HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-02 - AGENDA REPORTS - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EVALUATION (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Darcy and the Santa Clarita
FROM: George A. Caravalho, City Manager
DATE: November 2, 1999
SUBJECT: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PRESENTATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Council
EVALUATION CRITERIA STUDY
City Council receive the presentation, and provide further direction to staff on how to proceed.
BACKGROUND
As a community, Santa Clarita receives a great deal of recognition for its network of public and
private pedestrian trails located throughout the valley. During the last 25 years, the Valencia
Company has developed an extensive trail system referred to as "paseos' that inter -link the
communities of Valencia, Northbridge and North Park. This paseo system integrates an at -
grade trail system with more than two dozen grade -separated crossing structures that allow
bicyclists and pedestrians to travel from one part of the community to another without having
to utilize City streets.
To date, each existing crossing structure has been designed, constructed and funded by the
private sector in conjunction with an approved development. Maintenance for these crossing
structures are funded privately through the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD's)
In April of this year, the City Council discussed the possibility of constructing additional grade
separated crossing structures and directed staff to develop criteria that could be utilized for
determining when the construction of such crossing structures would be warranted. In
response to this direction, staff has partnered with the RRM Design Group to provide the City
Council with a comprehensive analysis to address this request.
The goal of this study is to create an objective method to evaluate grade -separated crossings
that will assist the City Council in ascertaining appropriate sites for future pedestrian bridge
consideration. The results of this study were presented to the Planning Commission for their
review and comments at their regular meeting of July 6, 1999.
In preparing this study, City and RRM staff employed a comprehensive process that included:
1. An analysis of Santa Clarita's 26 existing and 4 future grade -separated crossing structures
(bridges)
2. A field survey of 2 existing bridges in the community
3. A through review of all components within the City's General Plan that should be used to
evaluate potential new pedestrian bridges
4. Interviews with key City staff, residents and local private sector agencies em
b�rAa ItvA—
The RRM Design Group has prepared a formal presentation to summarize this study for the
City Council. RRM's presentation will touch upon several key sections of this study, including:
• Distinctions between paseo and pedestrian bridges
• Bridge design guidelines
• An overview of existing bridge structures
• Opportunities and constraints associated with potential future bridges
• A review of the evaluation criteria and Pedestrian Bridge Evaluation Worksheet
The evaluation worksheet component of the study provides City staff with a mechanism to
evaluate potential pedestrian bridges against an array of objective criteria. To better acquaint
the City Council with the evaluation worksheet, City staff and RRM has selected two existing
bridge sites to demonstrate how this worksheet can be applied to evaluate future grade -
separated crossings.
Utilizing a point system, this worksheet considers several different factors and key information
that will be used to assign a final score for each potential bridge site. Factors taken into
consideration include consistency with the General Plan, potential bridge usage, connectivity
and linkage with other trail systems, existing street and traffic conditions, and other physical
constraints.
Depending upon the total numeric value arrived at, potential pedestrian bridge sites will be
classified in one of three ways:
1. Consider for grade separation
2. Recommended for further study
3. Not recommended for grade separation
FUNDING AND MAINTENANCE
Included within the Evaluation Criteria Study prepared by RRM is an overview of issues
relating to construction funding and maintenance costs for pedestrian bridges. The following
information has been provided in order to give the City Council a better understanding of the
financial components for this type of project.
The paseo system currently includes 30 crossing structures*. A breakout of these structures
includes:
1. 30 Paseo System Crossings
• 25 Paseo/Pedestrian Bridges
• 5 Paseo Undercrossings
* Includes 4 bridges that have been approved, but not yet constructed.
Bridge Construction - Cost Estimates/Historical Funding Mechanisms
Construction costs depend upon the type of bridge constructed, as well as the bridge
location. Typically, the least expensive bridge crossing is an earthen abutment on each side
of the structure. This type of construction results in an overall design costing
approximately $450,000, and is consistent with the paseo bridge located at McBean and
Copper Hill. If the bridge structure is developed with full ramps on each end, as is the case
with the existing structure on McBean and Valencia, (adjacent to Town Center Drive) the
costs could escalate to $1 million or more.
For future development of structures, an estimated $500,000 for earthen berms and one
million dollars for full ramps should be anticipated.
All of the existing bridges in the community have been constructed using funds provided by
developers or others. Developer's paying the cost of the bridges in conjunction with a
development project is the most common form of private funding since it is eventually paid
for by the residents who will be directly served by the bridge and receive the most benefit.
The City has at its disposal two funding methods for initiating the development of a
pedestrian bridge: implementing a condition of approval upon a development project, or
financing the project with either the City's General Funds or other sources of non -general
funds. Above and beyond the City's General Fund, there are several non -general funds
available that can be potentially utilized to finance the construction of a bridge independent
of a condition placed upon a developer. These potential non -general fund sources include:
• Impact Fees
• Assessment Districts
• Bridge & Thoroughfare Districts
• Private Donations
• Adopt -A -Trail Programs/Memorial Funds
• State & Federal Funding
• Surface Transportation Program (STP)
• Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA'S)
• Highway Safety Program
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program
1. Bridge Maintenance Costs
Currently, the cost to maintain all paseo facilities (including the bridge structures) are
funded through LMD's that have been established throughout Santa Clarita. Through the
LMD's, residents assess themselves for 100% of the costs required to maintain the paseo
system, bridges and other common areas. While City staff prepares the annual budget and
administers each individual LMD; property owners residing within each LMD generate
funds utilized for annual maintenance and facility replacement needs. No General Fund
monies are utilized to support annual bridge facilities maintenance costs within any of the
City's LMD's.
A routine maintenance program is necessary to ensure user safety and prolong the life of
the bridge facility. Necessary maintenance tasks for bridges and ramps may include many
of the following:
• Inspecting and maintaining the bridge's structural supports, railings, fencing and covers
• Keeping lights clean, and replacing fixtures as required
• Repairing damage from seasonal washouts
• Removing fallen tress, limbs and debris
• Mowing shoulders and other areas
• Trimming vegetation to meet sight -distance requirements
• Patching or re -grading the surface on a regular basis
The issue of maintenance for future bridge facilities built independent of an approved
development project may present some challenges to the City. These challenges include the
introduction of a new bridge facility to an existing residential area, and issues relating to
Proposition 218.
As previously mentioned, all bridge facilities are currently included and maintained by an
existing City LMD. In each circumstance, the development of each bridge was addressed
and included within a newly formed LMD prior to the construction and occupancy of the
surrounding residential units.
Through this action the developer:
1. Passes on the cost for construction and future maintenance of bridge facilities to the
original homeowner; and
2. Assures that any future property owner (resulting from the resale of any home within
the specific LMD) will be required to agree to paying their "fair share" of the existing
LMD assessment prior to the purchase of their home.
In essence, the developer has established a LMD that is set up to equally distribute all
future maintenance and replacement costs equally among individual property owners
within the district. By establishing the LMD while the developer is still the sole property
owner, individuals wishing to purchase a home in this area are legally required to accept
the conditions of the assessment.
In contrast, if the City were to consider constructing a bridge facility (again, independent
of an approved development project) within an existing residential area issues relating to
bridge maintenance and replacement costs could be potentially problematic. Assuming that
the City were to obtain bridge construction funding from the General Fund or some other
funding source, the issue of maintenance presents two concerns for City staff:
1. If the City Council should decide to remove Proposition 218 consideration by assuming
annual maintenance and long-term replacement costs for any new bridge facility, the
issue of equity would certainly be raised within the community. Specifically, a situation
would be created where City funding would potentially be utilized to maintain one
bridge facility, while residents residing within individual LMD's continued to privately
pay for similar facility maintenance.
2. If the City Council were inclined to approve the construction of a new bridge facility,
pursuant to Proposition 218 the future maintenance cost for that facility would be
required to be put to a vote among existing property owners (assuming the proposed
area for bridge construction is within an existing LMD).
As a reference point, staff will take a moment to outline for the City Council the average
annual maintenance costs for bridge facilities, as well as the amount that is put aside
each year for the eventual replacement of each bridge facility. In terms of bridge
replacement, staff has estimated that each bridge has an expected life span of
approximately 75 years. The annual assessed costs for bridge maintenance and
replacement per individual household is equally distributed among all property owners
within a given LMD.
• Annual Cost for Individual Bridge Maintenance - $6,200
• This figure includes costs for monthly inspections, landscape and graffiti maintenance,
miscellaneous repairs, and $5,000 that is put aside each year in order to repaint these
bridges every five years.
• Annual Funds Set Aside for Individual Bridge Replacement - $10,000 - $20,000
These figures reflect bridges with individual values of $450,000 to $1,000,000
respectively. At this time, the LMD is responsible for 85% of the total annual amount
held in reserve for bridge replacement, with the City contributing the remaining 15%.
Potential Strategies to Address Maintenance Cost Issues
If in the future, the City Council should wish to pursue construction of a bridge facility,
potential strategies include:
1. Seek opportunities for future bridges that can be required by the City as a condition
of development approval;
2. Develop a method whereby the City may share the cost of bridge maintenance with
property owners within an individual LMD;
3. Have the City assume 100% of the costs associated with bridge maintenance and
replacement;
4. Similar to the City's present position on annexations, work with residents interested
in the construction of a bridge facility in their neighborhood to develop a "petition
process." Much like with annexations, the City would not take action to construct a
new bridge facility until such time as 60% of the residents within the individual LMD
expressed their support via the petition process.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Other action as determined by the City Council
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts to the City associated with the adoption of this study.
ATTACHMENT
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Study
KMT:lep
hApaseo\paseoagn.doc
Pedestrian Bridge
IEVALlation Criteria Study
'--- ----------------
_._ . .....
—.ow _'tom..:.._ "' •- ' - f„ `
F mob.
. \ � rJ� •.-, -I-•� N �j.`L" "'
MOM
'16
y � • �� _ = - � >• � sri � � 'ter �
0
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
of Santa
City Council
JoAnne Darcy, Mayor
Jill Klajic, Mayor Pro -Tem
Janice Heidt, Council Member
Frank Ferry, Council Member
Laurene Weste, Council Member
George A. Caravalho, City Manager
Planning Commission
Darla Hoback, Chair
Robert C. Kellar, Vice -Chair
Pat Modugno, Commissioner
Ralph Killmeyer, Commissioner
Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner
Staff
Jeff Lambert, Director of Planning & Building Services
Rick Putnam, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Anthony J. Nisich, P.E., Director of Transportation & Engineering Services
Kevin Tonoian, Management Analyst Planning &Building Services
Bahman Janka, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
T. Brad Therrien, P.E., L.S., Assistant City Engineer
Nancy E. Delange, Associated Engineer, Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Belinda Perez, GIS Coordinator
RRMDesi= Grou
Erik P. Justesen, Principal
Diane Fredricks, Principal Planner
Demae Tillotson, Assistant Planner
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Study
City of Santa Clarita
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose of Study........................................................................................................................
1
2.0 Defining Paseo and Pedestrian Bridges.............................................................................
2
2.1 Paseo Bridges and Under-Crossings...........................................................................
2.2 Pedestrian Bridges and Under-Crossings...................................................................
2
2.3 Bridge Design.................................................................................................................
3
4
3.0 Overview of Existing Grade -Separated Crossing Structures ........................................
5
4.0 Opportunities and Constraints
..............................................................................................
5
5.0 Evaluation Criteria....................................................................................................................
7
Resources..................................................................................................................................................
8
Appendices
Photos
Appendix A: Funding and Maintenance
Appendix B: Pedestrian Bridge Map
Appendix C: Bridge Crossing Comparison Matrix
Appendix D: Pedestrian Bridge Evaluation Worksheet
Paseo Bridge #9: El Paseo Drive under Paseo Valencia...................................................... 3
Pedestrian Bridge #16: McBean Parkway
under Paseo Valencia (Town Center)....................................................................................... 4
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
City of Santa
1.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY
Recently, the City of Santa Clarita has been confronted with the task determining if new
grade -separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing structures are warranted in selected locations
based on citizen raised concerns. During these discussions, numerous questions were raised
regarding the purpose, cost—benefit and specific physical impacts of the potential crossings.
Thus the City commissioned the following Pedestrian Bridge Evaluation Study to create an
objective method to evaluate candidate grade -separated crossings against an array of
objective criteria. The results of the evaluation will assist decision -makers in making an
informed and sound determination for each site.
Specifically the City Council directed staff to perform this Study in order to develop
criteria/warrants for the placement of:
1. Proposed Paseo Bridges immediately adjacent to the existing/future Paseo system.
2. Proposed pedestrian bridges along major thoroughfares with heavy traffic volumes and
large intersections within the City.
Another purpose of the study is to develop a proactive method to plan for future grade -
separated crossings throughout the community and to develop methods to fund and
construct these facilities in advance of the demand. Funding mechanisms such as Bridge
and Thoroughfare Districts, Transit User Fees, Development Impact Fees, etc., are all
examples of common funding mechanisms. The topic of funding and maintenance of future
crossing structures is discussed in Appendix A of this report.
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
of Santa Cla
Crossing structures can be effective in promoting alternative modes of transportation such
as walking, cycling and roller-blading providing beneficial non -vehicular connections
between neighborhoods and area schools, parks and recreation facilities. However grade
separated crossing structures are expensive to build and to maintain. Thus it is important
that a candidate site for a crossing be evaluated thoroughly by examining a range of criteria
that will help to measure the benefits, costs, and technical/physical parameters ensuring that
construction will be a wise community investment.
This evaluation study should be used as a tool to assist decision -makers in evaluating the
pros and cons of proposed crossings. It is intended to be advisory in nature by providing
necessary evaluation tools to provide decision -makers with appropriate responses for the
decision-making processes. In the end, decision -makers will have ultimate decision making
authority in the determination of need for each crossing.
It is recommended that the City evaluate the General Plan to determine if it adequately
addresses bicycle/pedestrian bridge crossings and trail systems throughout the community.
This system should include crossing locations that will assist in linking the planned trails.
The type of crossing can then be evaluated when warranted for construction.
2.0 DEFINING PASEO AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
The terms "paseo bridge" and "pedestrian bridge" are used to describe grade -separated
crossing structures that have substantially different functional characteristics. It is important
to recognize these differences when evaluating candidate sites and using the following
ranking criteria. These type of crossings are typically provided in areas where highway
crossing opportunities are infrequent and heavy pedestrian traffic is expected.
In the City of Santa Clarita, a system of existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle paths
provide convenient access between residential neighborhoods and to a variety of
destinations such as parks, recreation centers, schools and shopping centers. This system is
known as the paseo system located primarily in the Valencia area. Many of these paths
intersect major and minor roads and contain grade -separated crossing structures in the form
of bridges and underpasses. There are currently 26 such structures, 5 of which are
underpasses with the remainder as bridge overpass structures. A matrix identifying key
features of each bridge is located in Appendix C of this report.
2.1 Paseo Bridges and Under -Crossings
The term "paseo bridge" refers to structures that are part of a larger pedestrian and
bike circulation system, providing not only grade -separated crossings of intersecting
streets, but also a convenient connection to a series of neighborhood destinations.
Paseo bridges are part of the planned and interconnected system of pathways that
link residential neighborhoods to schools, parks, community centers and other
destinations. Users of these structures are using the pedestrian and bike path as an
alternative to using the local street system due to convenience, safety and
+s^ 2 .c,
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
City of Santa
atmosphere. The paseo bridges along the way are simply an extension of the path
over or under an intersecting street designed to provide a smooth and continuous
route requiring little if any out of direction travel by the user.
Paseo bridge #9: El Paseo Drive under Paseo Valencia
2.2 Pedestrian Bridges and Under -Crossings
The term "pedestrian bridge" refers to stand alone grade -separated structures
designed to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross streets with high traffic volume
when at -grade crossings are unsafe or prohibited by a variety of factors. These
structures are not part of a larger pedestrian system and do not provide direct access
to a pathway leading to other neighborhood facilities. These structures typically
include stairways and access ramps to provide access to the elevated bridge structure.
Access ramps are typically 200-300 feet in length to gain the required elevation
necessary to cross the street and thus require limited deviation of direction travel by
the user.
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
ty of Santa
Pedestrian Bridge #16: McBean Parkway at Town Center
2.3 Bridge Design
The existing City pedestrian bridges have been designed on a project by project basis.
However, there are opportunities to create a unique community image through the
designs of future bridges in the community. This report will provide some basic
technical design requirements that should be included for future bridges. Bridge
aesthetics should be developed as part of the City-wide Beautification Program
currently underway. These basics will assist in the detem-iination of future
construction and maintenance costs.
Typically, railings should be at least 4'-6" high with vertical rails being designed so
that a 6 -inch sphere cannot pass through. In addition, 2'-6" to T-10" high handrails
should be provided for slopes greater than 5%. Overhead fencing is advisable in
areas where lots of young children are anticipated. This is to discourage the tossing
of objects or people jumping onto lower roadways.
The vertical clearance for bridges to the'soadway below should be a minimum of 17 -
feet. Ramps with landings are used for the pedestrian grade separation approaches.
A ramp has a maximum grade of 8.33% with a maximum rise of 30 -inches between
Rr 4 .6i
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
of Santa C
landings. When an approach ramp changes directions between two successive
landings, the inside radius of the ramp should be 30 -feet or greater. Landings should
be a minimum of 5 -feet in length, except at the bottom where they are 6 -feet in
length. They should be of sufficient width to allow wheelchairs to maneuver and at
least as wide as the ramp run leading to them. If ramps change direction at
intermediate landings, the minimum landing size is 5 -feet by 5 -feet.
3.0 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING GRADE -SEPARATED CROSSING
STRUCTURES
The Bridge Attributes Matrix (Appendix C) provides comparative information for various
attributes of existing and proposed bridges and under -crossings that are currently in use or
planned for the future. Information such as: location, bridge type, builder/maintenance
responsibility, method of financing, street width, proximity to schools, parks, residential
neighborhoods, number/type of users, etc., is presented in this Matrix. The matrix is
accompanied by a map (Appendix B) showing the location of the existing and proposed
bridges. The map contains additional geographic information such as the relative location
between the bridge and community attractions, services and adjacent residential
neighborhoods. This information will be useful when preparing an evaluation for a new
location and is intended as reference material.
4.0 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
A baseline of information should be collected on which to base strategies and actions
necessary to reach the vision and goal statements of the City's General Plan. Specifically,
this assessment could include:
• Determination of current levels of use for bicycling and walking transportation.
• Evaluation of the existing transportation infrastructure to determine current conditions
and capacities and to identify gaps or deficiencies in terms of accommodating potential
and existing bicycle and pedestrian travel.
• Determination of the capacities and the type and security level of bicycle parking offered
at inter -modal connections such as transit facilities and destination points.
• Identification of desired travel corridors for bicycle and pedestrian trips.
• Examination of existing land use and zoning, and the patterns of land use in the
community.
• Planning, design standards, and agency policies and the extent to which they affect the
accessibility of the transportation system for bicyclists and pedestrians (e.g., do they meet
policies and design guidance issued by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for bicycle and pedestrian facilities?).
• State and local laws and regulations affecting the vision and goals, e.g., growth
management and trip reduction laws, or constitutional restraints on expending highway
funds on bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria
arita
Many of the above assessments have been made by the City and, while not completely
documented or recorded, have resulted in a several opportunities for future bridge crossings
to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A primary opportunity is evident in the
implementation of the City's General Plan policies by providing linkages between land uses
and connection of planned trail systems. This complete system, if provided in a safe and
efficient manner will result in an overall community pride and activity level. Cohesive design
of the structures will enable the City or each neighborhood district to enhance or create a
community theme or identification. Theme development and planned design is a significant
element of the City Beautification movement in a community by increasing overall
aesthetics.
In addition to aesthetics, linkage of existing and planned trails systems increases usability of
the system. This increase ultimately leads to lower traffic volumes on City streets and an
increase in air quality benefits by reducing negative pollutants. In an effort to increase
usability, special consideration must be given to security of each system and structure. With
proper lighting and visibility of each structure, law enforcement and neighborhood watch
patrol can assist in reducing vandalism. Reduction in vandalism, in combination with
structure materials, has a direct effect on total maintenance costs. Structures located near
high schools may require additional law enforcement or volunteer patrol during high traffic
times. In addition, increased patrol may be required if a high school and elementary/middle
school use the same structure during the same times. Below is a listing ry typical
opportunities and constraints to be considered with the construction of new bridges:
Opportunities Constraints
Community theme identity enhancement Construction/Maintenance costs
Reduced vehicle miles traveled Regulatory or Administrative issues
Increased use of existing trail system Security and patrol
Air quality improvement and enhancement Design continuity/compatibility issues
Meets goals of General Plan
Difficult task to obtain funding
Provides linkages throughout the community Potential legal issues with injuries
Reduces hazard for vehicle related death or injury Impacts to adjacent properties
Marketability of City as a recreational destination Land availability and acquisition
Integrated neighborhoods Streetscape aesthetics
Supported by Schools/Residents Topographic conditions
Environmental conditions
Presence of hazardous materials
Ease of use compared to alternatives
Level of use by bicyclists/pedestrians
Constraints must be taken into account early in the planning process to avoid time-
consuming or costly changes later. Opportunities should be identified during the planning
phases in order to maximize potential project benefits.
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
City of Santa Clarita
5.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA
In an effort to evaluate and record findings for each potential bridge, an evaluation form has
been prepared (Appendix B). This report should be supported with any and all findings of
significance for the potential bridge crossing. All existing and proposed grade -separated
crossings are subject to this evaluation. These crossings may include either paseo/pedestrian
bridges or under -crossings. The candidate crossing should be rated against the evaluation
criteria. Each criterion offers a number of possible responses, which are evaluated on a
point system. Rationale for each choice is provided to enable accurate selection. Following
the evaluation process the points are totaled. Candidate sites will earn a numeric value that
will be used to determine eligibility for the crossing to be a grade -separated crossing.
Depending on the numeric value candidate sites will be classified as: consider grade
separation, further study required, and not recommended for grade separation.
Certain criteria are weighted due to the relative importance of the specific criteria.
Weighting is provided to allow certain beneficial attributes to be valued higher than others,
thereby effecting the final out come of the evaluation. To this end, the following point
range has been established:
Points Recommendation
75-100 Consider grade separation
50-74 Further study required
0-49 No grade separation at this time
If the candidate crossing site ranks low and is a marginal candidate then a number of
questions should be asked and reviewed to clarify the need and/or the timing of a particular
bridge. Below is a list of potential questions that should be answered if the point value is
moderate to low.
1 Are there other feasible alternatives to a grade -separated crossing?
2 Is there a potential to provide a new at -grade crossing at the same location until a
grade separation is warranted?
3 Is it feasible to improve an existing at -grade crossing nearby?
4 Would a pedestrian island in the center of the street/highway provide an interim
solution to a bridge crossing?
5 Should the speed limit be lowered on the street?
6 Does the volume of existing or potential pedestrian/bicycle traffic support a bridge?
In addition, if consideration of a grade -separated crossing is recommended, the type of
crossing to be provided needs further evaluation. This evaluation should include
investigation of requirement for an over or under crossing should be addressed. Also a
standard style of crossing, or series of crossings should be provided in the City's Design
Guidelines for each neighborhood district. These crossings should provide identifying
features for each neighborhood.
7 .�t
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Study
of Santa C1
RESOURCES
• Berkeley, City of. Draft General Plan: Bicycle Element — Chapter 7 Implementation .
• Berkeley, City of. 4/97. Design Constraints and Opportunities Report.
• CalTrans. Highway Design Manual: Chapter 208 — Bridges and Grade Separation
Structures.
• Moudon, Anne Vernex, etal. May 1997. Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in
Mixed -Use. Medium -Density Environments, Report Summate . U.S. Department of
Transportation.
• National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse. September 1995. Technical Assistance
Series, Number 6.
• National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 1998. _Unintentional Injury
Pedestrian Deaths and Injuries Fact Sheet.
• Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., etal. December 1993. Making the Land
Use Transportation Air Quality Connection: The Pedestrian Environment . Volume 4A.
• Pedestrian Federation of America. 1995. Walk Tall: A Citizen's Guide to Walkable
Communities. Rodale Press.
• Surface Transportation Policy Program. 1998. Mean Streets 1998 Edition — Pedestrian
Safety and Reform of the Nation's Transportation Law-.
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. August 25, 1999.
Planning & Environment Intermodal and Statewide Programs Bike and Pedestrian
Technical Summa*v.
• U.S. Department of Transportation. March 1994.1020: Facilities for Non -motorized
Transportation Design Manual.
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Planning &
Environment: Intermodal and Statewide Programs — FI-UA/FTA Interim Technical
Guidance for Bike/ Ped Planning at the State and MPO Levels .
• Washington State Department of Transportation. 1997. Non -motorized Funding
Sources.
• Washington State Department of Transportation. 1997. Recreational Trail Funding
Sources.
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
City of Santa Clarita
FUNDING AND MAINTENANCE
When considering funding sources for the bridge improvement project, it is helpful to
identify the financial components of the project. The project will involve fees for design and
plan preparation, potential land acquisition, construction materials and labor, and long-term
maintenance. Preparing a preliminary cost estimate will establish a financial goal and will
assist in determining the strategy for securing necessary funds.
Cost Estimates for Bridge Construction
Examples of construction costs are illustrated by examining existing bridge structures
located in the community. Construction cost estimates were obtained from the Valencia
Company (5/26/99) and all estimates are for the cost of construction only. The cost of land
acquisition was not included.
Typically, the least expensive bridge crossing is an earthen abutment on each end of the
structure. This type of construction results in an overall design costing approximately
$450,000. If the structure is developed with full ramps on each end, the costs could escalate
to well over $1 trillion. For example, the existing structure at Valencia and McBean cost an
estimated $1 million -vs- Copper Hill and McBean at an estimated cost of $450,000. The
structure on Newhall Ranch Road, which included a 210' steel truss span cost approximately
$750,000. For future development of structures, an estimated $500,000 for earthen berms
and $1 million for full ramps should be used.
Historical Bridge Funding Mechanisms
All of the existing bridges in the community have been constructed using funds provided by
developers or others. Developer's paying for the cost of bridges in conjunction with a
development project is the most common form of private funding since it is eventually paid
for by the residents who will be directly served by the bridge and receive the most benefit.
This requirement is typically determined as a condition of approval for a development site.
Developer funded construction is optimal for the City to avoid significant construction costs
and impacts to the General Fund, especially when bridge crossings are planned within
developed areas. The burden of land acquisition and constructions costs in these areas can
be significant.
Methods of initiating a Bridge Project
Various methods or combinations of funding sources may be obtained for funding the
bridge. The City has two basic options: implementing a condition of approval upon a
development project, or financing the project with either the City's General Funds or
sources of non -general funds. Locating funds is similar to the process of looking for
competitive money to fund the City trail system.
Finding funding is where the variety of methods and sources come into play. Below is a
listing of some other non -general funds available that can be used independently or in
combination with or without general fund contributions.
.a• Appendix A .e,
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
City of Santa Clarita
• Impact Fees paid by developers are commonly used to pay for bridge development.
These impact fees are collected and the City then constructs the bridges at selected
locations.
• Assessment Districts are a local mechanism placed on a defined neighborhood of
users. Private residents are assessed a certain amount of money over a period of time.
This pool of money is then used by the City to pay for the construction of a bridge.
• Bridge & Thoroughfare Districts may be formed as a special district by the City to
collect money to construct bridges.
• Private donations from residents, community groups or community leaders may be
used to fund the project.
• Grants and Foundations
Private foundations provide a potential source for funding specific capital projects.
Typically, private foundation donors prefer to fund programs that are special in nature
(educational, safety, etc.), rather than programs viewed as city responsibilities, such as
constructing and maintaining roadways.
• Adopt-A-Trail/Path Programs
This type of program would entail posting signs to indicate which individual or group
has contributed to the development, installation or maintenance of the project.
• Memorial Funds
The project may be advertised as a potential donor project to be funded by charitable
contributions allocated through a will. Most memorial projects include a memorial
plaque placed near the improvement.
Federal and State Funding Mechanisms
In many instances, non -general funds are not readily available for use to construct needed
bridges. In these cases, the City, if required to pay for the construction, must look to other
local, state or federal sources for available money. Due to recent federal legislation, there are
several sources of federal funding available for various transportation projects. These
federal funds are distributed to the states for distribution to the local entities. In most non-
emergency cases, the timing for obtaining these funds can be a lengthy and arduous task,
since certain plans need to be in place by the City in order to meet stringent qualifications
for funding allotments. These public funds include, but are not limited to the following:
• Surface Transportation Program (STP)
These funds may be used for either the construction of bicycle transportation facilities
and pedestrian walkways, or non -construction projects (such as maps, brochures, and
public service announcements) related to safe bicycle use and walking.
�- Appendix A c,
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
City of Santa Clarita
• Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA'S)
The Inter -modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) explicitly allocates
funds to promote transportation safety, for the STP safety set-aside. Millions of dollars
are available each year for this program, and pedestrian safety is an eligible activity.
• Highway Safety Programs
State and Community Highway Safety Grants, funded by the Section 402 formula grant
program, focus on safety as a priority for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program
This program establishes funds that may be used for either the construction of bicycle
transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways, or non -construction projects (such as
maps, brochures, and public service announcements) related to safe bicycle use.
• Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
These grants are available to support projects, including bicycle -related services, designed
to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from
employment.
• Bike Lane Accounts (BLA's)
The Streets and Highways Code, requires that projects be included in bicycle
transportation plans in order to be eligible for BLA funds and that these plans contain
specific elements. To be eligible, the local agency must adopt the plan or certify that it
has been updated.
Maintenance
In addition to finding a funding source for construction of the project, a means and
mechanism for providing long-term maintenance will need to be established as well.
Neglected bicycle and pedestrian facilities send the wrong message to local citizens and
reflect negatively on the character of the community. Unkempt facilities suggest that the
local government does not really intend for citizens to use the facilities and is not concerned
with the transportation safety of those who do. In addition, neglecting to maintain these
facilities may result in accidents, creating a liability issue for the City. Maintaining reports of
maintenance concerns and preparing a maintenance schedule are only a couple of topics for
the City to address.
A routine maintenance program is necessary to ensure bicyclist and pedestrian user safety
and to prolong the life of a facility. Maintenance activities should be prioritized, with safety
always being at the top of the list. Necessary maintenance tasks for bridges and ramps may
include the following:
• Patching or re -grading the surface on a regular basis
• Inspecting and repairing/replacing signs
• Traffic markings, bollards and gates
Appendix A .c,
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Evaluation Criteria Studv
City of Santa
• Mowing shoulders and other areas
• Trimming vegetation to meet sight -distance requirements
• Removing fallen trees, limbs and debris
• Repairing any damage from seasonal washouts
• Cleaning culverts, catch basins and other drainage structures
• Sweeping the pathways to keep them free of debris
• Keeping lights clean and replacing fixtures as required
• Maintaining support facilities such as benches
• Inspecting and maintaining the bridge's structural supports, railings, fencing and covers
• Picking up litter and emptying trash cans
With the development of new bridge crossings, the City will need to ensure that adequate
provisions are available for the perpetual maintenance of each structure. Prior to the
construction of a facility, a comprehensive budget and management plan that includes
maintenance costs should be developed. Funds for the planning and development of a
facility are much easier to obtain than maintenance funds. Government Agencies and
individuals are more likely to donate money before a trail is constructed, rather than after.
Therefore, the best way to save money on maintenance is to spend money on designing a
facility that needs the least amount of maintenance. Typical private maintenance
mechanisms include homeowner associations (FICA's), landscape maintenance districts
(LMD's), etc. Both of these mechanisms require local residents who will benefit from the
facility to pay monthly or annual assessments to a construction or maintenance fund. If
there are no assessment districts or private funding mechanisms available, then the burden is
placed on the City to cover the maintenance costs.
In addition to the maintenance mechanisms, the actual materials used for the construction
are important. If wood structures are constructed, the overall life -span of the structure can
be limited. Currently there are approximately eight bridges constructed of wood in the City.
Of these wood structures, two are in fair to satisfactory conditions, with the remaining in
good condition. However, all the wood bridges are showing signs of deterioration and
significant wear. These bridges are resulting in additional maintenance costs and may require
significant repair in the future. Other materials for construction may provide a longer life-
span and include steel, concrete or a combination of both.
In addition to materials, the actual design of each structure may vary depending on the
location and developer. The City should adopt a design guideline for the various types of
structures and their construction. This guide will allow the City to secure the proper
materials for consistent maintenance of structures throughout the City. Currently, different
paint colors and materials are needed for each bridge.
�^ Appendix A .e.
3tl0'i8 NdLY11T'.23
w'J
tO�E puM1�M
m r�
wG pp E
Vm.2•.M
' 99
171L Wit
€
€
€
8
€
€
€
€
€
€
€
€
€
€
n €
€
€
€ €I
€
€
€I
€
€
Q
Pun�M
Te'
YI
-1
r
0-2,0292Z
_
_
t),
•
�
a
t
5 ex
c
2
s
a
i
3
Q
x
S_�
_
_
_
_
_
R
R
RIII
A,R R
9a
Bridge Location
Date:
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Potential Bridge Location:
Name of Evaluator:
The following evaluation will assist in determining the eligibility for a candidate crossing site to be a grade -
separated crossing. Please answer each question and calculate the total to establish which range the crossing
will be evaluated.
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Prior to the completion of this evaluation, have any special issues or overriding considerations been
identified (i.e., inadequate right-of-way available, cost of design is prohibitive, physical features limit design
alternatives, etc.) that might result in this being an infeasible location for a bridge?
❑ No ❑ Yes (If yes, provide a description of these issues)
7/99 Pagel of 7
Bridge Location: Date
POLICY CONSISTENCY
The City of Santa Clarita General Plan sets forth specific goals and policies to promote effective non-
vehicular circulation, neighborhood linkages, provide recreation opportunities and raise the quality of life for
existing and future residents. The following list of General Plan goals should be used to evaluate the
candidate crossing against this criteria.
CD 2.3: Promote opportunities for greater pedestrian orientation and lifestyles.
CD 6.5: Where possible, integrate neighborhood parks with a larger community wide system,
incorporate jogging, hiking, and bike path links where possible.
C 2.5 Develop adequate pedestrian access and encourage the use of these systems.
C 3.2: Provide a system of sidewalks or pathways, tunnels and bridges in residential, commercial
and industrial areas that feature a safe environment, integrating pedestrian and bicyclist in a
manner harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods.
C 3.3: Promote bicycle accessibility to all public facilities, including parks, schools and centers of
civic activity.
PR 7.10: Provide equestrian and pedestrian trails and bikeways which are separate from vehicular
traffic and provide maximum safety when the crossing of streets or highways is necessary.
PR 7.2 Design trail routes, trail heads, and staging areas and designate trail uses to minimize impact
upon adjacent property, neighborhoods and fragile habitats.
• Does the candidate site fulfill relevant General Plan and/or specific plan goals and policies
concerning pedestrian and bike connections?
4 Yes (More than 4 policies above)
1 Partially (1 to 3 policies above)
PolicyConsistency Subtotal....................................................................................................................
CROSSING USE
This criteria seeks to evaluate the potential use of the crossing. If the crossing is expected to be used
infrequently, then the cost -benefit is assumed to be low. However, if the proposed crossing is projected to
accommodate high use, then the cost -benefit is assumed to be high. A relatively low projected use should
direct attention to assessing alternative methods of safe crossing.
• What is the estimated volume of use for the candidate crossing during an 8 -hour period? -
6 High (20 peak pedestrians per hour crossings or greater)
3 Medium (10 peak pedestrians per hour crossings to 19 peak pedestrians per hour crossings)
0 Low (less than 10 peak pedestrians per hour crossings)
• Can the crossing site be monitored by law enforcement?
3 Yes
0 No
Crossing Use Subtotal ..........................
7/99
Page 2 of 7
Bridge Location: Date:
FUNDING AND MAINTENANCE
This evaluation criteria is important compared to other factors. As a result it is weighted in favor of private
funding and maintenance over public funding and maintenance. Efficient use of public funds is a constant
challenge in a community. If a potential crossing structure is to be privately funded (assessment
district/impact fees/developer built) and/or privately maintained (LMD/HOA) the ranking will
significantly favor private funding. However, other traffic and physical criteria must also be met if the
structure is to be privately funded and maintained.
• Will the structure be privately or publicly funded?....................................................................
9 Privately funded
6 50%/50%--Private/Public
0 Publicly funded
• Willthe structure be privately or publicly maintained?-...........................................................
9 Privately maintained
6 50%/50%--Private/Public
0 Publicly maintained
• Bridge supported by a neighborhood group and / or is contained in a
neighborhoodplan?.............................................................................................................................
3 Yes
0 No
Funding and Maintenance Subtotal......................................................................................................
I CONNECTIVITY AND LINKAGES
Another significant consideration that is supported by numerous General Plan policies is that of
connectivity. After reviewing the various attributes of the existing bridges and underpasses it is obvious that
the highest community use occurs on crossing structures that are designed as a part of an over-all pedestrian
and bike system. A proposed crossing structure that is connected to a pathway on both sides and provides
access between a residential area and a school or park would rank very high. Likewise, a proposed crossing
structure with no projected connections would not be scored on this criteria. Proposed crossing structures
that are located on a designated route to school are weighted to promote and facilitate safe walk/rides to
and from school and after-school activities
• Will the candidate crossing site connect to an existing sidewalk or trail? ..........................
6 Both sides
3 One side
0 No connection
• Will the candidate crossing site complete a planned trail linkage? .....
9 Yes
0 No
7/99 Page 3 of 7
Bridge Location: Date:
• Would the candidate crossing site provide a connection between ........................................
or is adjacent to any of the following?
❑ Residential Area ❑ Church ❑ Clubs/After School Activities
❑ Park ❑ Senior Center
❑ School ❑ Trail Head
❑ Recreation Center ❑ Commercial Area
6 More that three of the above including a school, park or recreation center.
3 Three of the above including a school, park or recreation center
2 Two of the above including a park
0 None of the above
• What is the estimated residential service population of the candidate crossing?.......
3 Over 1000
1 500 to 1000
0 Less than 500
• Is the candidate site on a "suggested route to school" as determined by the City?
6 Yes
0 No
Connectivity and Linkages ...................................
TRAFFIC AND STREET CONDITIONS
The following criteria are primarily technical in nature and are designed to evaluate traffic operations and
street design characteristics at the candidate crossing. Safety considerations such as vertical and horizontal
street alignments, volume and speed of approaching traffic all are important considerations. In order to
properly evaluate some of these factors it may be necessary to perform special traffic operations studies at
candidate sites if the information is not available from the City Traffic Engineering Division. Candidate
sites with a low safety ranking are weighted to discourage placement of a structure, or at a minimum require
further specific analysis.
• Are there significant horizontal and/or crest vertical alignments along the street that
would make the visibility of pedestrians to motorists difficult?
6 No
0 Yes
• Distance to nearest controlled (stop/signal) intersection: ......................................................
3 Over 600' out -of -direction travel (one-way)
1 300 to 600' out -of -direction travel (one-way)
0 Less than 300' out -of -direction travel (one-way)
1/99 Page 4 of 7
Bridge Location: Date:
• What is the width of the street to be crossed?.............................................................................
3 Over 80 feet wide
1 60 to 80 feet wide
0 Less than 60 feet wide
Is the crossing street currently built to full right-of-way width? ............................................
6 Yes
0 No
• What are the crossing street traffic volumes at the candidate site? ......................................
6 Over 30,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT)
2 15,000 to 30,000 ADT
1 8,000 to 15,000 ADT
0 Less than 8,000 ADT
• What is the crossing street posted speed limit?..........................................................................
3 Over 45 MPH
1 35 to 45 MPH
0 Less than 35 MPH
Will the structure interfere with vehicle sight distance?...........................................................
3 No
0 Yes
Traffic and Street Subtotal ........................
AESTHETIC AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS
Accessibility and physical appearance are important factors to consider when making a determination of
crossing site location. If the project can not be easily accessed, then costs may be increased to design for
A.D.A. requirements. This can place undue financial burden on the community to provide additional
crossings that will be accessed by all users. In addition, if there is not adequate land for construction, then
the cost of land acquisition needs to be included, which also places a hardship on the community.
The appearance of the structure can impact the visual quality of life enjoyed by neighborhood residents.
Each bridge crossing has the potential of providing a unifying neighborhood theme or may result in a visual
break of a theme for the district.
Would the candidate crossing site..................................................................................................
❑ Facilitate Ease of Use (no long ramps or steep ramps)
❑ Accommodate Conducive Topography (no severe grade differences)
❑ Limit out -of -direction travel
❑ Provide convenient connection to adjoining sidewalks/paths/trails
More than two of the above including Limited out—of-direction travel; Conducive Topography
Two of the above including Limited out -of -direction travel
None of the above
7/99
Page 5 of 7
Bridge
Date:
• Would the structure negatively affect visual quality and views
from roads or adjacent parcels?.......................................................................................................
3 No
1 Maybe
0 Yes
• Does the candidate crossing site require land acquisition? ......................................
6 No
0 Yes
Aesthetic and Physical Constraint Subtotal:
RESULTS ., , ,
EN
Enter each group sub -total in the categories listed below. The final will provide the total score for the
crossing site.
Policy Consistency Subtotal..................................................................................
Crossing Use Subtotal:
Financing and Maintenance Subtotal ...................................
.............................
Connectivity and Linkages....................................................................................
Traffic and Street Subtotal......................................................
................................
Aesthetic and Physical Constraint Subtotal: .............
Evaluation Total
Evaluation Point Total Rec mmend ti n
75-100 Consider grade separation
50-74 Further study required
0-49 No grade separation at this time
7/99
Page 6 of 7
Bridge Location: Date:
After location alternatives are rated, it will be important to compare each candidate bridge Crossing
the others one last time. If all things are equal, the lower cost bridge should have priority. Thus, the bridges
should be placed in priority order, and costs should be compared. Other issues such as types of funding,
security and best linkage to land uses and planned trails should also be weighed.
Candidate bridge crossing sites should be re -rated periodically to take into consideration new information,
new funding sources, set -asides, etc. The ratings of most candidate bridge crossings will not change,
however, new circumstances may affect the ratings of some crossings, and these should be considered.
These comparisons and special consideration thoughts should be recorded below for each candidate
crossing. This information may be used in making a final determination for a crossing if it has overriding
factors that may not have been addressed in the Evaluation Survey.
CASE-BY-CASE EVALUATION
R:\1999\!'99415 SC Bridge,\Pmdua\PEDESIIUAN BftIpGE EVALUATION WORKSHEET.d«
7/99
Page 7of7