Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Iron Horse Trail CITY CLERK File # DBJ[5J~~ITJ[Q] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2005 SUBJECT: Feasibility Report Regarding Lighting and Landscaping Along the Iron Horse Trail Repor/ Prepared by: Melissa Mar/an, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: I) 2) Location Map Area photographs to bc shown at the meeting RECOMMENDATION: Delay pursuit of this project until completion of the General Plan Study of the Union Pacific Transportation Corridor. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The estimated cost of construction and ongoing maintenance is as follows: Landscape and irrigation construction Lighting construction Emergency call boxes Total: $2,500,000 $ 560,000 $ 50,000 $3,110,000 Maintenance cost: Annual landscape maintenance and utilities $ Alllluallighting maintenance and utilities $ Total: $ 280,000 10,000 290,000 DESCRIPTION: The City Council requested that Staff look into the feasibility of providing lighting and landseaping along the Iron Horse Trail. At the present time, there is no lighting, and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has posted signage indicating that the trail is open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Construction and Amenities Public Works Staff reviewed the loeation and geometrics of the Dublin portion of the trail from the BART Station to its northerly limit. If lighting were to be provided, it appears that the most feasible fonn would be lights on 15- to 20-foot poles, similar to park lighting or the lights along the San Ramon Road bike/pedestrian path. In order to achicve a reasonable uniformity of eoverage, the lights would have to be -... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -...... -......... - - - - - - - - - - - - - -............... - - - - - -- COPIES TO: g;\agentniscllighting iron horse trai12 IrIfJ~ ITEM NO. 7.L (') spaced at intervals of 100 feet or less. Based on the length of the trail, excluding street erossings, approximately 115 lights would be requircd. The estimated cost of construction, including design, inspection, projeet management, and PG&E connection fees is $560,000. This would provide a relatively utilitarian type light. The omamentaltype of poles and fixtures would increase the cost. The cost of landscaping has been cstimated based on providing approximately 20 feet of landscaping on either side of the trail, for an approximate total coverage of about 10 acres. The landscaping is proposed to includc trees, bedding, and irrigation, of a scope similar to a street median, as well as minor amenities such as trash cans and benches. The estimated construction cost for this type of landscaping, depending on density and plant material chosen, averages about $250,000 per acre, for a total cost of about $2,500,000. Staff has ineluded an cstimated cost of $50,000 to provide approximately four "caH box" stations for emergency purposes at various points along the trail. These would be similar to call boxes provided along frccways or in parking lots and could be operated on either wired electrical or solar energy. East Bay Regional Park District would not maintain any of the above improvements. The estimated annual cost of maintenance is approximately $290,000, including utiJities. Most of the maintenance cost is related to the landscaping. Securitvand hnvacts on Neighbors Residential communities which abut the trail include the Iron Horse Trail Apartment Complex and the Scarlett Place developmcnt southeast of Dougherty Road; the Park Sierra Apartments, Arroyo Vista, and Hcritage Commons complexes, as well as some single family residences, between Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and the Amador Lakes Apartments and many single family residences between Amador Valley Boulevard and the City Limit. Night use of the trail could potentially subject these residents to light trespass from the lighting itself. It is possible to placc shielding on the lights in order to minimize the amount of light getting to the residences; however, shielding could not be 100% effective where there are residences on both sides of the trail without also compromising the light on the trail itself. Staff examined the use of low, bollard stylc lighting and found that lighting would have to be spaced much closer to insure a well lighted path and would therefore increase the cost of lighting significantly. In addition, law enforcement staff were concerned that users of the path would fecI more vulnerable if the lighting did not extend into the landscaped areas adjacent to the path. If the trail is to remain open for the latest possible BART arrivals, there could be walkers or bicyclists on the trail very late in the evcning or very early in the morning. The last BART train arrival at the DublinIPleasanton Station is at approximately 1 :30 a.m. The first train leaving on weekday mornings 'eaves at 4:15 a.m. East Bay Regional Park District has indicated that their park police would provide serviee to the trail until 10:00 p.m. From a practical standpoint, this does not include "patrol service" but only a potential response to an incident. Dublin Police Services staff havc indicated that the park service will generally contact the local police agency to investigate a call for service. Police Services Staff provided the following comments regarding accessibility and trail security: Page 2 1Ib::a. The portion of the trail from BART to the northerly limit of Park Sierra is relatively open and visible from adjacent public streets and can therefore bc patrolled and accessed by a police vehiclc. However, as the trail continues north from Park Sierra, it narrows so that thcre is no room for a vehicle to make a U-turn. At Amador Valley Boulevard, there is a locked gate and bollard which must be opened in order for a patrol vehicle to exit onto Amador Valley Boulevard. In addition, the portion of the trail from Park Sierra to Amador Valley Boulevard passes through an area in which there are security concerns due to shrubbery and tall grass. Other Land Use Issues The Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Proposed Budget includes funding for a General Plan Study of the Union Pacific Transportation Corridor north of the Park Sierra Apartments, which the Council previously authorized. This Study will evaluate the most appropriate future uses of this corridor. Portions of thc trail are adjacent to wetland and creek channel areas which may represent certain habitat resources that will require protection. Some areas of the potcntiallandseaping and lighting may have to be modified to address species sensitivity and spccies avoidance. The portion of the trail from BART to the northerly limit of Park Sierra comprises approximately half the length of the entire trail. However, the Scarlctt Drive Extension project would require that thc trail be relocated, and while some ofthc lighting infrastructure could be reused, much of the improvements within this leg ofthe corridor would be removed and/or relocated. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council delay pursuit of this project until completion of the General Plan Study of the Union Pacific Transportation Corridor. Page 3 ~~