Laserfiche WebLink
City of Pleasanton | El Charro Road Precise Roadway Alignment <br />GIS data, utility records, plottable easements, and <br />parcel boundaries. We will supplement this compiled <br />foundation with third-party aerial imagery services <br />such as NearMap for current high-resolution site <br />photography and countywide LiDAR data for existing <br />ground surface information. This comprehensive base <br />map will serve as the foundational working document <br />for all subconsultants throughout the study. Where the <br />GSQTMPIHFEWIQETVIZIEPWKETWSVEVIEWSJMRWYDzGMIRX <br />EGGYVEG]0;[MPPHITPS]ǰIPHWYVZI]GVI[WEWRIIHIH <br />Deliverables: Survey and base mapping support <br />QEXIVMEPWMJEYXLSVM^IHHIPMZIVIHMRIPIGXVSRMGJSVQEX <br />MRGPYHMRK5)+ERH&YXS(&)GSQTEXMFPIǰPIWWYMXEFPI <br />for use by all project subconsultants and the city. <br />TASK 4 - DESIGN CRITERIA AND <br />EVALUATION FRAMEWORK <br />1*&)+.720; <br />CONTRIBUTING: ALL SUBCONSULTANTS <br />K+W will work collaboratively with the city to establish <br />EGSQTVILIRWMZIFEWMWSJHIWMKRXLEXVIDZIGXWXLIJYPP <br />spectrum of technical disciplines represented on this <br />team. Rather than defaulting to a standard roadway <br />design checklist, our approach begins with a design <br />GLEVIXXIWX]PIQIIXMRKFVMRKMRKXSKIXLIV(MX]WXEǯERH <br />all subconsultants to ensure that criteria spanning civil, <br />structural, rail, hydraulic, environmental, geotechnical, <br />dry utility, and landscape considerations are all on the <br />table from the start. Critically, this process will challenge <br />the team to consider not just current needs but how <br />transportation demand, land use, and development <br />patterns are expected to evolve over the next 10 to <br />20 years and beyond, ensuring that the alignment <br />selected today does not constrain the corridor’s ability <br />to serve the region’s future. The output of this process <br />will be a mutually agreed-upon design that all parties <br />can reference throughout the study. <br />With the design criteria established, the team will <br />develop an alternatives evaluation framework that <br />goes beyond a simple cost comparison. Alternatives <br />will be assessed across multiple dimensions including <br />physical feasibility, geotechnical aspects, schedule <br />implications, right-of-way and utility impacts, <br />environmental and permitting risk, and planning-level <br />cost. A key part of this process will be identifying where <br />WXERHEVHTPERRMRKPIZIPEWWYQTXMSRWEVIWYDzGMIRXERH <br />where certain technical areas warrant a closer look <br />before alternatives can be meaningfully compared. <br />For example, hydraulic analysis of roadway drainage, <br />KISXIGLRMGEP VMWO MR XLI UYEVV] XVERWMXMSR ^SRIW SV <br />structural constraints at the railroad undercrossing may <br />require a more detailed level of engineering review <br />to ensure that the evaluation framework is built on <br />GSRǰVQIH EWWYQTXMSRW VEXLIV XLER SRIW XLEX GSYPH <br />surface as complications later in design. The evaluation <br />JVEQI[SVO[MPPDZEKXLIWIMXIQWI\TPMGMXP]WSXLEXXLIGMX] <br />and team can make informed decisions about where <br />additional engineering investment is warranted at this <br />stage or subsequent stages. <br />Deliverables: Design criteria memorandum establishing <br />basis of design and alternatives evaluation framework. <br />TASK 5 - ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES <br />DEVELOPMENT <br />1*&)+.720; <br />CONTRIBUTING: TJKM, PASE, ALTA, S&W, <br />CORNERSTONE, RADIUS, GREEN DESIGN <br />4YV XIEQ [MPP HIZIPST JIEWMFPI LSVM^SRXEP EPMKRQIRX <br />alternatives and conceptual vertical alignment <br />considerations for three corridor options. Vertical <br />alignment will be developed in conjunction with <br />LSVM^SRXEPKISQIXV][MXLTEVXMGYPEVEXXIRXMSRXSKVEHI <br />constraints at the railroad crossing and the Arroyo <br />2SGLSGVSWWMRK[LIVIZIVXMGEPTVSǰPIHIGMWMSRWLEZI <br />direct structural and hydraulic implications. K+W will <br />TVITEVIGSRGITXYEPVSEH[E]JSSXTVMRXWTPERERHTVSǰPI <br />drawings, typical sections, and intersection concepts <br />for connections at Stoneridge Dr and Stanley Blvd, and <br />will identify probable right-of-way envelopes, utility <br />GSRDZMGXEVIEWKVEHMRKGSRWMHIVEXMSRWERHQYPXMQSHEP <br />features including bicycle, pedestrian, ADA, and transit <br />accommodation for each alternative. <br />8/02 [MPP HIǰRI XLI STIVEXMSREP VIUYMVIQIRXW XLEX <br />shape roadway geometry at each intersection, <br />including turn pocket needs, signal infrastructure <br />JSSXTVMRX XVERWMXMSRW FMOI PERI GSRǰKYVEXMSRW SR <br />street or separate path), striping layouts and transit <br />accommodation requirements including bus stop <br />placement, pull-out geometry, and future Bus Rapid <br />Transit (BRT) considerations. The relationship between <br />K+W and TJKM will cycle through geometry and <br />STIVEXMSRWXSKIXLIVEWEPXIVREXMZIWEVIVIǰRIH <br />Page 70 of 443