Los Gatos_Hwy17_Council_Mtg_Presentation_Final_20221115Bridge Type Selection
Town Council Meeting - November 15, 2022
Presentation Agenda
Project Team
Project Overview
Bridge Type Selection Process
Stakeholder and Community Support
Technical Considerations
Conclusion
Next Steps
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Project Team
Town Staff
Nicolle Burnham, Director of Parks and Public Works
WooJae Kim, Town Engineer
Michelle Quinney, Project Manager
BKF Design Team
Jaggi Bhandal, Project Manager - BKF
Jorge Morales, Project Engineer - BKF
Noé Noyola, Outreach Coordinator - MIG
Project Overview
Purpose and Need
Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility across Highway 17 in the vicinity of the Blossom Hill Road Bridge
Improve Safety for all Modes of Travel
Provide a Safe Route to School
Promote Active Transportation
Reduce Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Reducing Vehicular Traffic Demand
Project Development Process to Date
2017
2019
2020
2021
Priority Project in Town’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP)
Feasibility Study began
Application to VTA Measure B Grant Program for Final Design
Project Purpose & Need and Feasibility Study approved - bridge location selected – three bridge types to be considered
Town awarded $2.75 million VTA Measure B Program for design
Council Approved Community Engagement Plan
Project Initiation and Community Outreach (Phase 1)
6
Bridge Type
Selection Process
Three Bridge Type Options for Consideration
Option 1: Concrete Box Girder
Option 2A: Steel Flat Truss
Option 2B: Steel Arch Truss
9
Bridge Alternative Analysis
Project Team Developed an Approach to Evaluate Three Bridge Alternatives:
Overall Stakeholder and Community Support
Critical Technical Criteria
Stakeholder & Community Support
11
Community Outreach Activities
October 5, 2021 Targeted Outreach to adjacent neighborhoods
December 2, 2021 Community Workshop #1 (33 participants)
March 25, 2022 Team meeting with Los Gatos Union School District
March 28, 2022 Farmer’s Market Pop Up Event (62 participants)
April 20, 2022 Los Gatos Creek Trail Pop Up Event (54 participants)
April 24, 2022 Spring Into the Green Pop Up Event (100 participants)
May 18, 2022 Fisher School Newsletter
June 24, 2022 Project Site Signs Installed
June 29, 2022 Community Workshop #2 (5 participants)
Sept 16 – Oct 7, 2022 Online Survey (266 participants)
Routine updates to Complete Streets and Transportation Commission
12
Stakeholders and Community Support
Option 1: Concrete Box-Girder – 250 Points
Option 2A: Steel Flat Truss – 175 Points
Option 2B: Steel Arch Truss – 200 Points
The Quantitative Analysis Resulted in the Concrete Box-Girder as the Preferred Option.
For quantitative analysis, see Council Report Attachment 1 or visit the Project Page at www.LosGatosCA.gov/Hwy17BPOC to view the Bridge Type Selection Evaluation.
Technical Considerations
14
Critical Technical Criteria
Construction Cost
Maintenance & Inspection
Architectural Distinction
Construction Schedule
Impacts to Highway 17
Stage Construction Traffic Impacts
Visual Impacts
15
Technical Criteria Summary
Option 1: Concrete Box-Girder – 240 Points
Option 2A: Steel Flat Truss – 155 Points
Option 2B: Steel Arch Truss – 175 Points
The Quantitative Analysis Resulted in the Concrete Box-Girder as the Preferred Option.
For quantitative analysis, see Council Report Attachment 1 or visit the Project Page at www.LosGatosCA.gov/Hwy17BPOC to view the Bridge Type Selection Evaluation.
Conclusion
Recommended Bridge Type – Concrete Box Girder
Examples of Existing Concrete Bridges
Renderings of Potential Concrete Bridge Design
Highway 17 BPOC – Arch-Shaped Haunched Concrete Box Girder
Highway 101 BPOC (Ralston Avenue Overcrossing)
City of Belmont, CA
Highway 85 BPOC (Dale/Heatherstone Overcrossing)
City of Mountain View, CA
Highway 17 BPOC – Standard Concrete Box Girder
Next Steps
Project Development Process Schedule
Next Steps
Future Community Workshops TBD
Potential Architectural Details
Color/Textures/Materials
Lighting/Landscaping/Amenities
Wayfinding/Educational Signage
Questions?
Section Views
Update Cross sections
Section Views
Update Cross sections
Section Views
Update Cross sections
Bridge Alternative Analysis
The steps identified for the bridge type selection process included:
Raise project awareness within the community
Strive to obtain input from stakeholders and wide range of community members
Gauge level of stakeholder and community support for each bridge type
Develop critical technical criteria by which to evaluate each bridge type
Combine and summarize results
Make recommendation regarding most supported bridge type
1
2
3
4
5
6
Gauging Stakeholder and Community Support
Reactions to each bridge type was collected at each community outreach event.
Community Meetings/On line Survey - on-line polling
Pop Up Events – project boards/stickers
The options for level of support were:
- Not supportive at all
- Not supportive
- Neutral
- Supportive
- Strongly Supportive
Pop Up Events - Project Boards
Evaluating Feedback
Quantitative Analysis – based on recorded level of support and assigned weight factor.
Level of Support (1-3)
Results tallied for each event
A value of 1 indicates the lowest level of support
A value of 3 indicates the highest degree of support
Weight factors were assigned based on the level of interest and participation from each event. For the community activities, weight factors were proportioned based on the level of participation
at each event and for the stakeholders group equal weight factors were assigned.
Stakeholders and Community Comments
Comments for high level of support for concrete box girder:
Lowest cost
Low profile design, simple, clean, sleek, minimalistic, least obtrusive
Matches existing vehicle bridge, blends in, does not detract from the surrounding landscape
Comments for high level of support for steel flat truss:
Visually appealing design, compromise between concrete box and steel arch
Not the most expensive option
Design is simple, clean, and does not stand out too much
No median island column is required (in Highway 17)
Stakeholders and Community Comments
Comments for high level of support for steel arch truss:
Design and architecture is the most appealing of all options
Highly visible design, strikingly beautiful, gorgeous, elegant, distinguished, unique
Time to say “yes” to aspirational projects for bicycles and pedestrians
Stakeholders and Community Comments
Community Comments
On-line comments both in support of and objecting to project:
Support for the project, excitement for pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements, and the importance of moving this project forward in a timely manner
(Mentioned in 28 of 95 responses)
Opposition to the project and concerns that this investment is not responsible
(Mentioned in 13 of 95 responses)
Additional Critical Technical Criteria
The following additional criteria were also of significant importance to the Town, but were removed from further evaluation as each of these criteria were determined to be equally addressed
by each bridge type.
User Friendliness
Safety/Security
Environmental Impacts (Cultural, Biological, Tree Removal)
Compliance with Caltrans Standards
Utility Constraints
Right of Way Constraints
33
Evaluating Technical Criteria
Quantitative Analysis – based on recorded level of support and assigned weight factor.
Level of Support (1-3) was assigned for each technical criteria and for each bridge type. The values were assigned by how well each bridge type satisfied or supported each technical
criteria. A value of 3 indicates the most favorable bridge option to meet the criteria while a value of 1 represents the least favorable bridge type for that technical criteria.
Weight factors were given to each technical consideration category based on the relative importance of each criteria. Considerations included up front project costs and impacts, as
well as long term cost, operational and aesthetic impacts to the Town.