November 3, 2022
Los Gatos Unified School District (LGUSD)
Complete Streets and Transportation Commission (CSTC) Although many of the representatives from these various groups attended the larger community meetings, pop-up events, council meetings, etc., we assigned standalone categories to represent each stakeholder group’s level of support for each alternative.
Equal weight factors of 10% were assigned to each stakeholder group and the majority of all community activities based on the number of participants. Two events had significantly higher participation – Spring Into the Green and the Online Survey – so greater weight factors of 15% and 25% were applied to each respectively, and proportioned based on their level of participation. In addition, we combined the two community workshops into one category representing a total 10% weight factor given the low participation in Community Workshop #2.
Stakeholders and community members were able to provide meaningful feedback through the community outreach activities. Each event gave the public an opportunity to show their level of support for each structure option raging from “Not Supportive at All” to “Strongly Supportive.” BKF used the results from each event to develop a quantitative analysis by assigning points ranging from -2 to 2 for each participant response corresponding to their level of support for each bridge alternative.
The results of the quantitative analysis developed for the various outreach events are summarized in the tables below:
Table 1: Community Workshops #1 & #2
Table 2: Farmer’s Market
Table 3: Los Gatos Creek Trail
November 3, 2022
Table 4: Spring into Green
Table 5: Online Survey
The results of the quantitative analysis were used to establish the 1 to 3 rating for each alternative in the attached matrix. A rating of 3 was given to the option with the highest number of total points and a rating of 1 was given to the option(s) with the lowest number of total points.
A quantitative analysis based on our interactions with each of the stakeholder groups was more challenging since we did not solicit formal feedback on each participant’s level of support for each alternative. The BKF Team assigned different ratings for each bridge alternative based on their general sentiment. For the Adjacent Communities category, we got the impression that several community representatives were concerned that the steel bridge alternatives would create more of a visual impact from their respective communities and would prefer the concrete option over the two steel options. To take this difference into consideration, a 3-point rating was assigned to the concrete option and a 1- point rating towards both steel options. Interactions with the CSTC and LGUSD were significantly different in that both stakeholder groups expressed strong support for the Project overall regardless of the different bridge alternatives. Although there may be slight preferences for one alternative over another with specific individuals, we did not get the feeling one was preferred over another, and therefore assigned a 3-point rating to each alternative.
The rating given to each option based on the quantitative analysis and reasoning provided above was multiplied by the weight factors given to determine the net scores for each alternative. The net results are summarized below:
Option 1: Concrete Box-Girder – 250 Points
Option 2A: Steel Flat Truss – 175 Points
Option 2B: Steel Arch Truss – 200 Points
The above results determined that based on the stakeholder and community feedback received, the Concrete Box-Girder is the preferred structure option to carry through the next phase of the Project.
SUMMARY
Taking into consideration both the technical considerations and community acceptance feedback received, the Concrete Box-Girder alternative prevailed as the preferred option as summarized below:
Option 1: Concrete Box-Girder – 490 Points
Option 2A: Steel Flat Truss – 330 Points
November 3, 2022
Option 2B: Steel Arch Truss – 375 Points
Based on these results, the BKF Team in collaboration with the Town of Los Gatos recommends approval of the Concrete Box-Girder as the preferred bridge type for the Highway 17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project.
Highway 17 BPOC – Bridge Type Selection Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 1
BKF ENGINEERS
1730 N. First Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112 | 408.467.9100
From: Phil Seaman
Date: October 3, 2022 at 2:24:49 PM PDT
To: Michael Glow
Cc: Laurel Prevetti <[email protected]>, Maria Ristow <[email protected]>, Marico Sayoc <[email protected]>, Mary Badame <[email protected]>, Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>, Rob Rennie <[email protected]>, Gitta Ungvari <[email protected]>, Andy & Fran Edwards , Devin & Toni Conway , Jan Taylor "LosGatos, Weekly Times"
<[email protected]>, "Robinson, James H." <[email protected]>, Ed Clendaniel <[email protected]>, Shannon Susick , Sandy Decker , James U Hall
Subject: Re: Pedestrian Bridge Project
EXTERNAL SENDER
Michael,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I went on line and voted for the lowest cost option. https://www.losgatosca.gov/2556/Hwy-17-Bicycle-Pedestrian-Overcrossing Cheers,
Phil
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 1:40 PM Michael Glow wrote:
Dear Gentlepersons of the Los Gatos Town Council:
My household budget does not operate at a deficit. Even so, if I were looking to buy a car and the candidates were a Toyota, a Volvo, or a Mercedes, I'd buy the Toyota. It is my understanding that the town budget has been operating at a deficit, and that future budgets call for continued deficits. That begs the question, how can the town consider any alternative bridge construction other than the least expensive option that fills the need?
Respectfully yours,
Michael Glow
Attachment 2 Page 769
From: june beeler
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 2:02 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Pedestrian/Bike bridge
EXTERNAL SENDER
To all Town Council Members:
I am writing to express my view and disapproval, of the "high priority town project". namely the proposed Pedestrian/Bike new bridge construction, on Blossom Hill Road, on the Hwy 17 overpass.
I consider this project to be unnecessary, as designed, and extremely expensive! I'm not sure if the money allocated for this project comes from a government grant? However, the high cost of personnel for the design, construction and materials during four phases, lasting over five years, is outlandish! The amount of money this will cost could be spent elsewhere, in our town, to better advantage.
During the 50 plus years that I have been a Los Gatos resident, I have not heard of any problem or serious accident, to either pedestrians or bicyclists, as they traverse, over the existing Blossom Hill overpass. Other less expensive, less intrusive, more cost effective means, to ensure complete safety, to people walking or biking, in that area, could simply be to upgrade the existing Blossom Hill overpass, with fencing, separating the traffic from the bike lane, in particular. The bike lane could be widened, utilizing the sidewalk, to accommodate people, riding in both directions. A new sidewalk area addition could be cantilevered out, attached to the outer side, of the overpass. I have seen that solution, in effect, at another overpass, in another town.
Now, the town wants to secure the public's approval, for one of the three proposed designs, to "cement" this project, in place,
by requesting people to vote, in a survey... It seems obvious that the two designs, with decorative steel "railings", designed for appearance, only, and being more costly, is not a good choice. IMO, neither is the third choice, of a "streamlined" concrete structure, the best answer. Building such a "heavy duty" structure is not practical when it won't be used by cars, trucks or buses, only people, That option also requires building retaining walls, on both sides, of the overpass, causing additional, unnecessary expense!.
Also, IMO, the planter area, separating traffic, from the bike lanes, offers no safety protection, whatsoever! Extending the fencing would provide better protection... Actually, it is hard to determine, from the visual, whether any fencing is placed on the outer edge, of the proposed sidewalk, over Hwy 17? It would be, derelict not to do so...
Even though it could be considered "late, in the game", it is never too. late to save financial resources, to shelve this design proposal for a better, more innovative, cost effective alternative! Send it back to the "drawing board"! The decision, by the current Town Council, is vital. If the town is concerned about a possible deficit, this is one area, to be frugal.
With all respect, thank you for your attention and consideration, of my comments about this project...
Sincerely,
June Beeler
From:
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 1:57:21 PM
Cc: 'Joe Rodgers'
Subject: question about proposed pedestrian bridge
EXTERNAL SENDER
HI Mary and Matthew, my two favorite town council members, I have a question about the proposed pedestrian bridge. The Town of LG posted on nextdoor.com that they are doing a survey gathering public input as to which of 3 bridge choices the public would like. It also said that the bridge would cost 25-38 million dollars to build. Is this a done deal? Are they definitely building it, or is it up for consideration?
If it gets built, where does the money come from? I got a very vague answer on nextdoor.com from Holly Young Senior Management Analyst with the town. She also wanted to take my questions offline and suggested I contact Janice Chin. I responded for the sake of transparency I would like to have some basic questions answered staying on nextdoor.com because there were several people on that post who were interested in the answers as well.
How can our town even afford this? I know we are in a very large deficit.
Kind regards,
Lisa Harris
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3
Highway 17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project
(BPOC)
TLG 19-818-0803
FAQ’s from COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Are all proposed bridge concepts the same height (above Highway 17) as the current bridge, or are they raised to a higher elevation than the current bridge?
Caltrans standards require the minimum vertical clearance for a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over a freeway to be 18’6” to the underside, or soffit, and for a roadway bridge over a freeway to be 16’6” to the soffit. The existing Blossom Hill Overcrossing has a sub-standard vertical clearance of 15’-5”. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian bridge options will be designed to meet current standards and will therefore be higher than the current bridge in order to the minimum required vertical clearance.
2. Are the yearly/long term maintenance costs of the 3 bridge options the same or statistically different? It is anticipated that yearly/long term maintenance costs between the options presented will be similar, however, concrete bridges generally require somewhat less long-term maintenance. Long-term maintenance considerations for steel bridges include painting every few years and periodic inspections of key structural connections of the steel members. Depending on various factors such as the type of structure, type of steel members, type of structural connections and the selected paint system, specific long-term maintenance costs will vary. Ultimately, it is anticipated these costs may contribute to a somewhat higher long-term maintenance cost for a steel bridge option when compared to a concrete option.
3. Are there color options for the steel?
Yes. Potential color options will be presented in a future public workshop for input if a steel bridge type is chosen.
4. Between the concrete bridge and the steel flat truss bridge, a trade off is that the concrete one is less expensive and the steel flat truss one involves less shut down of the highway. These aspects both seem as critical of an issue as whether the bridge enhances the character of Los Gatos. How much of a cost difference and how many days of shut down are involved with each? With respect to shut down hours of Highway 17, the concrete bridge will be constructed similar to other concrete bridges over highways, with falsework erected over the travel lanes to maintain traffic flow during construction. The steel truss bridge can be erected over Highway 17 during low peak hours.
SCAN ME!
Attachment 3
As the design proceeds, specific traffic impact details, such as the need for lane closures of Highway 17 or traffic detours, will be coordinated with Caltrans. The project team will strive to minimize impacts to highway travel as well as to the surrounding communities. Project construction costs associated with the identified traffic impacts of the various bridge types can then be further quantified and used along with other considerations, such as the enhancement of the character of Los Gatos, to evaluate the various bridge proposals.
5. Most of the renderings don’t show much impact to the landscapes on either side of 17. Is this accurate or will cut slopes and retaining wall structures require tree removal, especially on the east side? Can you address if there will be a difference in this impact between the options please? Potential impacts to landscapes, tree removals, and hillsides will likely be more significant on the east side of Highway 17 given the existing terrain and narrow roadway cross-section. The Project intends to build the pathway improvements as close to the existing roadways as possible in order to minimize these potential impacts, however there will be tree removals and slope work required for all bridge options. As the design progresses, the project team will be able to better quantify the impacts to the slopes, landscaping, and retaining walls along the east and west sides associated with the various bridge options and will present this to the community as the design progresses.
The 2020 Feasibility Study also provides information about the conceptual improvements and their potential impact east and west of the proposed bridge crossing.
6. Many of us are concerned about the elevation and distance the pathway will cut into the back hill behind our homes that backup against Blossom Hill Road. Are there dimensions available for the pathways connecting to the new bridge structure?
A Project goal is to build the pathway within the existing roadway envelope where the existing sidewalk is currently located and within the existing public right of way. The Project is still in the very early planning stages so specific dimensions are not currently available, but will be provided in Phase 2 when preliminary engineering details are developed, and will be shared with the community at that time.
7. What is the measurement between the pedestrian bridge walking surface and the top of the bridge walls/fences: currently and in the proposed bridges? One day I saw a middle schooler lifting up a big rock to lob over the current chain link fence to toss down into highway traffic so want to see that fencing pretty high to reduce this kind of temptation for pranksters that might frequent this travel route but not yet be mature enough to realize the consequences.
Caltrans Standards require a minimum fence height of 8 feet over freeways to reduce the risk of objects being dropped or thrown upon vehicles. The proposed bridge will provide fencing that meets the 8-foot minimum height requirement and the project team will continue to look for other options that might be useful to help deter this type of activity.
8. We are fortunate to not have a lot of graffiti in Los Gatos, but a bridge right next to the middle school and within walking distance of the high school might be too big of a target for some students to resist.
Are any of these bridges harder for someone to deface than the others? The issue is relative with respect to damage done to the structure. In terms of available exposed area, or continuous surface area, to deface with graffiti the concrete bridge offers the most. The steel structure, while having more structural members throughout the length of the bridge, offers smaller areas for graffiti. With either bridge types, there are graffiti counter measures that can be taken and specified during the preparation of the construction documents such as anti-graffiti coating for concrete bridges or specialized paint for steel structures that makes the bridges as graffiti resistant as possible and make the clean-up easier to handle. The project team will include these considerations during the design process.
Attachment 3
9. Does the type of bridge impact the grade of path coming from Fisher? What is the impact to retaining wall where the new path is that was widen recently?
The concrete bridge option will likely sit slightly higher than the steel options because it requires a thicker bridge deck, which will result in a slightly increased grade to cross Highway 17. The Project does not intend to impact the existing retaining walls located adjacent to the Serra Ct community and EB Blossom Hill Road right-turn lanes, however these details will be developed in more detail during the Phase 2 design process and shared with the community at that time.
10. I am wondering what we can do to slow down west-bound kids on bikes before they rush into the West Roberts Road intersection. For drivers turning right from West Roberts Road onto Blossom Hill Road, that’s kind of blind corner and I’ve seen drivers startled by bikers crossing Roberts Road there.
The Project will evaluate the existing conditions closely at this intersection and determine what measures can be taken to enhance safety during the preliminary and final design phases of the Project as the engineering details are developed. Potential measures may include installing a protected corner with raised elements to create separation and refuge and separation for bicyclists and pedestrians from rightturning vehicles, or restricting right-turning movements during particular signal phases.
11. Once you are off the Bridge, will the pathway narrow from 16’-20’ width as you walk away? A Project goal is to provide a continuous width along the entire segment between Roberts Road West and East. The exact width will be determined in Phase 2 of the Project when engineering details are developed.
12. Why will there be bike and pedestrian on the current bridge in addition to the second structure? Existing facilities along the south side of the current Blossom Hill Road overcrossing would be replaced with the new structure. The Project only intends to provide a pedestrian sidewalk and a dedicated bicycle lane along the north side of the existing overcrossing. This will provide the option of accommodating existing travel patterns along the northern side of Blossom Hill Road.
13. How are bicyclists traveling west on the north side of the road supposed to get to the south side? Access from the north to the south side (and vice versa) will be provided at each adjacent intersection crosswalk located at Roberts Road West and East. Preliminary proposals are considering the striping of a green bike lane parallel to and in front of the pedestrian crosswalks to provide an area for the bicyclists who wish to cross Blossom Hill Road to use the BPOC.
14. Will the columns required for the concrete box girder bridge interfere with future light rail lines in the median of Highway 17?
Currently there are no plans for light rail transit in the median area of Highway 17. The existing right of way would not be sufficient to accommodate the installation of a light rail system, and any such project would require years of advanced planning and potential property acquisitions. It should also be noted that the existing Blossom Hill Road vehicular structure over Highway 17 includes an existing concrete column in the median area of Highway 17.
15. Please identify the process the Town used for selecting the design consultant for this project.
The Town released a Request for Proposals to provide Professional Engineering Services for the Highway 17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project in December of 2020. Two proposals were received and thoroughly evaluated, resulting in the firm of BKF being determined the highest qualified firm to provide the required services. The process used by the Town followed the requirements for the consultant selection process for federally funded projects as contained in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Further information regarding the required consultant selection process can be found at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/lapm/ch10.pdf
Attachment 3
16. How will constructed for this project be funded?
As design progresses, staff will continue to look for funding opportunities for the project construction.
The intent is to fund the majority of the project through grant programs. Securing funding could take more than a year, and in some cases, projects of this magnitude may take many years to fund. Many of the current grant fund programs require the local agency to provide a local match of anywhere from 10- 30% of the total construction costs. Local match funds may need to be allocated by the Town, however in many cases, this match can be made through the use of other grant funds. The Town staff strives to maximize the use of grant funds for projects of this magnitude especially where the benefits of the project extend beyond the Town boundaries. As this is a significant project in cost and scope, it is likely that many different funding sources would be required. Having a project fully designed/shovel ready often times allows the project to be more competitive in the grant application process.