SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
NOVEMBER 2016
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
WITH SUPPORT FROM:
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
Contents
Project Fact Sheet ..................................................................................................................... 3
Public Outreach Plan ................................................................................................................. 6
Summary of Public Outreach Results ....................................................................................... 11
Kickoff Meeting (June 17, 2015) Presentation Slides ............................................................... 14
Neighborhood Assessment ...................................................................................................... 30
Design Review Meeting (December 16, 2015) Presentation Slides .......................................... 34
Cap Park Design Concept: Plan & Section Views .................................................................... 45
Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimates .................................................................................... 48
Planning-Level Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate ....................................................... 53
Open House Meeting (September 27, 2016) Presentation Slides............................................. 55
SR 94 Cap Park Brochure ........................................................................................................ 68
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Project Fact Sheet
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Project Fact Sheet
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
SDCaltransSANDAG
Caltrans District 11SANDAGregion
SDCaltransSANDAGregion
What is a Freeway Cap?Freeway caps (also called decks) can enable additional uses for land already dedicated to transportation facilities. Freeway caps can be used to to create new parks in urban areas where vacant land is scarce and dense development exists adjacent to freeways.
What is this study?Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, are working with a consultant team to study recent developments and best practices for freeway caps, along with potential pros, cons and funding sources.
The study will:• Assess the best practices of freeway cap
projects.• Engage the community—including Golden Hill,
Grant Hill, and Sherman Heights—to develop a vision that considers both the opportunities and challenges for a cap over State Route 94.
Project Manager:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans District 11(619)[email protected]
Project Schedule:
June 17, 2015Community kick-off meeting
Summer 2015Information gathering
Fall 2015Design workshops
Spring 2016Conclusion of study
andfinalrecommendations
More Information:Project Website http://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept ASeptember 18, 2015
0’ 50’ 100’North
24th
Str
eet
SR 94
22nd
Str
eet
25th
Str
eet
SR 94
TREE LINED PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE “STREET”
TO NEIGHBORHOODS
TO NEIGHBORHOODS TO COMMERCIAL AREAS
TO BALBOA PARK ANDCOMMERCIAL AREAS
ACTIVE USES
PASSIVE USES - “TERRACED”
PASSIVE USES
ACTIVE USES (PLAYGROUNDS)
ACTIVE USES- SPORTS FIELDS
POTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKINGPOTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKING
PEDESTRIAN “SPINE” CONNECTS ALL USES
ENTRY SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING
ACTIVE USES
VIEWS
ENHANCED FRONTAGE STREET
BIKE LANES
HIGH-ACTIVITY CORRIDOR
F Street
G Street
PHASE 3 PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept BSeptember 18, 2015
0’ 50’ 100’North
24th
Str
eet
SR 94
22nd
Str
eet
25th
Str
eet
SR 94
HIGH-ACTIVITY CORRIDOR
TRANSIT STOP
ENTRYPLAZA
TO NEIGHBORHOODS
TO NEIGHBORHOODS TO COMMERCIAL AREAS
TO BALBOA PARK AND COMMERCIAL AREAS
ACTIVE USES- SPORTS FIELDS
ACTIVE USES
COMMUNITY GATHERINGSPACE AND VIEWING LAWN
PASSIVE USES
NATIVE SPECIESGARDEN
EVENT PLAZA
ACTIVE USES
ACTIVE USES/PLAYGROUNDS
ENHANCED FRONTAGE STREET
“WOVEN” PATHWAYS
POTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKINGPOTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKING
TREE LINED PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE “STREET”
BIKE LANES
F Street
G Street
PHASE 2 PHASE 1 PHASE 3
VIEWS
Resumen de Datos del Proyecto
Las Mejores Prácticas en Cubiertas de Autopistas& Estudio del Parque sobre la Cubierta de la SR94
SDCaltransSANDAG
Caltrans District 11SANDAGregion
SDCaltransSANDAGregion
Qué es una Cubierta de Autopista?Las cubiertas de autopistas (“freeway cap”) pueden permitir usos adicionales del área ya dedicada a las instalaciones asociadas con el transporte. Las cubiertas de autopistas tienen particularmente sentido como un medio para crear nuevos parques en zonas urbanas donde la tierra disponible es escasa y en donde ya existe un desarrollo muy denso en las áreas adyacentes a las autopistas.
En qué consiste este estudio? • ElDistrito11deCaltrans,encoordinaciónconSANDAGyelDepartamentodePlanificacióndelaCiudad
de San Diego, están trabajando con un equipo consultor para estudiar las mejores prácticas y desarrollos recientes para las cubiertas de autopistas, así como de los riesgos potenciales y de las fuentes de financiamiento.
• El estudio evaluará las mejores prácticas de proyectos de cubiertas en autopistas, e involucrará a la
comunidad –incluyendo Golden Hill, Grant Hill, and Sherman Hights- para desarrollar una visión que considere tanto las oportunidades como los desafíos para la cubierta sobre la Ruta Estatal 94.
Gerente del Proyecto:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans Distrito 11(619)[email protected]
Programación del Proyecto:
Junio 17, 2015Reunión Inicial de la Comunidad
Verano 2015Recopilación de Información
Otoño 2015Talleres de Diseño
Primavera 2016Conclusióndelestudioyrecomendacionesfinales
Para mayor información:Sitio web del Proyecto: http://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept ASeptember 18, 2015
0’ 50’ 100’North
24th
Str
eet
SR 94
22nd
Str
eet
25th
Str
eet
SR 94
TREE LINED PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE “STREET”
TO NEIGHBORHOODS
TO NEIGHBORHOODS TO COMMERCIAL AREAS
TO BALBOA PARK ANDCOMMERCIAL AREAS
ACTIVE USES
PASSIVE USES - “TERRACED”
PASSIVE USES
ACTIVE USES (PLAYGROUNDS)
ACTIVE USES- SPORTS FIELDS
POTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKINGPOTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKING
PEDESTRIAN “SPINE” CONNECTS ALL USES
ENTRY SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING
ACTIVE USES
VIEWS
ENHANCED FRONTAGE STREET
BIKE LANES
HIGH-ACTIVITY CORRIDOR
F Street
G Street
PHASE 3 PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study Cap Park Concept BSeptember 18, 2015
0’ 50’ 100’North
24th
Str
eet
SR 94
22nd
Str
eet
25th
Str
eet
SR 94
HIGH-ACTIVITY CORRIDOR
TRANSIT STOP
ENTRYPLAZA
TO NEIGHBORHOODS
TO NEIGHBORHOODS TO COMMERCIAL AREAS
TO BALBOA PARK AND COMMERCIAL AREAS
ACTIVE USES- SPORTS FIELDS
ACTIVE USES
COMMUNITY GATHERINGSPACE AND VIEWING LAWN
PASSIVE USES
NATIVE SPECIESGARDEN
EVENT PLAZA
ACTIVE USES
ACTIVE USES/PLAYGROUNDS
ENHANCED FRONTAGE STREET
“WOVEN” PATHWAYS
POTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKINGPOTENTIAL PARKING
POTENTIAL PARKING
TREE LINED PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE “STREET”
BIKE LANES
F Street
G Street
PHASE 2 PHASE 1 PHASE 3
VIEWS
Public Outreach Plan
6
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Park Cap Study Public Outreach Plan
This draft public outreach plan, last updated in September 2015, summarizes the broad outreach activities conducted during the project.
Schedule of Outreach Meetings
Meeting #1: Stakeholder Working Group Interviews (June 2015) Stakeholder interviews provide opportunities to meet with key stakeholders one-on-one and gain insight on their perspective, specific objectives or concerns regarding the project. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:
Meet one-on-one, or in small group format with the stakeholder working group members over the course of a day to gather input on their priorities for the project and the community, identify potential individual issues/questions
Provide a summary of the interviews to SANDAG.
Meeting #2: Kick Off /Evening Public Open House (June 2015) The first meeting will introduce the project (process, goals, etc.) and provide a forum to gather initial input from the general public. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:
Deliver a presentation to explain project process, project goals and desired outcomes.
Break the assembled audience into groups facilitated by team members and SANDAG staff (if desired) to gather public input, solicit recommendations, record concerns and answer questions in a small-group format ( use maps and large post it pads to record information).
Close with a summary of shared issues and concerns, along with a recap of the goals and objectives, project schedule and upcoming events.
Debrief with City and SANDAG immediately following the meeting.
Figure 1: Public Outreach Plan Process
Meeting 1:Stakeholder Interviews• Goals &
Objectives• Issues &
Opportunities
Meeting 2: Kick off• Introduction• Goals &
Objectives• Issues &
Opportunities
Meeting 3:Stakeholder Site Walk• Issues &
Opportunities
Meeting 4:Pop-ups• Review
Concept Alternatives
Meeting 5: Stakeholder Design Review• Review
Concept Alternatives & Community Inputs
Meeting 6:Open House• Preferred
Alternative
Neighborhood Profile
Develop Base Map
Develop Concept
Alternatives
Review Concept
Alternatives
Refine Concept
Alternatives
Preferred Alternative
Ou
trea
ch
Des
ign
7
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Meeting #3: Site Visit with Stakeholder Working Group (July 2015) Parsons Brinckerhoff proposes using the site visit to photo-document the project area and enhance our understanding of community context and opportunities and challenges specific to the site. This information will be included as part of the existing conditions materials. To accomplish this, our site visit will be structured as an active “site walk.” The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:
Meet with stakeholders working group to discuss the purpose of the site walk and desired outcome of the site walk.
Provide participants a site visit kit in paper and electronic format at the start of the site walk that includes an aerial map and comment sheet. During the site walk team members will interact with stakeholders to identify key opportunities, constraints, environmental, social and economic factors that could influence the project.
(Optional) Employ the electronic site visit tool called eAudit, which enables users to provide input online using a smart phone, tablet or any computer with internet access. This will allow us to gain input from more members of the community on their time and at their leisure. The consultant team will introduce group to the tool, and we propose using electronic mailing lists to reach out to the broader community.
Conclude the site walk with a gathering of the participants to summarize key topics, ideas and community expectations for the project.
Meeting Group #4: Pop-up Outreach (September-October 2015) The objective of the pop-up outreach events is to engage the community in the design process of the park cap concept: What elements might it contain? What connections to the community are desired? What park uses (active, passive, etc.) might work well or be challenging? What, if any, commercial uses or sustainability opportunities might be considered? From this process a number of community-driven ideas will emerge and key opportunities and challenges will be discussed.
Two design alternatives, with a Phase 1 that includes only a pedestrian/bike bridge, will be developed to inform the discussion. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:
Send the concepts to the Stakeholder Working Group via email (at their request)
Conduct four “pop-up” outreach events, two in each community:
o Sun 9/20/2015 – Hispanic Heritage Month Festival, Sherman Heights
o Sat 9/26/2015 – Golden Hill Farmers Market
o Sat 10/10/2015 – Golden Hill Farmers Market
o Sat 10/31/2015 – Dia de Los Muertos, Sherman Heights
Staff the pop-up events in Sherman Heights with Spanish translators.
Provide multiple ways for the community to give feedback, including:
o Comment cards
8
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
o Park “puzzle”
o “Design your own park from scratch”
o Optionally, any park “puzzle” or “design your own park from scratch” could be posted on the Caltrans or SANDAG social media accounts by agency staff
Produce a large poster/banner to be posted at a high-activity location in each community. The poster will illustrate the design concepts and provide a link to the project website.
Meeting #5: Stakeholder Working Group Design Review (Late 2015) Following the pop-up events, we will convene the Stakeholder Working Group once more for a brief meeting to review the public comments received on the design concepts, and to obtain specific feedback from the stakeholders themselves. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:
Present a summary of public comments received at the pop-up events;
Solicit specific feedback on the design concepts (if needed); and
Review next steps, including the public open house and the post-study implementation process.
Meeting #6: Open House to View Final Preferred Concept Alternative(s) (Mid 2016) Using input from the open house, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team will further refine the concept alternatives into a reduced set of preferred alternative(s). We will bring these preferred alternative(s) to SANDAG for review, follow with the focus group, and subsequently synthesize that input in order to refine them for use in meeting #6. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:
Present a brief overview of the project process that led to the preferred alternative(s);
Present the final preferred concept alternative(s) along with any benefits or constraints; and
Discuss next steps, including planning, design, construction and funding opportunities.
Project Fact Sheet
The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will produce a project fact sheet—to be updated twice during the study—for distribution via physical and electronic means.
Online Engagement Process
The Online Engagement Strategy is intended to encourage ongoing public participation, facilitate timely information exchange, and maximize the impact of the study in the community.
9
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Project Website The project website, hosted by Caltrans, will be the central location for project materials. The Parsons Brinckerhoff team will work with Caltrans to develop and post content and periodic updates.
Email List Working with Caltrans, SANDAG, and City of San Diego staff, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team will maintain an email list of interested parties, which will be used to share project materials and provide periodic updates on the study progress. The list will include Stakeholder Working Group members, various community groups, and any members of the public who have provided their email address to the study (e.g, on comment cards, meeting sign-in sheets, etc.).
Social Media The study will utilize both Caltrans and SANDAG social media accounts (generally Facebook and Twitter) to promote the study. Social media will be used to:
Advertise outreach events.
Distribute project materials (e.g. fact sheet, design concepts).
Engage new community members who have not been reached via other means.
Create an additional forum for public comment and conversation.
Working with the Caltrans and SANDAG Public Information Officers, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team will:
Suggest social media posts 3-5 days in advance of desired posting date.
Contact City Council D3 & D8 staff to request they share or “retweet” posts.
Monitor and document comments received via social media.
(Optional) Video Production Working with Caltrans video production staff, the Parsons Brinckerhoff team may explore options for producing short video clips on the study. Caltrans would be expected to provide all video production resources. Potential topics include:
Coverage of public kick-off meeting.
Coverage of pop-up outreach events.
Coverage of pubic open house event.
Interviews with various experts or community leaders.
10
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Summary of Public Outreach Results
11
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, has engaged in a number of public outreach efforts to gain input on a proposed freeway cap park over SR 94. The purpose of this outreach was to share the proposal and potential design concepts, and gain insight about park features the public would like to see, should this park be developed in the future.
SDCaltransSANDAG
Caltrans District 11SANDAGregion
SDCaltransSANDAGregion
More Information:Project Websitehttp://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
Project Manager:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans District 11
(619)[email protected]
SR 94 CAP PARK STUDYSummary of Public Outreach
The public was engaged in a number of ways from Summer through Fall 2015
Kick-off workshop – 35 people
Hispanic Heritage Festival – 48 people
Golden Hill Farmers Market #1 – 23 people
Golden Hill Farmers Market #2 – 28 people
Dia de los Muertos Festival – 41 people
Project website – 363 people
Social media – 90 peopleI want the park to stay true to the culture and historic character of Sherman Heights and Golden Hill.Keep it simple, with event space
and lots of open space.
503
259
61 70169
951
OPEN/PLAY/ GATHERING AREA
ACTIVE/SPORTS/FACILITIES
DOG PARK FOOD/VENDING TRANSPORTATIONFACILITIES
BUILDING STRUCTURES
OTHER
SR 94 CAP PARK STUDYSummary of Public Outreach
Open space/lawn
Benches/picnic area
Free Wifi
Shade trees/structures
Community event space
Security
Park Amenity Preferences
Community Priorities
SDCaltransSANDAG
Caltrans District 11SANDAGregion
SDCaltransSANDAGregion
More Information:Project Websitehttp://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
Project Manager:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans District 11
(619)[email protected]
Kickoff Meeting June 17, 2015:
Presentation Slides
14
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Freeway Cap Best Practices andSR 94 Cap Park Study
June 17, 2015
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Background & Purpose of Study
• Assess the best practices of freeway cap projects, and
• Engage the community to develop a vision that considers both the opportunities and challenges for a cap over SR 94.
15
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Stakeholder Working Group Role
• Stay involved in the study throughout• Bring community perspective and
insights• Act as a conduit to the communities in
which they live to share progress on the study
• Help shape the outcome and next steps at the conclusion of the study effort
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Project Team
• Caltrans• Connery Cepeda, Project Manager
• Parsons Brinckerhoff • Ximena Atterbury, Urban Designer
• Jeff Howard, Landscape Architect
• Facilitators
16
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Introductions
• Stakeholder Working Group
• Project Team• Caltrans
• Parsons Brinckerhoff
• In Coordination with:• SANDAG, City of San Diego
• City Council Districts 3 and 8
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Community Plan Updates
• Southeastern San Diego:• Draft Community Plan already released• Draft Environmental Document to be
released in late June• 60-day public review
• Greater Golden Hill:• Draft Community Plan to be released in
late June
17
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Overview of Tonight’s Meeting
1. What is a freeway cap (or deck, or lid)?2. Study steps and schedule3. Study goals and outcomes4. Group assignment
Seattle
Portland
Sacramento
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San DiegoPhoenix
Boston
Dallas
Trenton
Cincinnati
Detroit
Louisville
18
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
ExampleLos Angeles
The Historic Core The Trench
The Vision
ExampleLos Angeles
22
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
ExampleSan Diego
Overview of tonight’s meeting
1. What is a freeway cap?2. Study steps and schedule3. Study goals and outcomes4. Group assignment
23
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Past EngagementJuly 24, 2013
Past EngagementJuly 24, 2013
What other cities have these?
How does Caltrans feel about putting buildings on [cap]?
Need a [cap] from 22nd Street to 25th Street. Sherman Heights has historically been short‐changed for improvements. Need a park where people can enjoy
enhanced quality of life.
Where would the money come from?
[Cap] to suppress noise, dust, air quality impacts.
Create sports fields on [cap].
Privatization of maintenance?
[Cap] would provide sound mitigation,
rejuvenate neighborhood, be a large attraction.
Strong need for parks, gathering
spots, buildings too.
Question about materials of [cap]
(sod, turf?).
Rare opportunity that could last
decades.
24
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Project Schedule
Stakeholder Interviews
‐ Goals & Objectives‐ Issues/ Opportunities
Additional Outreach
‐ Issues/ Opportunities‐ SWG Site Walk
Kick Off
‐ Introduction & Best Practices‐ Goals & Objectives
Design Charrette
‐ Develop Park Cap Concepts
Open House
‐ Review Concept Alternatives
Open House
‐ Preferred Alternative
Meeting 1 Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6
Neighborhood Profile
Best Practices & Engineering Constraints
Develop Base Map
Develop Concept
Alternatives
Refine Concept Alternatives
Preferred Alternative(s)
Outreach Process
Technical / Design Process
July Fall Spring 2016
Overview of tonight’s meeting
1. What is a freeway cap?2. Study steps and schedule3. Study goals and outcomes4. Group assignment
25
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Study Outcomes:
• Assess the best practices of freeway cap projects, and
• Engage the community to develop a vision that considers both the opportunities and challenges for a cap over SR 94.
Overview of tonight’s meeting
1. What is a freeway cap?2. Study steps and schedule3. Study goals and outcomes4. Group assignment
26
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Questions to Consider
• Are you interested in a freeway cap near your community?
• What types of amenities and facilities would you like to see in a freeway cap?
• How often would you use a freeway cap park? What types of activities would you engage in?
• Are there good pedestrian routes in your neighborhood? What are the most traveled routes?
Questions to Consider
• Are there useful bike paths in your neighborhood? What are the most traveled routes?
• Do you think it would be easy to get to a freeway cap park from where you live? Do you have any concerns with the potential route(s)?
• How else should we engage the community in this study?
27
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Sherman HeightsCommunity Center
Project Schedule
Stakeholder Interviews
‐ Goals & Objectives‐ Issues/ Opportunities
Additional Outreach
‐Issues/ Opportunities‐SWG Site Walk
Kick Off
‐ Introduction & Best Practices‐ Goals & Objectives
Design Charrette
‐ Develop Park Cap Concepts
Open House
‐ Review Concept Alternatives
Open House
‐ Preferred Alternative
Meeting 1 Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6
Neighborhood Profile
Best Practices & Engineering Constraints
Develop Base Map
Develop Concept
Alternatives
Refine Concept Alternatives
Preferred Alternative(s)
July Fall
28
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Thank you Gracias
For more information please contact:Connery Cepeda, AICPCaltrans Project Manager(619) 688-6003Email: [email protected]
Or visit the website:bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
29
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Neighborhood Assessment
30
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Neighborhoods Existing Character, Enhanced Connectivity Surrounding the proposed State Route (SR) 94 park cap, there are two neighborhoods/communities: Greater Golden Hill to the north and Southeastern San Diego to the south. Downtown San Diego also is nearby. Plans and studies have been conducted for and in the area, incorporating the preferences and priorities of the communities, and identifying opportunities for and constraints to future development.
Background Greater Golden Hill is an urbanized community, located east of Downtown San Diego and southeast Balboa Park. The landscape is characterized by a varying topography of canyons and mesas, as well as a historic district that features a variety of eclectic building types. Southeastern San Diego also is an urbanized community, located just south of Golden Hill across SR 94 and east of Downtown San Diego. Southeastern San Diego is similar to Greater Golden Hill in its landscape (i.e., topography) and early development (i.e., western portion of the community). Both Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego have goals of maintaining community character/heritage, including the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods, historic architectural resources, and open space areas.
Land Use In both Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego, the largest land use is “residential” (49 percent of total developed acreage and 39 percent of total developed acreage, respectively), followed by “roads/freeways” (37 percent of total acreage and 39 percent of total acreage, respectively). In both communities, parks comprise less than 7 percent of total developed acreage.
Parks and Open Space In Greater Golden Hill, city-owned canyons serve as open space areas. In Southeastern San Diego, there are a variety of neighborhood parks, community parks, and open space areas. Balboa Park, located in close proximity to the communities (e.g., the southeast corner, also known as the “Golden Hill Triangle” area), is a resource-based park; however, this park serves both the citywide population, as well as visitors. There is a lack of population-based parks in Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego. For population-based parks, the acreage standard, as defined in the City of San Diego General Plan, is a minimum of 2.8 acres per 1,000 people. For Greater Golden Hill (15,954 people) and Southeastern San Diego (57,041 people), this means 45 acres and 160 acres of population-based parks, respectively. Greater Golden Hill has 51 acres of park/military uses (not including the adjacent Balboa Park) and Southeastern San Diego has 100 acres of park/military uses. However, in Southeastern San Diego most of this combined acreage is military use. With limited vacant land and challenges surrounding the acquisition of developed land, meeting needs/standards is becoming increasingly difficult.
60 acres of population-based parks are needed in Southeastern San Diego to meet city standards
Figure 1: Parks and Open Space
Source: 2015 Southeastern San Diego Community Plan; 2013 Golden Hill Community Plan
31
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Park access due to topography and reliance on public transit also is an issue. The communities have identified park opportunities, including an SR 94 park cap, as well as enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities to and through the communities.
Transportation Both Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego are well served by freeways, with regional access provided by Interstate (I-) 5, SR 94, and I-15. SR 94, which divides both communities, was constructed in the mid-1950s. Additionally, connections to Downtown San Diego, a major employment and population center, are maintained by a number of east-west streets (e.g., B Street, C Street, Broadway, Market Street, Island Avenue, and Imperial Avenue), public transportation (e.g., buses and the Trolley), and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. North-south streets that connect Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego are more limited and include 25th Street, 28th Street, and 30th Street. Both communities include gridiron street patterns, but transportation networks can be limited due to topography or other physical barriers (i.e., abrupt changes causing dead-ends). Both communities have goals of improving transportation, including streetscape improvements and an integrated bicycle network. Recent transportation plans, studies, and projects, which have, will, or propose to improve transportation, include the following: the 25th Street Renaissance Street Enhancement Project, the SR 94 Express Lanes Project, the Southeastern San Diego Community Plan Update, the Greater Golden Hill Community Plan Update, the Euclid Avenue Corridor Master Plan, the Imperial Avenue and Commercial Street Corridor Plan, and the Downtown San Diego Mobility Plan.
Environmental Considerations To construct a cap over SR 94, the following environmental issues should be considered:
noise and vibration, community and neighborhoods (e.g., air quality), visual resources and aesthetics, and historic architectural resources. The Environmental Impact Report for the SR 94 Express Lanes Project, which extends through the study area along the SR 94, will evaluate many of these considerations. A cap over SR 94 should be designed to be consistent with the existing visual character and quality, and would avoid or minimize impact to historic resources that are listed or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In terms of community and neighborhood impacts, a cap over SR 94 would improve community cohesion (including accessibility and connectivity) and would not result in displacements. In terms of noise and air quality related to freeway traffic, park user exposure would not be worse than resident (e.g., those living next to the freeway) exposure, and the cap could improve existing conditions by limiting exposure to (covering) freeway noise and air pollutants.
Demographics
Population and Employment As illustrated in Figure 2, Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego are relatively lower density communities, with restricted height limits and less population density in 2030 than adjacent Downtown San Diego.
Figure 2: Population, 2030
Source: SANDAG Series 12 Data Explore here: https://skfb.ly/FCRH
32
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Greater Golden Hill has 16,000 people and 1,800 jobs, which is anticipated to grow by 2035 (26 percent and 17 percent, respectively). It has 723 developed acres and 7,289 housing units. The residential density is 21 housing units per developed residential acre and the employment density is 45 jobs per developed employment acre. Southeastern San Diego has 57,000 people and 11,100 jobs, which is anticipated to grow by 2035 (10 percent and 18 percent, respectively). It has 2,843 developed acres and 15,204 housing units. The residential density is 14 housing units per developed residential acre and the employment density is 19 jobs per developed employment acre.
Income In Greater Golden Hill and Southeastern San Diego, the greatest number of households (1,274 households and 3,956 households, respectively) have incomes within the $15,000 to $29,999 range. Additionally, most households (59 percent and 79 percent, respectively) have incomes below $60,000.
Race and Ethnicity In Greater Golden Hill, 45 percent of the population is Hispanic (7,206 people). By 2035, this will grow to 60 percent (12,147 people). In Southeastern San Diego, 84 percent of the population is Hispanic (47,967 people). By 2035, this will grow to 89 percent (55,800 people).
Figure 3: Household Income, 2012 and 2035
Figure 4: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2012 and 2035
Source: SANDAG Series 13 Data
Source: SANDAG Series 13 Data
33
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Design Review Meeting December 16, 2015:
Presentation Slides
34
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Review Meeting
December 16, 2015
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Overview of Tonight’s Meeting
1. Best Practices Update:• Funding options• Health impacts
2. Design Review of Concepts:• Comments received from public outreach• Refined concepts
3. Conclusion & Next Steps
35
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Stakeholder Interviews
‐ Goals & Objectives‐ Issues/ Opportunities
Site Walk
‐ Issues/ Opportunities‐ SWG Site Walk
Kick Off
‐ Introduction & Best Practices‐ Goals & Objectives
Additional Outreach
‐ Pop‐up Events‐ Online Engagement
Design Meeting
‐ Review Concept Alternatives
Open House
‐ Preferred Alternative
Meeting 1 Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6
Summer / Fall 2015 Spring 2016Spring 2015
Project Schedule
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Best Practices Update:Funding Options
36
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Funding Options
• Local/Regional• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project, Freeway Park (Seattle)
• Local/State/Federal Grants• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project
• Transportation Project Feature/Enhancement• Example: I-15 Mid-City Completion Project/Teralta Park
• Public-Private Partnership (P3)• Example: Klyde Warren Park (Dallas)
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Best Practices Update:Health Impacts
37
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Exercise and Air Quality
• Animal Study• Netherlands epidemiological data study• Ongoing research at British Columbia
Environmental Physiology Lab. Pilot test promising.
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Exhaust Emissions Standards Getting Stricter
38
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Mitigation Strategies
• Designing edges with solid or vegetative barriers
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Recap:Initial Concepts A & B
39
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Concept A
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Concept B
40
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Review:Comments Received from
Public Outreach
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Summary of Public Outreach
41
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Detailed Amenity Preferences
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Refined Concept
42
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Conclusion & Next Steps
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Stakeholder Interviews
‐ Goals & Objectives‐ Issues/ Opportunities
Site Walk
‐ Issues/ Opportunities‐ SWG Site Walk
Kick Off
‐ Introduction & Best Practices‐ Goals & Objectives
Additional Outreach
‐ Pop‐up Events‐ Online Engagement
Design Meeting
‐ Review Concept Alternatives
Open House
‐ Preferred Alternative
Meeting 1 Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6
Summer / Fall 2015 Spring 2016Spring 2015
Project Schedule
43
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Thank you
For more information please contact:Chris Schmidt, AICPCaltrans Project Manager(619) [email protected]
Or visit the website:bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Cap Park Design Concept:
Plan & Section Views
45
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimates
48
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: Full ProjectFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)
Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Description / RemarksLow High
49,820 CY 75$ 3,736,500$ Outside retaining wall along F & G Streets1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$
2,810 Ton 150$ 421,500$ Along F & G Streets12,960 SF 50$ 648,000$ Along F & G Streets2,160 LF 40$ 86,400$ Along F & G Streets
1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 1 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ On SR 941 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1 LS 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ Tunnel ventilation, sprinklers, alarm, etc. 17,392,400$ 17,392,400$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 600,000$ 600,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 2 EA 150,000$ 300,000$ Bulb-outs etc. at 24th Street1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 5,400,000$ 5,400,000$ 0 LS -$ -$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ Along frontage street to deck1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$
61,020 SF 15$ 915,300$ Enhanced paving areas and event plazas
146,448 SF 25$ 3,661,200$ Lawn areas or multi-purpose use areas in raised
planters
36,612 SF 35$ 1,281,420$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters
101,520 SF 20$ 2,030,400$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in
backfill area outside retaining wall
1 LS 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ Potential additional amenties e.g. water feature,
vending kiosks, picnic facilities, etc.
1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 19,888,320$ 19,888,320$
244,080 SF 400$ 97,632,000$ Cost range $400-$750 per SF of deck 97,632,000$
244,080 SF 750$ 183,060,000$ Cost range $400-$750 per SF of deck 183,060,000$
Key Assumptions & Notes Mobilization (10%)3 14,051,000$ to 22,594,000$
Contingency (25%)3 35,128,000$ to 56,485,000$
2. Unit costs of deck amenities & landscaping based on recent costs of "green roof" elements. Total Construction Cost (2016) 189,742,000$ to 305,070,000$ 3. Mobilization & contingency apply to all categories except right-of-way.
Construction Administration (15%) 28,461,000$ to 45,761,000$
Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 37,948,000$ to 61,014,000$
Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 37,948,000$ to 61,014,000$
West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft
24th St 40 226 9,040 sqft Total Project Capital Cost (2016) 294,099,000$ to 472,859,000$
East Cap 620 226 140,120 sqftFull Project 1,080 226 244,080 sqft
Backfill Area: Outside Retaining Wall Along F & G Streets Cap ElementsWest Cap 420 94 39,480 sqft Construction Cost
24th St 40 94 3,760 sqft West Cap $ 75 million to $ 120 million
East Cap 620 94 58,280 sqft 24th St $ 5 million
Full Project 1,080 94 101,520 sqft East Cap $ 110 million to $ 175 million
Sum of Construction Cost $ 190 million to $ 295 million
Total Cap Area (Structure + Backfill)West Cap 420 320 134,400 sqft Total Capital Cost
24th St 40 320 12,800 sqft West Cap $ 115 million to $ 185 million
East Cap 620 320 198,400 sqft 24th St $ 7.5 million
Full Project 1,080 320 345,600 sqft East Cap $ 170 million to $ 275 million
Sum of Total Capital Cost $ 295 million to $ 460 million
Total Project Capital Cost (2016, Rounded to Nearest 5 Million)
$ 295 million to $ 475 million
Additional Amenities
Lighting/Security/Life Safety
Deck Structure Cost Range (Low)
Deck Structure Cost Range (High)
1. SR 94 Express Lanes project will construct new 22nd & 25th St bridges that are designed to accommodate tunnel ventilation systems and include intersection improvments.
Structure
Item
Title/Escrow/FeesHardscape
(25% of Deck Structure Area)Lawn
(60% of Deck Structure Area)
Environmental MitigationFire-Life Safety
LightingOverhead and VMS Signage
Traffic Management PlanTraffic Signals (Local Streets)
Multimodal ImprovementsSide Road Improvements
AcquisitionUtility Relocation
Subtotal Range
Roadway
Traffic
Right-of-Way
Deck Amenities
& Landscaping2
Excavation & BackfillClearing & GrubbingPavement (6" Depth)
PCC SidewalkCurb & Gutter
Drainage Outside DeckBarriers & Guard Rails
Erosion ControlWater Pollution Control
Trees(15% of Deck Structure Area)
Edge Landscaping(100% of Backfill Area)
49
Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: West ElementFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)
Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Description / RemarksLow High
19,380 CY 75$ 1,453,500$ Outside retaining wall along F & G Streets1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$
1,100 Ton 150$ 165,000$ Along F & G Streets5,040 SF 50$ 252,000$ Along F & G Streets840 LF 40$ 33,600$ Along F & G Streets1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ On SR 941 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ Tunnel sprinklers, alarm, etc. 5,304,100$ 5,304,100$ 1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 0 EA 150,000$ -$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,050,000$ 0 LS -$ -$ 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Along frontage street to deck1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$
23,730 SF 15$ 355,950$ Enhanced paving areas and event plazas
56,952 SF 25$ 1,423,800$ Lawn areas or multi-purpose use areas in raised
planters
14,238 SF 35$ 498,330$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters
39,480 SF 20$ 789,600$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in
backfill area outside retaining wall
1 LS 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ Potential additional amenties e.g. water feature,
vending kiosks, picnic facilities, etc.
1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 9,067,680$ 9,067,680$
94,920 SF 400$ 37,968,000$ Cost range $400-$750 per SF of deck 37,968,000$
94,920 SF 750$ 71,190,000$ Cost range $400-$750 per SF of deck 71,190,000$
Key Assumptions & Notes Mobilization (10%)3 5,549,000$ to 8,871,000$
Contingency (25%)3 13,872,000$ to 22,178,000$
2. Unit costs of deck amenities & landscaping based on recent costs of "green roof" elements. Total Construction Cost (2016) 74,936,000$ to 119,786,000$ 3. Mobilization & contingency apply to all categories except right-of-way.
Construction Administration (15%) 11,240,000$ to 17,968,000$ Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 14,987,000$ to 23,957,000$ Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 14,987,000$ to 23,957,000$ West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft
24th St 40 226 9,040 sqft Total Project Capital Cost (2016) 116,150,000$ to 185,668,000$
East Cap 620 226 140,120 sqftFull Project 1,080 226 244,080 sqft
$ 185 million
StructureDeck Structure Cost Range (Low)
Deck Structure Cost Range (High)
Total Project Capital Cost (2016, Rounded to Nearest 5 Million)
$ 115 million to
1. SR 94 Express Lanes project will construct new 22nd & 25th St bridges that are designed to accommodate tunnel ventilation systems and include intersection improvments.
Deck Amenities
& Landscaping2
Hardscape(25% of Deck Structure Area)
Lawn(60% of Deck Structure Area)
Trees(15% of Deck Structure Area)
Edge Landscaping(100% of Backfill Area)
Additional Amenities
Lighting/Security/Life Safety
Multimodal ImprovementsSide Road Improvements
Right-of-WayAcquisition
Utility RelocationTitle/Escrow/Fees
Traffic
LightingOverhead and VMS Signage
Traffic Management PlanTraffic Signals (Local Streets)
Item Subtotal Range
Roadway
Excavation & BackfillClearing & GrubbingPavement (6" Depth)
PCC SidewalkCurb & Gutter
Drainage Outside DeckBarriers & Guard Rails
Erosion ControlWater Pollution Control
Environmental MitigationFire-Life Safety
50
Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: 24th Street ElementFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)
Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Description / Remarks
1,850 CY 75$ 138,750$ Outside retaining wall along F & G Streets1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$ 0 Ton 150$ -$ Along F & G Streets0 SF 50$ -$ Along F & G Streets0 LF 40$ -$ Along F & G Streets0 LS 500,000$ -$ 0 LS 300,000$ -$ On SR 940 LS 300,000$ -$ 0 LS 200,000$ -$ 0 LS 1,000,000$ -$ 0 LS 10,000,000$ -$ Tunnel ventilation, sprinklers, alarm, etc. 158,750$ 0 LS 500,000$ -$ Tunnel only0 LS 600,000$ -$ Tunnel only0 LS 3,000,000$ -$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 0 EA 150,000$ -$ Bulb-outs etc. at 24th Street0 LS 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 0 LS -$ -$ 0 LS 200,000$ -$ Along frontage street to deck0 LS 50,000$ -$ -$
8,136 SF 15$ 122,040$ Enhanced paving areas and event plazas
0 SF 25$ -$ Lawn areas or multi-purpose use areas in raised
planters
904 SF 35$ 31,640$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters
3,760 SF 15$ 56,400$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in
backfill area outside retaining wall
1 LS -$ -$
1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ 260,080$
9,040 SF 350$ 3,164,000$ Cost range $350-$750 per SF 3,164,000$
9,040 SF -$ -$ Cost range $350-$750 per SF
Key Assumptions & Notes Mobilization (10%)3 358,000$
Contingency (25%)3 896,000$
2. Unit costs of deck amenities & landscaping based on recent costs of "green roof" elements. Total Construction Cost (2016) 4,837,000$ 3. Mobilization & contingency apply to all categories except right-of-way.
Construction Administration (15%) 726,000$ Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 967,000$ Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 967,000$ West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft
24th St 40 226 9,040 sqft Total Project Capital Cost (2016) 7,497,000$
East Cap 620 226 140,120 sqftFull Project 1,080 226 244,080 sqft
StructureCost Range (Low)
Cost Range (High)
Total Project Capital Cost (2016, Rounded to Nearest 5 Million)
$ 7.5 million
1. SR 94 Express Lanes project will construct new 22nd & 25th St bridges that are designed to accommodate tunnel ventilation systems and include intersection improvments.
Deck Amenities
& Landscaping2
Hardscape(90% of Deck Structure Area)
Lawn(0% of Deck Structure Area)
Trees(10% of Deck Structure Area)
Edge Hardscape(100% of Backfill Area)
Additional Amenities
Lighting/Security/Life Safety
Multimodal ImprovementsSide Road Improvements
Right-of-WayAcquisition
Utility RelocationTitle/Escrow/Fees
Traffic
LightingOverhead and VMS Signage
Traffic Management PlanTraffic Signals (Local Streets)
Item Subtotal
Roadway
Excavation & BackfillClearing & GrubbingPavement (6" Depth)
PCC SidewalkCurb & Gutter
Drainage Outside DeckBarriers & Guard Rails
Erosion ControlWater Pollution Control
Environmental MitigationFire-Life Safety
51
Planning-Level Capital Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: East ElementFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)
Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Description / RemarksLow High
28,610 CY 75$ 2,145,750$ Outside retaining wall along F & G Streets1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$
1,620 Ton 150$ 243,000$ Along F & G Streets7,440 SF 50$ 372,000$ Along F & G Streets1,240 LF 40$ 49,600$ Along F & G Streets
1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$ On SR 941 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 1 LS 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ Tunnel ventilation, sprinklers, alarm, etc. 12,210,350$ 12,210,350$ 1 LS 250,000$ 250,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 300,000$ 300,000$ Tunnel only1 LS 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 0 EA 250,000$ -$ 0 EA 150,000$ -$ 1 LS 500,000$ 500,000$ 3,050,000$ 3,050,000$ 0 LS -$ -$ 1 LS 100,000$ 100,000$ Along frontage street to deck1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$
35,030 SF 15$ 525,450$ Enhanced paving areas and event plazas
84,072 SF 25$ 2,101,800$ Lawn areas or multi-purpose use areas in raised
planters
21,018 SF 35$ 735,630$ Canopy or theme trees in raised planters
58,280 SF 20$ 1,165,600$ Streetscape treatment along F & G Streets, in
backfill area outside retaining wall
1 LS 5,000,000$ 5,000,000$ Potential additional amenties e.g. water feature,
vending kiosks, picnic facilities, etc.
1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 10,528,480$ 10,528,480$
140,120 SF 400$ 56,048,000$ Cost range $400-$750 per SF of deck 56,048,000$
140,120 SF 750$ 105,090,000$ Cost range $400-$750 per SF of deck 105,090,000$
Key Assumptions & Notes Mobilization (10%)3 8,184,000$ to 13,088,000$
Contingency (25%)3 20,459,000$ to 32,720,000$
2. Unit costs of deck amenities & landscaping based on recent costs of "green roof" elements. Total Construction Cost (2016) 110,605,000$ to 176,812,000$ 3. Mobilization & contingency apply to all categories except right-of-way.
Construction Administration (15%) 16,591,000$ to 26,522,000$ Area Calculations Planning & Design (20%) 22,121,000$ to 35,362,000$ Deck Structure Area: Inside Retaining Wall Above SR 94 Agency Administration (20%) 22,121,000$ to 35,362,000$ West Cap 420 226 94,920 sqft
24th St 40 226 9,040 sqft Total Project Capital Cost (2016) 171,438,000$ to 274,058,000$
East Cap 620 226 140,120 sqftFull Project 1,080 226 244,080 sqft
$ 275 million
StructureDeck Structure Cost Range (Low)
Deck Structure Cost Range (High)
Total Project Capital Cost (2016, Rounded to Nearest 5 Million)
$ 170 million to
1. SR 94 Express Lanes project will construct new 22nd & 25th St bridges that are designed to accommodate tunnel ventilation systems and include intersection improvments.
Deck Amenities
& Landscaping2
Hardscape(25% of Deck Structure Area)
Lawn(60% of Deck Structure Area)
Trees(15% of Deck Structure Area)
Edge Landscaping(100% of Backfill Area)
Additional Amenities
Lighting/Security/Life Safety
Multimodal ImprovementsSide Road Improvements
Right-of-WayAcquisition
Utility RelocationTitle/Escrow/Fees
Traffic
LightingOverhead and VMS Signage
Traffic Management PlanTraffic Signals (Local Streets)
Item Subtotal Range
Roadway
Excavation & BackfillClearing & GrubbingPavement (6" Depth)
PCC SidewalkCurb & Gutter
Drainage Outside DeckBarriers & Guard Rails
Erosion ControlWater Pollution Control
Environmental MitigationFire-Life Safety
52
Planning-Level Operations & Maintenance Cost Estimate
53
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Planning-Level O&M Cost Estimate for SR 94 Freeway Cap: Full ProjectFreeway Cap Best Practices & SR-94 Cap Park Study (2016)
Category Quantity Unit Unit Price Annual Cost Totals
244,080 SF 0.50$ 122,040$
1 LS 25,000$ 25,000$
1 LS 20,000$ 20,000$
1 LS 30,000$ 30,000$
1 LS 200,000$ 200,000$
7.934 AC 12,000$ 95,207$
2 EA 25,000$ 50,000$
2 EA 60,000$ 120,000$
2 EA 60,000$ 120,000$
1 EA 10,000$ 10,000$
Key Assumptions & Notes Subtotal (Rounded) 792,000$
Contingency (25%) 198,000$
Element
Structural &
Roadway1
1 person (two shift)
Tunnel Lighthing Inspection & repair
Fire-Life Safety System Inspection & repair
OH/VMS/CCTV System Inspection & repair
Decking
Description / Remarks
Inspection & repair
Open space areas with modest improvements such as tables, trash receptacles, & small hardscape
areas. Includes water/irrigation.
2. Unit price of Open Park Areas based on Teralta Park freeway cap over SR-15. Unit prices of other elements based on City of San Diego staff estimates of similar facilities citywide.
397,040$
395,207$
Total Annual O&M Cost (2016, Rounded)
Costs typically shared by community
990,000$
Water Features
Community Garden
Operation Personnel
Open Park Areas
Deck Amenities &
Landscaping2
Additional Park Amenities
Set of Restroom Facilities
1. Unit proces of Structural & Roadway elements based on recent average costs of similar facilities.
Additional park amenities such as playgrounds, picnic areas, and dog runs.
Restrooms optional. Not in concept drawing but provided here for informational purposes.
54
Open House Meeting September 27, 2016:
Presentation Slides
55
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
Open House Meeting
September 27, 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Overview of Tonight’s Open House
1. Study Process Review2. Design Review:
• Summary of community input• Refined concept
3. Cost Estimates4. Next Steps:
• Case studies• Funding options
56
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Stakeholder Interviews
‐ Goals & Objectives‐ Issues/ Opportunities
Site Walk
‐ Issues/ Opportunities‐ SWG Site Walk
Kick Off
‐ Introduction & Best Practices‐ Goals & Objectives
Additional Outreach
‐ Pop‐up Events‐ Online Engagement
Design Meeting
‐ Review Concept Alternatives
Open House
‐ Preferred Alternative
‐ Next Steps
Meeting 1 Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6
Summer / Fall 2015 Fall 2016Spring 2015
Study Process
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Review:Initial Concepts A & B
57
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Concept A
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Concept B
58
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Design Review:Comments Received from
Public Outreach
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Summary of Public Outreach
59
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Detailed Amenity Preferences
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Refined Concept
60
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Cost Estimates
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Cost Estimates
$115‐185 million
3.0 acres
$7.5 million
0.3 acres
$170‐275 million
4.6 acres
61
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Cost Estimates
West Cap(22nd – 24th St)
24th St East Cap(24th – 25th St)
Full Cap(22nd – 25th St)
Construction $75 ‐ $120 million $5 million $110 ‐ $175 million $190 ‐ $305 million
Planning, Design & Support
$40 ‐ $65 million $2.5 million $60 ‐ $100 million $110 ‐ $165 million
Total Project Cost$115 ‐ $185million
$7.5 million$170 ‐ $275 million
$300 ‐ $470 million
Park Acreage 3.0 acres 0.3 acres 4.6 acres 7.9 acres
• Average Construction Cost per Acre: $25 - $40 million est.
• Average Total Cost per Acre: $37 - $60 million est.*Excludes 24th St
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Next Steps
62
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Next Steps
• Best Practices Guide
• 3 Case Studies
• Funding Options
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive(San Francisco)
• Cost: Construction $460m. Total $856m.• Size: 10+ acres (Construction: $46m+/acre est.)
63
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Presidio Parkway/Doyle Drive(San Francisco)
• Funding SourcesFederal Government (Grants; Stimulus funds) $209 million
State of California (Highway funds) $387 million
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bridge tolls; Air quality funds)
$114 million
Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District $75 million
San Francisco County (Prop K sales tax) $66 million
Marin & Sonoma Counties $5 million
Private investment consisted of financing from the concessionaire as well as private activity bonds.
Total Project Cost $856 million
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
I-5 Riverfront Reconnection(Sacramento)
• Cost: Construction $243m. Total $300m. (Total for 2 phases)
• Size: 3.8 acres (Construction: $64m/acre est.)
Phase 1Phase 2
64
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
I-5 Riverfront Reconnection(Sacramento)
• Phase 1: New & expanded bridges ($62m)• Opened 2 weeks ago• Combination of local, state & federal funding
• Phase 2: Full cap ($300m)• Deferred due to cost
• Design through collaboration of 11 stakeholder groups & public
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Space 134 (Glendale)
• Cost (Phase 1): Construction $140m. Total not yet estimated.• Size: 4.75 acres (Construction: $29m/acre est.)
65
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Funding Options
• Local/Regional Funding Sources• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project; Freeway Park (Seattle)
• State/Federal Grants• Example: Mid-City Transit Gateway Project; Presidio Parkway (SF)
• Transportation Project Feature/Enhancement• Example: Teralta Park/I-15 Mid-City Completion Project
• Public-Private Partnership (P3)• Example: Klyde Warren Park (Dallas); Presidio Parkway (SF)
Freeway Cap Best Practices and SR 94 Cap Park Study
Stakeholder Interviews
‐ Goals & Objectives‐ Issues/ Opportunities
Site Walk
‐ Issues/ Opportunities‐ SWG Site Walk
Kick Off
‐ Introduction & Best Practices‐ Goals & Objectives
Additional Outreach
‐ Pop‐up Events‐ Online Engagement
Design Meeting
‐ Review Concept Alternatives
Open House
‐ Preferred Alternative
‐ Next Steps
Meeting 1 Meeting 2 Meeting 3 Meeting 4 Meeting 5 Meeting 6
Summer / Fall 2015 Fall 2016Spring 2015
Study Process
66
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
Thank you
For more information please contact:Chris Schmidt, AICPCaltrans Project Manager(619) [email protected]
Or visit the website:bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
67
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Cap Park Brochure
68
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility November 2016
SR 94 Freeway Cap Park Feasibility
Compilation of Project Materials
Part of the Freeway Cap Best Practices & SR 94 Cap Park Study
SR 94 CAP PARK STUDY
SDCaltransSANDAG
Caltrans District 11SANDAGregion
SDCaltransSANDAGregion
Park Amenity Preferences
Keep it simple, with event space and lots of open space.
I want the park to stay true to the culture and historic character of Sherman Heights and Golden Hill.
The park should be designed to bring communities together.
Reconnect communities.
PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, conducted 6 public outreach events in the Southeastern San Diego and Greater Golden Hill communities to gain input on a proposed freeway cap park over SR 94. The purpose of this outreach was to share the proposal and potential design concepts, and gain insight about park features the public would like to see, should this park be developed in the future.
Caltrans District 11, in coordination with SANDAG and the City of San Diego Planning Department, have worked with the community to develop this vision for a “freeway cap” over SR 94. This potential project would create an opportunity to add a new park - or other facilities - connecting the communities of Southeastern San Diego and Greater Golden Hill.
The project is currently in the conceptual stage, and does not have specific design or funding. This document summarizes the community’s vision, and may be used to raise awareness and gather support from neighbors and community leaders.
More Information:Project Websitehttp://bit.ly/sdfreewaycapstudy
Project Manager:Chris Schmidt, Caltrans District 11
(619)[email protected]
Make park safe and active.
August 2016
503
259
61 70169 9
51
OPEN/PLAY/ GATHERING AREA
ACTIVE/SPORTS/FACILITIES
DOG PARK FOOD/VENDING TRANSPORTATIONFACILITIES
BUILDING STRUCTURES
OTHER
Open space/lawn
Benches/picnic area
Sports Fields
Shade trees/structures
Community event space
Security
Community Priorities
City College
Kimbrough Elementary
School
Sherman Elementary
School
San Diego High School
Garfield Senior High
School
Our Lady's School
Albert Einstein
Academies
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community¯
Greater Golden Hill
Sherman Heights
Downtown San Diego
!̂
AÀ
22nd
St
25th S
t
Market St
G St
Island Ave
K St
L St
E St
Broadway
C St
A St
Russ Blvd
28th S
t
20th S
t
19th S
t
21st S
t
27th S
t
26th S
t
23rd S
t
24th S
t
Persh
ing
Dr
Ash St
J St
17th S
t
16th S
t
15th S
t
14th S
t
13th S
t
Pa
rk Blvd
B St
SR94
This rough estimate accounts for the project’s full cost from start to finish, including design, environmental review, permitting, construction, project management, and contingencies. The estimate includes the park amenities shown in the conceptual illustration on the left. The final project cost will vary depending upon further refinement of the design concept.
PLANNING-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE$300+ million for design, permitting and construction
SR 94 CAP PARK CONCEPT
Project Site
CONTEXT MAP