Mathilda Bridge Rehabilitation Project
Project Alternatives Study
Community Meeting
Murphy Park Building
9-29-03, 7:00 PM
Attachment E
City of Sunnyvale
Jack Witthaus, Speaker
Manny Kadkhodayan, Guest Speaker
Joe Avila, Guest Speaker
Brandy Thomas, Recorder
Jack Witthaus begins meeting and gives presentation.
Slide 1, What is the Project?
Slide 2, Project Objectives – Jack adds that the clearance does not currently meet ADA standards.
Slide 3, Project History – Jack adds that the inspections are held every two years, and that HBRR stands for Highway Bridge Reconstruction Rehabilitation.
Slide 4, More Project History – Jack adds that the outreach process was started.
Slide 5, Funding Details – Jack adds that the total would be 14 to 17 million.
Slide 6, Outreach for Conceptual Design – Jack adds that they looked at 5 alternatives, including a cul-de-sac.
Slide 7, Next Steps
Jack pauses to introduce Guest Speakers and Recorder
Slide 8, Issues to Date
Slide 9, Project Alternatives Study
Member of the Public: Is the cost lower with the roundabout configuration?
Skip to Slide 11, Draft Study Findings “Roundabout” Alternative
Jack Witthaus: Many elements will remain the same, such as bridge widening & pier work. Roundabout has travel time benefits, but it will mean making a U-turn to get back to the downtown area.
MoP: Can you give an example of a roundabout in the area?
JW: There is one near Rancho San Antonio Park.
MoP: Isn't there too much volume and speed for a roundabout?
JW: That is a rotary – this will be a yield situation. Actually, the safety statistics are quite favorable; also they are more cost efficient. The drawback is that California drivers are not used to them.
MoP: Does this {roundabout option} mean people will lose homes?
JW: Only with the 4-lane alternative – the other 2 options may take a few feet of right away.
MoP: I for one would feel uncomfortable voting on something where people lose homes.
JW: It is a big decision.
MoP: How does the bigger one {4-lane alternative} work?
JW: That would involve right-of-way acquisition, appraisal, impact studies, etc.
MoP: Doesn’t it {making U-turn at roundabout} double the noise? Because you would be going west, and then turning around and coming east.
MoP: Wouldn’t that mean more emissions too?
JW: That is a possibility. We will keep it in mind.
MoP: How does the 4-lane roundabout equal quicker access to downtown?
JW: The loop ramp is controlled, the roundabout just involves yielding.
MoP: What is the construction time?
Manny Kadkhodayan: I would guess about 2 years.
MoP: What traffic control on loop? A stop sign?
JW: Final determination has not yet been made, stop sign or signal likely.
MoP: What about the EIR? Downtown EIR need updating?
JW: Because it involves Federal dollars, it has to go through the NEPA process. Bridge project report will update, more detail on bridge specific impacts.
MoP: Does the EIR include, or refer to, downtown?
JW: Bridge was looked at in the downtown report. The new report will use computerized models, and it will include Washington and Mathilda.
MoP: Why is the ramp set so far back {2-lane roundabout option}?
JW: Because the exit point is moved northerly.
MoP: {Wants further clarification}.
MK: The loop is designed for 20 miles per hour, so more room is needed for deceleration. The roundabout ramp is designed for 25 miles per hour.
MoP: In the BPAC, the paper said the loop would be 25 miles per hour.
MK: That was a mistake. It should have been 20. It was a rough draft.
MoP: You have not made a side-by-side comparison. I don’t think it will cost that much more. How much would it be for the roundabout alone? The cost should be similar to the Bernardo/Knickerbocker study. Another 200 thousand would not make that much difference compared to 3 million.
MoP: Are there accident statistics {for the current configuration}? How does it rank? There may be improved safety, but maybe the money would be better spent elsewhere.
JW: It is a liability situation. Also, it is an opportunity because of the offer of Federal funds. Outreach shows that people are favorable.
MoP: Why can’t we just leave it as is?
JW: Doing nothing is always an option, but there are significant benefits to going ahead with it.
MoP: If nothing is done and someone got killed, and Sunnyvale got sued, Sunnyvale could stand to lose 10 million or more.
MoP: I realize that things change sometimes, but down the line will there be more alternatives?
JW: As we get closer, the alternatives need to narrow, and we will need to make a recommendation to the Council.
MoP: Previous construction has deterred foot traffic. How can we draw people back after all this construction?
JW: The biggest issue is complying with the ADA requirements right now. We do want to make it more friendly – bigger, nicer sidewalks, etc.
MoP: What about the pedestrian on-ramps?
JW: They will be wider. Either of these alternatives will provide ample space.
MoP: Are two lanes on Evelyn enough?
JW: At Mary will go back to 4 lanes.
MoP: Isn't the roundabout alternative bringing traffic back in to the neighborhood? Shouldn’t we drop it and save the money?
JW: The City Council will be making that decision.
MoP: This will increase traffic on Charles, all the way to Washington.
MoP: Could we make a left turn onto Charles with the ramp option?
JW: No, you would have to make a U-turn at the roundabout.
MoP: I prefer the loop – it was decided upon long ago.
Is there even going to be a mall? If there’s no mall, then who cares?
MoP: Will the on-ramp from westbound Evelyn be worked on?
JW: Only on the structure, not the approach ramp.
MoP: There should be an island between the westbound ramp and eastbound Evelyn to discourage illegal U-turns on to the ramp.
JW: Do people do that?
MoP: They do it all the time.
JW: The bike lane project is a major street calming study. We can look at that then.
MoP: What about the pedestrian access from the east?
JW: There will still be a switchback, but it will be longer.
MoP: Will we have to be next to traffic?
JW: No, there will be a wall up top.
MoP: Re CalTrain station, pedestrian access is awkward too
JW: We hope to generally improve pedestrian circulation in the ramp landing area.
MoP: What about getting back to Evelyn from Mathilda Place?
JW: There are unusual circumstances because of the bus station.
MoP: The sensor doesn’t detect you there.
JW: That spot has video detection, it should detect you. We will go out and look at it.
MoP: If construction is going to start in 2005, when will there be more outreach?
JW: Next year will be the EIR and it will incorporate more outreach.
MoP: What about the landscaping?
JW: We want to mitigate the loss of trees. The parking lot is anticipated to be fully taken so this is an opportunity area.
MoP: There is lots of parking at Mozart now.
{General agreement}.
MoP: Are you going to present all three of these options to the City Council? Please tell them our opinions! We prefer the loop. Is it a closed meeting?
JW: Yes, we will present all three. It will be a public hearing.
{General agreement that the loop is preferred}.
{General agreement that the roundabout is not preferred}.
MoP: There are lots of children in the area. People use the street as a speedway. The loop would eliminate that.
MoP: Traffic is the number one problem in the neighborhood. The two side parking didn’t help. Most people fly down the street. I think that the cul-de-sac {on Charles} would eliminate speeding.
MoP: What will happen with the next two streets down from Charles?
JW: There is no evidence that it will be an issue.
MoP: Now, we can't turn until Waverly – the loop will be better.
JW: {Nods}.
MoP: Is this other map just a close-up?
JW: The other map gives a better idea of the scope of the project {goes on to explain the pedestrian access, etc.}.
MoP: What about the soundwall?
JW: We need to identify the appropriate construction materials.
MoP: Is there a profile of the loop?
JW: Manny do we have the elevations yet?
MK: No, not yet.
MoP: Could there be a traffic calming study before this is all decided?
JW: Chatter bars would be a possibility.
MoP: Or an island?
JW: The busses would just drive over them.
MoP: We need “No Greyhound Busses” sign on construction signs!
MoP: (By the way, thanks for the 25 miles per hour signs.) Cupertino puts islands on residential streets to make people slow down.
JW: We just did that at Remington and Yukon.
MoP: Why not do that, then?
JW: Chatter bars are something that we could do right away.
MoP: Can the City look at traffic calming in the interim?
JW: There are different stages. Stage 1 is chatter bars, stop sign, etc. Stage 2 involves construction, getting permission from residents, and going to Council.
MoP: What about speed bumps?
JW: Can't do speed bumps on collector streets {explains collector streets}. However, in a neighborhood with small streets, we should do a traffic calming study.
MoP: Anything to reduce the speed would be welcome. Even the people from Public Safety use our street as a shortcut.
JW: If it is going to involve money, City Council will have to approve of it.
MoP: If we take up a collection, can we pay for it ourselves?
JW: {Smiles}.
{General support for cul-de-sac}.
JW: Cul-de-sac is not certain yet.
MoP: If you do that {cul-de-sac}, do you have to contact the homeowners?
JW: We like to at least let them know.