Design Concept Issue Scores Criteria Measure CLE F H J-2 Congestion at intersection Critical Volume -Mid LOS D = 24.30 8.10 40.50 40.50 1300 Congestion at adjacent Critical volume at adjacent 6.30 6.30 6.30 6.30 intersections intersections Congestion on freeway Level of service 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 Driver Confusion Motorist decisions 27.73 32.00 14.93 32.00 Safety for pedestrians Uncontrolled vehicle/pedestrian 34.00 34.00 34.00 6.80 conflicts Safety at intersection Number of approaches with 42.50 8.50 25.50 8.50 design speed < 25 mph Loss of Access Number of restricted movements 32.50 32.50 32.50 6.50 Cost Cost (millions) 9.41 4.50 14.32 22.50 Aesthetics Surface of concrete walls (sq. ft.) 15.50 7.75 3.10 15.50 Landscaping Surface area for planting (acres) 15.50 6.57 9.05 3.10 Issue Score 214.34 146.82 186.80 148.30 Discussion and Analysis of Alternative Concept Score During the third meeting, each member of the Advisory Group had a turn to discuss the scored alternative concepts. Advisory Group members expressed preferences, dislikes, and questions for each alternative concept. Selection of Preferred Alternative After each group member expressed his/her concerns regarding the alternative concepts, Alternative Concept CLE was chosen by consensus as the preferred alternative. This alternative was chosen based on the following conclusions of the Advisory Group: • Provides good bicycle access • Appears to be a good, workable alternative • Eliminates confusion • Two traffic lights slow the traffic through the intersections • Addresses safety and has a straightforward configuration • Provides a conventional intersection layout • Areas for landscaping are large • Intersections are signal -controlled and have room for stacking • Maintains freeway bus stop SF010030D 16.DOC 4-27 During the comment period, questions and concerns regarding Alternative Concept CLE were identified. After the meeting, CH2M HILL reviewed the questions and concerns, incorporated design concerns and pedestrian and bicycle concerns, and developed preliminary construction staging designs to present to the Advisory Group during the last meeting. This was done in response to the following specific requests from the Advisory Group: • Refine geometrics • Maintain freeway bus pad • Add sidewalks and width for bicycle lanes • Review construction staging to maintain off -ramp access throughout construction • Recalculate LOS based on traffic progression through both intersections Alternative Concepts F, H, and J-2 were eliminated by the Advisory Group based on the following comments made by Advisory Group members during discussion of the alternatives. Alternative Concept F: • Did not meet LOS criteria • Public transit options are limited • Cost is the highest Alternative Concept H: • Driver confusion still exists on this design concept • Signal phasing may not work well • Pedestrian access continues to be a concern • Spend a significant amount of money on improvements, yet interchange may perform as existing one does Alternative Concept J-2: • Potentially increases driver confusion • Eliminates freeway bus stop • Pedestrian access continues to be a concern • Poor sight distance • Contains too many non-standard design features • Pedestrian/bike safety was not adequately provided based on Advisory Group criteria SF010030D16.DOC 4-28 Preparation of Final Recommendation Between the third and fourth meetings, a draft report of the Alternatives Study process and recommendation was developed. After receiving comments from the Advisory Group, a final recommendation was developed to present to the City Council. The final recommended alternative of the Advisory Group is Alternative Concept CLE. This alternative reconfigures the intersection by connecting Redwood Highway to Freitas Parkway in a T -intersection, and connecting the northbound Highway 101 off -ramp to Civic Center Drive. The distance between the two intersections is approximately 600 feet. Refer to Figure 4-15 for the configuration of Alternative Concept CLE. This alternative has the following benefits. • Meets LOS criteria as established by Advisory Group • Addresses pedestrian/bike safety/access concerns • Reduces driver confusion • Is designed according to conventional interchange configurations • Maintains vehicle access to/from eastside of US 101 • Maintains public transit access • Maintains a large area for relandscaping and a possible park and ride lot after construction Draft construction staging plans for Alternative Concept CLE were provided to the Advisory Group at the last meeting and are included in Appendix B. After further refinement and analysis of Alternative Concept CLE, the original estimated cost rose to $5.0 million. Costs for the other alternatives would likely rise accordingly. A more detailed map of the recommended alternative and supporting documents are included in Appendix C. The following supplemental recommendations were made by the Advisory Group at the fourth meeting. • The recommended alternative will provide the best long-term solution to the intersection and, therefore, a diligent effort should be made by City Council to procure funding to construct it. • Construction staging is a concern for this intersection/interchange, particularly the potential impacts to homeowners and businesses in the area. Development and off -ramps open during construction are necessary to minimize any impacts. • Members of the Advisory Group will continue to play a significant role in addressing project funding and construction staging concerns. SF010030D 16.DOC 4-29 Appendix A Measurements, Ratings, and Scores for All Alternative Design Concepts SFO10030D11.DOC Measurements Freitas Parkway Concept Evaluation Measurements 3/27/95 rvsd 5/15/95 Criteria Measure CLE F H J"2 No Build *(2) *(1) *(3) *(3) *(1) Congestion at Critical Volume : LOS D LOS E LOS C LOS C LOS F Intersection Mid L09 D =1300 1307 1473 1138 1187 1897 Congestion at Critical Volume at Adjacent Adjacent no no no no no Intersections Intersections change change change change change Congestion no no no no no on Freeway Level of Service change change change change change Driver Confusion Motorist Decisions 7 6 10 6 12 Uncontrolled Safety for vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrians Conflicts 1 1 1 2 1 No. of Approaches Safety at with Design Speed Intersection < 25mph 1 3 2 3 2 Loss of No. of Restricted. Access Movements None None None 1 None Cost Cost (millions) **$2.7 $3.0 $2.4 $1.9 $0.0 Surface of Concrete Walls Aesthetics (sq. feet) 3,600 7,100 9,200 3,600 0 Surface Area for Landscaping Planting (acres) 5.7 3.9 4.4 3.2 4.4 *Level of Service and associated numeric rating value: LOS Ate; B=4; C=3; D=2; E&F=1 **The original cost of CLE was $3.0 million. This cost reflects a savings of $300,000 due to the possible elimination of the northbound Highway 101 on-ramp as part of the Merrydale Overcrossing Project Further analysis and development of the alternative increased the cost to $5.0 million. Costs on all other aitematives would likely rise accordingly. No Build is included here for comparison of criteria measurements only and has not been rated. 3-24SCOR.XLS Measurements Page 1 Rating f'teita Prkviraji Cnn.0.60Eva�ivati0 ati MEaSINB::a:::;;:::::;CL8i;i;_<:;<.: ;:::.:;:;:;:::::H:;.;:;;;;;:::;:a-2;.;:: Ceinn at Gritica! Ilolumo � ' j on Mid LOS D 13th 3.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 Congestion at CrdtpaiVolume at ..... ..... Adjacent Adjacent...... Intersections ntersections 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Congestion an Pmji ` =t ev l nf_San ice - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Driver Confusion llotarist pecisiaos 4.3 5.0 2.3 5.0 LOSS of No: of Restricted Access Movements 5.0 5.0 5.0 1-0 Cast COSI (millions) 2.1 1.fl 3.2 5.0 $urfaoe of... : Concrete Walls Aesthetics (sq. feet): 5.0 2.5 1.0 5.0 Surface Area #or landscaping -PJani!ng {acres :: 5.0 2.1 2.9 1.0 For ratings between one and five, one Is the least effective and rive is the most effective at meeting the Advisory Groups' objectives. 3-24SCOR.XLS Ratlng Page 2 Score Freitas Parkway Concept evaluation Issue Score 3127195 rvsd 5115795 Criteria Measure CLE F H J-2 Congestion at Critical Volume - Intersection Mid LOS D = 1340 24.30 8.10 40.50 40.50 Congestion at Critical Volume at Adjacent Adjacent Intersections : Intersections 6.30 6.30 5.30 6.30 Congestion on Preeway Level of Service 6.6€3 6.60 6.60 6.60 [)river . .. . Confusion Motorist Decisions 27.73 32.00 14.93 32.00 Uncontrolled Safety for vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrians Conflicts 34.00 34.00 34.00 6.80 No. of Approaches Safety at with Design Speed Intersection G 25mph 42.50 8.50 25.50 8.50 Loss of No: of Restricted Access Movements 32.50 32.50 32.50 6.50 Cost Cost (millions) 9.41 4.50 14.32 22.50 Surface of Concrete Walls. Aesthetics (sq. feet) 15.50 7.75 3.10 15.50 1 Surface Area for Landscaping Planting (acres) 15.50 6.57 9.05 3.10 Issue Score 214.34 146.82 186.80 148.30 issue Score: The highest scare best meets the Advisory Groups' d*ectives 3-24SCOR.XLS Score Page 3 Appendix B Draft Construction Staging for Alternative Concept CLE SFO10030D11.DOC } — -% -�. 3 o n � U { LA La 0 3 'A? �� Z Z. Lo L i a _ z . W µ r' Y- L i 1 z � Z r [ U a 1 I WIF w r r a 4e bT I Appendix C Final Design Recommendations IL 0% IM I I RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT CLE JULY 1995 CW HILL 113532.CR.ZZ 819/95 RDH ........ o ..... .. . .. IL 0% IM I I RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT CLE JULY 1995 CW HILL 113532.CR.ZZ 819/95 RDH 0 1 • ROUTE 101 IMPROVEMENTS COSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ***** Route 101/Freltas Parkway Interchange Retaining Wall (Ave. H=25') b) Retaining Wall (Ave. H=20') c) Filename: FREICLE2 (Alternative CLE) d) Retaining Wall (Ave. H=8') 189,200 38.00 $ Date: 05-11-95 Item No j Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Sub Total Total 1 CLEARING, GRUBBING & MISC. DEMOLITION a) Clearing and Grubbing 8 AC $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000 b) Demolition Roadway 8,200 SY $ 7.00 $ 57,400 Curb & Gutter 1,940 LF $ 5.00 $ -- 9,700 Sidewalk & Median Island 4,020 SF. $ 3.00 $ 12,060 Sub -Total (Item 1) $ 103,160 2 BASE AND SURFACING (STRUCTURAL SECTION) a) Redwood Parkway 35,100 SF $ 3.00 $ 105,300 b) Freitas Parkway 33,800 SF $ 3.50 $ 118,300 c) Off Ramp 21,300 SF $ 4.10 $ 87,330 d) Loop Ramp 32,250 SF $ 4.10 $ 132,225 e) Civic Center Drive 56,000 SF $ 3.00 $ 168,000 Sub -Total (Item 2) $ 611,155 3 PAVEMENT OVERLAY (0.25' MAX) a) Freitas Parkway 12,500 SF $ 0.70 $ 8,750 Sub -Total (Item 3) 4 EARTHWORK a) Embankment Redwood Parkway b) Roadway Excavation Civic Center Drive c) Grading 46,700 CY $ 51,600 CY $ 250,000 SF $ 7.00 $ 326,900 15.00 $ 774,000 0.40 $ 100,000 $ 8,750 Sub -Total (Item 4) $ 1,200,900 5 OTHER STREET SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS a) Sidewalks 2,190 LF $ 24.00 $ 52,560 b) Median Curb 810 LF $ 10.00 $ 8,100 6 MISC. CONCRETE STRUCTURES a) Retaining Wall (Ave. H=25') b) Retaining Wall (Ave. H=20') c) Retaining Wall (Ave. H=12') d) Retaining Wall (Ave. H=8') Sub -Total (Item 5) Sub -Total (Item 6) 1,300 SF $ 8,800 SF $ 4,730 SF $ 1,000 SF $ 48.00 $ 62,400 45.00 $ 396,000 40.00 $ 189,200 38.00 $ 38,000 $ 60,660 $ 685,600 FREICLE2.XLS Page 1 6/13/95 ROUTE 101 IMPROVEMENTS COSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ***** Route 101/Freitas Parkway Interchange Filename: FREICLE2 (Alternative CLE) Date: 05-11-95 Item No,j Item Description I Quantity Unit Unit Cost Sub Total Total 7 - SIGNAL AND LIGHTING a) Roadway Lighting Redwood Parkway (Assume 150' Spacing) On/Off Ramps (Assume 3 @ each Location) b) Ramp Metering c) Signals (Per Intersection) 8 BARRIERS AND RAILING a) Metal Beam Guard Railing b) Concrete Barrier 9 IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING Sub -Total (Item 7) Sub -Total (Item 8) Sub -Total (Item 9) 10 DRAINAGE (3% of Sub -Total Cost of Items 1 to 9) Sub -Total (Item 10) 11 SIGNING AND STRIPING (3% of Sub -Total Cost of Items 1 to 8) Sub -Total (Item 11) 12 TRAFFIC CONTROL INCL. TEMP. RAILING (3% of Sub -Total Cost of Items 1 to 11) Sub -Total (Item 12) 13 CONSTRUCTION STAKING (NOT INCLUDED) Sub -Total (Item 13) 14 MOBILIZATION (10% of Sub -Total Cost of Items 1 to 13) Sub -Total (Item 14) 15 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION (NOT INCLUDED) Sub -Total (Item 15) 4 EA $ 6,500.00 $ 26,000 6 EA $ 6,500.00 $ 39,000 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ - 50,000 2 EA $100,000.00 $ 200,000 800 LF $ 27.00 $ 21,600 600 LF $ 35.00 $ 21,000 250,000 SF $ 1.25 $ 312,500 1 LS $100,200.00 1 LS $ 90,800.00 1 LS $105,900.00 1 LS 1 LS $ 363,700.00 0 SF 1 $ 395,0001 1 $ 42,6001 $ 312,5001 $ 100,201 $ 90,8001 $ 105,90L , FREICLE2.XLS Page 2 6/13/95 ROUTE 101 IMPROVEMENTS COSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Route 101/Freitas Parkway Interchange •'**' Filename: FREICLE2 (Alternative CLE) Date: 05-11-95 Item Noj Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Sub Total Total SUB -TOTAL $ 4,000,900 SUPPLEMENTAL WORK ALLOWANCE $100,000 STATE FURNISHED MAILS ALLOWANCE $701000 SUB -TOTAL $ 4,170,900 CONTINGENCY (20%) $834,200 TOTAL $5,005,000 FREICLE2.XLS Page 3 6/13/95