sr-2 freeway terminus improvement project - technical

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

STATE ROUTE 2 (SR-2) FREEWAY TERMINUS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE 5

Revision 2.0

September 2006

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 2. CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN.......................................................................... 2

2.1. Federal Highway Administration ................................................................ 2 2.2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ................................... 3 2.3. SR-2 Freeway Terminus Improvement ...................................................... 4

3. CONSTRAINTS.................................................................................................... 6 3.1. Traffic Demand .......................................................................................... 6 3.2. Design Standards ...................................................................................... 7 3.3. ADA Accessibility ....................................................................................... 8 3.4. Pedestrian & Bicycle Access ................................................................... 14 3.5. Visual Buffering........................................................................................ 15 3.6. Bridge Retention ...................................................................................... 15 3.7. Flyover Reuse.......................................................................................... 19 3.8. Open Space............................................................................................. 19 3.9. Parkway Median ...................................................................................... 20 3.10. Noise........................................................................................................ 20

4. COST OVERVIEW OF DESIGN FEATURES .................................................... 21 5. PROJECT PRIORITIES & PROJECT PHASING............................................... 21

FIGURES 1: Context Sensitive Design........................................................................................ 2 2: EPCAC Alternative 5 .............................................................................................. 5 3: ADA Access Option #1 (Plan)............................................................................... 10 4: ADA Access Option #1 (Section) .......................................................................... 11 5: ADA Access Option #2 (Plan)............................................................................... 12 6: ADA Access Option #2 (Section) .......................................................................... 13 7: Retaining Wall Removal (Plan) ............................................................................. 17 8: Retaining Wall Removal (Aerial) ........................................................................... 18

Technical Memorandum Alternative 5

1. INTRODUCTION SR-2 between the I-5 and Glendale Boulevard provides ingress and egress to the communities of Echo Park and Silver Lake and is a major thoroughfare for the surrounding area. This segment of SR-2 also provides a vital link for commuters traveling from communities in the northern and eastern parts of the Los Angeles Basin to the local Los Angeles area. The existing freeway terminus is unique in that the SR-2 Freeway was not originally intended to permanently terminate at Glendale Boulevard. Eventual continuation to the US-101 was planned, but Caltrans rescinded this plan in 1962. As a result, a number of unintended impacts are currently being experienced at the terminus1:

• The southbound exit ramp and southbound direct connector interrupt Glendale Boulevard traffic flows in two locations, at Waterloo/Fargo Street and then again near Allessandro Street.

• Because the northbound lanes consist of a northbound Glendale Boulevard, a northbound freeway entrance ramp, and a center “choice” lane, weaving maneuvers are required between Allessandro Street and the terminus.

• Pedestrians and bicycles are not well accommodated by existing facilities in the vicinity of the freeway terminus.

• During off-peak periods, the southbound direct connector (flyover) traffic often merges onto southbound Glendale Boulevard at a high rate of speed.

The purpose of the SR-2 Freeway Terminus Improvement is to develop a balanced transportation system serving local and regional transportation needs as well as to reduce congestion and provide improved transportation mobility at the SR-2 Freeway Terminus. The general project limits extend north from the I-5 south to Glendale Boulevard. The following are the specific project objectives:

• Improve traffic flow/reduce congestion at the SR-2 Freeway Terminus • Design the freeway terminus to be compatible with the existing residential and

commercial uses. • Provide pedestrian enhancement at the SR-2 Freeway Terminus

The SR-2 Freeway Terminus Improvement Project involves the development of a conceptual alternative that is technically feasible and sensitive to the community. To this end, the project sponsors (Metro and Caltrans) are using the context sensitive design (CSD) approach encouraged by Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA). The project is funded by the FHWA through a $12-million TEA-21 grant.

1 Caltrans Project Study Report – State Route 2 Terminus (07186-20550K). March 2002.

1


2. CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN

2.1. Federal Highway Administration The FHWA defines a CSD as “ . . . a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. CSD is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist.” 2 See Figure 1.

Figure 1: Context Sensitive Design

Qualities of Excellence in Transportation Design

•The project satisfies the purpose and needs as agreed to by a full range of stakeholders. This agreement is forged in the earliest phase of the project and amended as warranted as the project develops.

•The project is a safe facility for both the user and the community.

•The project is in harmony with the community, and it preserves environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area, i.e., exhibits context sensitive design.

•The project exceeds the expectations of both designers and stakeholders and achieves a level of excellence in people's minds.

•The project involves efficient and effective use of the resources (time, budget, community) of all involved parties.

•The project is designed and built with minimal disruption to the community.

•The project is seen as having added lasting value to the community.

Characteristics of the Process Contributing to Excellence

•Communication with all stakeholders is open, honest, early, and continuous.

•A multidisciplinary team is established early, with disciplines based on the needs of the specific project, and with the inclusion of the public.

•A full range of stakeholders is involved with transportation officials in the scoping phase. The purposes of the project are clearly defined, and consensus on the scope is forged before proceeding.

•The highway development process is tailored to meet the circumstances. This process should examine multiple alternatives that will result in a consensus of approach methods.

•A commitment to the process from top agency officials and local leaders is secured.

•The public involvement process, which includes informal meetings, is tailored to the project.

•The landscape, the community, and valued resources are understood before engineering design is started.

•A full range of tools for communication about project alternatives is used (e.g., visualization).

CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN

Qualities of Excellence in Transportation Design

•The project satisfies the purpose and needs as agreed to by a full range of stakeholders. This agreement is forged in the earliest phase of the project and amended as warranted as the project develops.

•The project is a safe facility for both the user and the community.

•The project is in harmony with the community, and it preserves environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural resource values of the area, i.e., exhibits context sensitive design.

•The project exceeds the expectations of both designers and stakeholders and achieves a level of excellence in people's minds.

•The project involves efficient and effective use of the resources (time, budget, community) of all involved parties.

•The project is designed and built with minimal disruption to the community.

•The project is seen as having added lasting value to the community.

Characteristics of the Process Contributing to Excellence

•Communication with all stakeholders is open, honest, early, and continuous.

•A multidisciplinary team is established early, with disciplines based on the needs of the specific project, and with the inclusion of the public.

•A full range of stakeholders is involved with transportation officials in the scoping phase. The purposes of the project are clearly defined, and consensus on the scope is forged before proceeding.

•The highway development process is tailored to meet the circumstances. This process should examine multiple alternatives that will result in a consensus of approach methods.

•A commitment to the process from top agency officials and local leaders is secured.

•The public involvement process, which includes informal meetings, is tailored to the project.

•The landscape, the community, and valued resources are understood before engineering design is started.

•A full range of tools for communication about project alternatives is used (e.g., visualization).

CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN

2 Federal Highway Administration Context Sensitive Design webpage. Viewable at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/.

2

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/


2.2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) design in their efforts.

he context of all projects and activities is a key factor in reaching decisions. It is

he Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) philosophy mirrors the concepts of

altrans does not view CSD as incompatible with existing design standards: “The

Caltrans (the Department) also incorporates context sensitiveAccording to the Director’s Policy effective November 29, 2001, “context sensitive solutions” are used by the Department “... as an approach to plan, design, construct, maintain, and operate its transportation system. These solutions use innovative and inclusive approaches that integrate and balance community, aesthetic, historic, and environmental values with transportation safety, maintenance, and performance goals. Context sensitive solutions are reached through collaborative, interdisciplinary approach involving all stakeholders.” “Tconsidered for all State transportation and support facilities when defining, developing, and evaluating options. When considering the context, issues such as funding feasibility, maintenance feasibility, traffic demand, impact on alternate routes, impact on safety, and relevant laws, rules, and regulations must be addressed.”3

Tcontext sensitive solutions. This philosophy for the project development process seeks to provide a degree of mobility to users of the transportation system that is in balance with other values. Caltrans policies, practices, or mandatory design standards provides a guide for highway designers to exercise sound judgment in applying the policies, practices, or standards consistent with this philosophy. This flexibility is the foundation of highway design and highway designers must strive to provide for the needs of all highway users in balance with the needs of the local community and the context of the project. Caltrans policies, practices or mandatory design standards allows sufficient flexibility in order to encourage independent designs that fit the needs of each situation.4 Cpolicies, practices or mandatory design standards used for any project should meet the minimum guidance given to the maximum extent feasible, but the philosophy provides for the use of nonstandard design when such use best satisfies the concerns of a given situation. Deviations from the Caltrans policies, practices or mandatory design standards requires review and approval for nonstandard design through the exception process (see Index 82.2 of the [HDM]) and should be discussed early in the planning and design process.”5

3 Director’s Policy: Context Sensitive Solutions. California Department of Transportation. Effective 11-29-01. 4 Context Sensitive Solutions. Caltrans Division of Design webpage. Viewable at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/context/index.htm5 ibid.

3

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/context/index.htm


2.3. SR-2 Freeway Terminus Improvement The basis for this project’s CSD alternative is an alternative initially conceptualized by the Echo Park Community Advisory Committee (EPCAC) and is referred to as Alternative 5 (Alt. 5) represented in Figure 2 below. Key components of the CSD Alternative 5 include: • Consolidation of the southbound (S/B) SR-2 lanes which are shifted eastward so

that (a) the existing flyover structure is decommissioned for automobile use, and (b) S/B SR-2 commuters accessing S/B Glendale Boulevard are restricted to a single intersection point.

• Retain and reuse existing bridge and flyover structures to create a pedestrian linkage between existing vacant freeway right-of-way parcels on either side of Glendale Boulevard.

• Existing right-of-way parcels would become community open space with active recreation uses (the Tommy LaSorda Field of Dreams, maintained by the city of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Department, currently exists within right-of-way to the south of Glendale Boulevard). This would require an agreement between Caltrans and the city of Los Angeles.

Key components for integration into the CSD alternative advocated by the Project Development Team (PDT) include: • Implementation of end-of-freeway devices to promote slowing of S/B SR-2 traffic

approaching the terminus at Glendale Boulevard. • Construction of landscaped median along SR-2 to create a parkway “feel” to

further promote the slowing of traffic as it transitions from freeway to neighborhood conditions, and also to enhance the aesthetics of the facility as an entry way into the community. This would require approval from Caltrans as a nonstandard design feature.

• Retention of existing visual buffering (landscaping) between neighborhoods and freeway.

• Addition of pedestrian enhancements and bike facilities on Glendale Boulevard at the SR-2 freeway terminus per federal aid policy(s).

4


Figure 2: EPCAC Alternative 5

5


It should be noted that the March 2002 Project Study Report (PSR) did consider the realignment of the SR-2 lanes to the east and maintaining a portion of the bridge. The following is excerpted from the PSR:

This alternative is similar to Alternative 3, except that it would maintain the southbound roadbed of the existing bridge deck. One advantage of this alternative is that it could connect the potential open spaces on the east and west sides of Glendale Boulevard. Several disadvantages associated with this alternative include the continued liability and maintenance of the bridge, the potential for reducing the sight distance between southbound drivers and the signals at the new intersection, the reduction in recreational/accessible open space that results when the bridge remains and the continued visual impact of the eight-lane freeway bridge. There could be structural capacity/integrity problems associated with partial demolition of the existing bridge. In addition, it would be difficult to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements with this alternative. On October 17, 2001, the PDT determined that this alternative did not adequately meet the goals and objectives of the project.

However, the current PDT is actively reconsidering what were previously viewed as disadvantages.

3. CONSTRAINTS There are a number of constraints and considerations associated with the project design and are briefly discussed below.

3.1. Traffic Demand It is not the goal of this project to either increase or decrease traffic capacity at the freeway terminus, but to better manage the flow under current and future traffic conditions. As documented in the previous PSR:

Some members of the local community would prefer that commuter traffic be reduced at the SR2 terminus. Therefore, those community members advocate fewer lanes at the terminus to potentially reduce the desirability of the Glendale Freeway/Boulevard corridor as a commuter route. Fewer lanes would result in even greater levels of congestion at the terminus than predicted for the No Build alternative, with no improvement in traffic flow management, which is inconsistent with the project’s goals and objectives.

It has been suggested by some to decommission, or “cut off,” SR-2 between the I-5 and Glendale Boulevard to completely stop the flow of traffic along this segment. This option is not receiving further consideration from the PDT based on the significant local and regional traffic impacts projected to occur if the action were taken. Specifically, Metro’s travel demand model reveals that most S/B SR-2 corridor traffic originating from the I-5 (under current conditions) would simply exit the I-5 north of SR-2 to access Glendale Boulevard. This shift to Glendale Boulevard between the I-5 and SR-2 would result in more concentrated traffic

6


volumes (i.e., increase traffic congestion) on this segment of Glendale Boulevard. However, under this scenario the traffic model indicates that a 4,000-vehicle (or 15%) reduction in average daily traffic (ADT) would occur on Glendale Boulevard south of the SR-2 terminus.

Another suggestion made by some in the community is to provide at the terminus a left turn movement from S/B Glendale Boulevard to N/B SR-2. This movement is currently prohibited, resulting in some commuters making an illegal U-turn from S/B Glendale Boulevard at Allessandro Street to approach the SR-2 on-ramp from N/B Glendale Boulevard. This suggestion is based on anecdotal evidence, thus it is not clear at this time what the future demand for such a movement would be. Qualitative traffic engineering analysis indicates it would have significant traffic flow implications, particularly during the p.m. peak period. All alternatives currently under consideration retain two free-flow northbound right-turn lanes onto SR 2. If the proposed left-turn lane were to be implemented, these existing free-flow lanes would have to be stopped for the duration of the left-turn traffic signal phase. As a result, additional queuing would be experienced along Glendale Boulevard south of the terminus. In short, this left turn movement would impede localized traffic flow and increase vehicle idling. It has been further considered to permit the left turn movement utilizing a dedicated left turn pocket during off-peak, or non-peak, hours; however, prohibiting the left turn movement during peak hours would be confusing to motorists and unsafe.

However, in support of the ongoing testing of candidate alternatives, a Synchro model has been developed covering the entire study corridor from just south of the I-5 to Beverly Boulevard (for both Glendale and Alvarado). This model is currently being calibrated to replicate existing traffic flow conditions. Once this process is completed, it will be possible to produce quantitative measures reflecting the implications of allowing this left-turn movement, in particular intersection delay and queuing.

3.2. Design Standards The geometric design shall follow the Caltrans HDM, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the LADOT standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The HDM has both mandatory standards and advisory standards. Historically, exceptions have been granted when justified by a combination of excessive cost, right of way impacts, and/or environmental impacts. Supportive factors have included low accident frequency, local project opposition, and consistency with adjacent highway segments.

The following design standards and guidelines are applicable to SR-2: • Shoulder – 3.0 meter (10 ft) • Outside gutter – 0.6 meter (2 ft) • Lane – 3.6 meter (12 ft)

7


• Median including inside shoulders – 10.8 meter (36 ft) • Median landscape area only – 4.8 meter (16 ft) • Type 60 concrete barrier (detail A76A) – the peak hour volumes on SR-2 require

a concrete barrier separation between northbound and southbound travel lanes. • Thrie Beam Barrier – in conjunction with Type 60 concrete barrier (detail A78I.) • End Freeway Signage – 4 signs at approximately quarter-mile intervals from I-5

to announce end of freeway condition. • Yellow flashing beacons – collocated on single-post end freeway advisory signs

located on SR-2, and also located on one overhead sign (End Freeway) at a distance of ½ mile from the terminus.

• Speed Advisory Sign – posted 35 m.p.h. speed limit sign located at approximately 600 feet from terminus.

• Speed Information Sign – proposed in addition to the Caltrans’ required signage as described above. The electronic speed information sign uses an LED display board to post driver real-time speed detection. This technology has been shown to moderate driver behavior for speed compliance.

The following design standards and guidelines are applicable to Glendale Boulevard: • Sidewalk – 3.0 meter (10 ft) • Lane – 3.6 meter (12 ft) • Shoulder – 0.5 meter (2 ft) • Bike lane (on Glendale Boulevard.) – no bike lanes currently exist, but are being

considered to comply with federal aid policy, and the city’s Los Angeles Bicycle Plan and Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan policies and guidelines.

3.3. ADA Accessibility New projects, especially those using federal funds, require implementation of ADA accessible measures when constructing pedestrian facilities. The proposed reuse of the existing flyover structure for pedestrian access does not meet ADA design requirements, specifically in terms of grade (slope). The existing grade of the flyover ramp is 9.5% with a superelevation rate (cross slope) of 12%. The maximum acceptable grade of a walk way according to ADA standards is less than 5%, or up to 8.33% with 1.5 meter (5 ft) landings for every 9 meter (30 ft) length for ramps with handrail and a maximum cross slope of 2%. Per Caltrans pedestrian accessibility guidelines Sect 4.1.4 Minimum Accessibility, an accessible route between facilities must be in the same vicinity of a direct route that is not accessible.6 The flyover structure, if converted to a pedestrian walkway as proposed, must either be designed to meet accessibility guidelines, or the construction of an accessible walkway must also be constructed in the immediate vicinity.

6 Design Information Bulletin Number 82-02: Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects. California Department of Transportation. October 4, 2005.

8


Accounting for the 12-meter (40-foot) elevation difference between street grade and bridge height, two options for the ADA access ramp with a maximum grade of 8.33% and a handrail were studied. One option included protecting the existing flyover in place and fit the access ramp to the east of it (refer to Figure 3). This would require construction of approximately 162 meters (540 ft) of access ramp with retaining walls on the easterly side of the access ramp with a height of up to approximately 4-6 meters (13-plus feet). Due to this height, the result is not very conducive to promoting a pedestrian environment at street-level (refer to Figure 4). The estimated construction cost for it is approximately $1,000,000. The other option considered demolition of the existing flyover (and partial bridge demolition) and extensive grading to accommodate the access ramp without retaining walls (see Figures 5 and 6). This option would require construction of 180 meters (600 ft) access ramp with an estimated construction cost of approximately $850,000. Neither option would impact the Tommy LaSorda Field of Dreams.

9


Figure 3: ADA Access Option #1 (Plan)

Source: Melendrez, August 2006.

10


Figure 4: ADA Access Option #1 (Section)


11


Figure 5: ADA Access Option #2 (Plan)


12


Figure 6: ADA Access Option #2 (Section)


13


3.4. Pedestrian & Bicycle Access Under federal Transportation Equity of Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) transportation funding policy, the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities are required. Federal transportation policy is to increase nonmotorized transportation to at least 15 percent of all trips and to simultaneously reduce the number of nonmotorized users killed or injured in traffic crashes by at least 10 percent. This policy, which was adopted in 1994 as part of the National Bicycling and Walking Study, remains a high priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Improving conditions and safety for bicycling and walking embodies the spirit and intent of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and TEA-21 to create an integrated, intermodal transportation system which provides travelers with a real choice of transportation modes. State and local agencies are challenged to work together cooperatively with transportation providers, user groups, and the public to develop plans, programs, and projects which reflect this vision. TEA-21 confirms and continues the principle that the safe accommodation of nonmotorized users shall be considered during the planning, development, and construction of all Federal-aid transportation projects and programs. To varying extents, bicyclists and pedestrians will be present on all highways and transportation facilities where they are permitted and it is clearly the intent of TEA-21 that all new and improved transportation facilities be planned, designed, and constructed with this fact in mind.7

• "Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction and transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted." (Section 1202(a) of TEA-21)

• "Transportation plans and projects shall provide due consideration for safety and contiguous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians." (Section 1202(a) of TEA-21)

The city of Los Angeles Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan addresses the importance of bike and pedestrian facilities by identifying the following transportation opportunities: • Establish non-motorized transportation alternatives which build on an existing

network of bike paths. • Support the implementation of a contiguous system of bike paths, greenways,

and pedestrian trails and linkages along the Los Angeles River . . . and complementary efforts.

The community plan also establishes as a goal “a safe, efficient, and attractive bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian routes” with the objective of promoting an “adequate system of safe bikeways for commuter, school, and recreational use” (p. III-55).

7 FHWA Guidance - (February 24, 1999) Bicycle and Pedestrian Provisions of Federal Transportation Legislation webpage. Viewable at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-guid.htm.

14

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-guid.htm


The city’s Bicycle Plan specifically identifies Glendale Boulevard within the project area as a Commuter Bikeway, although such a bikeway has not yet been physically incorporated.

Bike Lane Requirements

Width - per the Bike Plan, the minimum curb lane width shall be 14 feet. Per LADOT’s Bikeway Section, the following requirements apply:

With Parking: 12 to 15 feet. Without parking: 4 to 7 feet without gutter, and 5 to 7 feet with gutter.

Signage – per Bike Plan, on-street parking prohibitions to be limited to the morning and evening peak hour in order to encourage the use of key roadways as commuter facilities for bicyclists. Posted a.m. and p.m. peak hour (7-9 a.m./4-7 p.m.) parking prohibition shall be “Tow Away – No Stopping.) Presently under review is the current LADOT policy not to install peak hour bike lanes or routes.

Sidewalk and Pedestrian Crossing Requirements Sidewalk width – 8 to 10 feet Marked Pedestrian Crosswalk width – 10 to 15 feet

3.5. Visual Buffering SR-2 lane placement is to maintain any existing visual buffering of the SR-2 from adjacent neighborhoods. Realignment of SR-2 lanes for the purpose of restricting Glendale Boulevard access to one intersection must be done in a manner that does not unnecessarily impact existing landscaping and buffering. Of particular concern is the landscaping along the east side of SR-2 right-of-way along Allessandro Street.

3.6. Bridge Retention There are several implications when considering the retention of the bridge over Glendale Boulevard, including: • Bike Lanes

The current available width at Glendale Blvd is approximately 22.5 meter (74 ft). The proposed Glendale Blvd width is 30 meter (98 ft). It would need an additional 1.8 meter (6 ft) in order to accommodate bike lanes on each side. A bike lane requires 1.5 m (5 ft) of width including the available 0.6 meter (2 ft) gutter. Preliminarily, it is anticipated that partial removal of the bridge embankment would accommodate the added space required for north- and southbound bike lanes along Glendale Boulevard without impacting the bridge structure.

• Glendale Boulevard Landscaped Median Preliminarily, it is anticipated that partial removal of the bridge embankment would accommodate the added space required for a landscaped median in addition to north- and southbound bike lanes along Glendale Boulevard without impacting the bridge structure.

• SR-2 Landscaped Median Full or partial bridge retention precludes the full extension of a landscaped median on SR-2 to the terminus at Glendale Boulevard. Under this scenario, the

15


landscaped median from I-5 would terminate at some point north of the freeway terminus.

• Existing Buffering The removal of neighborhood buffering on east side of SR-2 due to potential SR-2 lane configuration would penalize or negatively impact the adjacent neighborhood in attempting to create a benefit which is secondary to the primary project goals. This would also require the costly construction of retaining wall on east side SR-2 due to SR-2 lane configuration. The cost of partial removal of existing retaining wall is $450,000. The length of wall removal is 306 meters (1,000 feet), from approximately Ewing Street northward to West Cove Avenue (refer to Figures 7 and 8). The cost of the new retaining wall is around $2,100,000. To accommodate SR-2 lanes while avoiding an impact to the existing retaining wall, the removal of up to 65% of the bridge would be required.8

• Seismic Upgrade In order to retain the bridge, the structural integrity must be upgraded to comply with newer seismic standards. A seismic upgrade requires structural analysis of the bridge. An approximate cost to seismically upgrade the full existing bridge would be $1,350,000. An approximate cost to seismically upgrade the partial bridge would be $550,000.

• Air Quality & Public Health Bridge retention, if repurposed for active recreational uses or community gatherings, pose potentially significant health consequences (refer to Section 3.8 below.)

8 The percentage of removal is based upon conceptual design. A detailed analysis during the engineering design phase is required to ascertain the exact requirement.

16


17

Figure 7: Retaining Wall Removal (Plan)


Figure 8: Retaining Wall Removal (Aerial)

18


3.7. Flyover Reuse A proposed decommissioned flyover embankment is not ADA-compliant due to existing slope and cross slope (see also Section 3.3). In order to both retain the flyover for pedestrian use and to meet ADA requirements, the addition a costly ADA-accessible path would be required. As previously mentioned, there are two potential design options. One option included protecting the existing flyover in place and fit the access ramp to the east of it. This would require construction of approximately 162 meters (540 ft) of access ramp with retaining walls on the easterly side of the access ramp with a height of up to approximately 4-6 meters (13-plus feet). Due to this height, the result is not very conducive to promoting a pedestrian environment at street-level. The estimated construction cost for it is approximately $1,000,000. The other option considered demolition of the existing flyover and perform extensive grading to accommodate the access ramp without retaining walls. This option would require construction of 180 meters (600 ft) access ramp with an estimated construction cost of approximately $850,000. Neither option would impact the Tommy LaSorda Field of Dreams. Further, the bridge and flyover structure if repurposed for active recreational uses or community gatherings, pose potentially significant health consequences (refer to Section 3.8 below.)

3.8. Open Space The creation of public open space is not a primary goal of the project, but is being given strong consideration in the development of the project as an ancillary benefit. With the exception of Alternative 1 (No-Build) and Alternative 2, each alternative to date has provisions for open space.

Air Quality & Public Health This project’s potential use of open space is of major concern from an air quality and public health perspective. As documented in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook developed by California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and California Air Resources Board (ARB), there are potentially significant health consequences (mainly, excess cancer and asthma risks) that are especially high within the first 300 feet of a major corridor, especially for children and the elderly.9 The agencies’ recommendation is to, "Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100K vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50K vehicles per day." Sensitive sites or sensitive land uses (p. G-4) are those “. . . where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time, including schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities." Sensitive individuals (p. G-4) “refers to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (I.e., children, the elderly, . . .)” In the case of children, lung development is still in process. Children

9 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: a Community Health Perspective. California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board. April 2005.

19


who are highly active within the immediate vicinity of major corridors are not only breathing in vehicle emissions, but they also experience highly elevated rates of respiratory and blood systems engagement, thus further adding to the health risk.

However, a path or trail within the open space with potential linkage to the Los Angeles River could be deemed an acceptable and compatible use. Generally, trails are meant for transitory activity and do not promote the focused congregation of individuals for prolonged activity as do active parks or recreational courts. Active recreational use or the encouragement of community gatherings within the project open space, including the bridge and flyover structure if retained, would not be acceptable or compatible uses.

3.9. Parkway Median A landscaped median is proposed along SR-2 to create a parkway atmosphere to further promote the slowing of traffic as it transitions from freeway to neighborhood conditions, and also to enhance the aesthetics of the facility as an entryway into the community. Per Caltrans standards and guidelines, concrete medians will be required on the SR-2 based on traffic volume. A landscaped median is a design feature that would require Caltrans approval. Caltrans standards include:

• Type 60 concrete barrier • Thrie beam barrier

Issues to consider include:

• Landscaping maintenance • Access for maintenance • Irrigation system

3.10. Noise Detailed analysis of traffic noise from SR-2 traffic will not be conducted until after the CSD alternative is finalized. However, a general rule-of-thumb that could be considered at this preliminary phase of CSD identification is that the greatest traffic noise attenuation typically occurs when the source of the noise (vehicle tires on pavement) is closest to a physical barrier (e.g. freeway retention wall or noise wall.) The realignment of SR-2 lanes closer to the east side (along Allessandro Street) could result in increased noise attenuation (i.e., noise reduction) for residents along the east side of SR-2 and less noise attenuation for those along the west side. However, several other factors (traffic speed, traffic volumes, etc.) influence traffic noise and further analysis is required. Further noise analysis would also address the potential need for noise barriers additions.

20


4. COST OVERVIEW OF DESIGN FEATURES

Cost Estimates Overview

ADA Accessible Flyover $850,000 to $1,000,000 Bridge Removal Partial $800,000 Full $1,300,000 New Pedestrian Linkage if Full Bridge Removal

$450,000

Retaining Wall Modification – East Side of SR-2

Partial Removal $450,000 New Construction $2,100,000 Seismic Upgrade of Bridge* Partial $550,000 Full $1,350,000 *Does not include cost of seismic survey

5. PROJECT PRIORITIES & PROJECT PHASING Innumerable improvements could be considered for the SR-2 freeway terminus and the interfacing transportation system within the terminus’ immediate vicinity. This particular project cannot accomplish all things within its scope, funding, and scheduling framework. The project objectives for the SR-2 Freeway Terminus Improvement have been formally defined in the Caltrans Project Study Report, and is as follows: • Improve traffic flow/reduce congestion at the SR-2 Freeway Terminus • Design the freeway terminus to be compatible with the existing residential and

commercial uses. • Provide pedestrian enhancement at the SR-2 Freeway Terminus These project objectives must be met in a manner that is congruent with federal, state, and local transportation policies. However, this does not preclude future improvements from being considered under separate funding strategies, and such improvements may be considered for subsequent project phasing, or as stand-alone projects, by Caltrans, Metro, or LADOT.

21

sr-2 freeway terminus improvement project - technical

Documents