Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Smart Pathway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SMART presents 30% design for Puerto Suelo Pathway with switchbacks, wider curves and funding gap
Summary
SMART and design consultant BKF presented a 30% design for the Puerto Suelo Pathway that routes through Caltrans right-of-way with rounded switchbacks, retaining walls and fences. Presenters said the design meets ADA slope limits and will require multiple funding sources before construction.
San Rafael Judy King of Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit and Ian, lead designer from BKF, presented the agency's 30%-level design for the Puerto Suelo Pathway on February 11 to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
"We're at 30% design right now," Ian said, describing the alignment through Caltrans property and the need for rounded switchbacks where the corridor climbs a steep slope. He said the plan follows typical class-1 shared-use facility guidelines and attempts to meet ADA longitudinal slope limits.
Design details presented include a continuous asphalt corridor with gravel shoulders, retaining walls where the route cuts into the slope, and fencing along the track side. Ian described the preferred cross section as 10 feet of asphalt with 2-foot gravel shoulders but said the team proposes widening to 12 feet of asphalt at tight switchback curves "just to try to better accommodate" tandem bicycles and simultaneous uphill/downhill movements.
The designers emphasized the ADA limit of a 5% longitudinal slope for accessible paths and said the plan keeps the long linear sections near that limit and manages steeper grade changes in the switchback zone with retaining walls and fences. On fencing, Judy King said the final material and height will be coordinated with Caltrans and neighboring property owners; the presentation noted options such as black vinyl-clad fencing rather than standard chain link.
Funding remains a key constraint. King and Ian told the committee they are at a milestone where design is far enough along to pursue design-build procurement, but construction will depend on assembling multiple funding sources. The presentation referenced grant programs and local measure funding as possible contributors and noted rising costs since earlier project concepting. Committee members asked for cost figures; the design team discussed an order-of-magnitude planning-stage estimate during Q&A and said contingency levels are high at 30% while the design is at 30% completion.
The committee heard public questions about amenities (benches, lighting, stairs) and neighbor concerns about fence aesthetics. King said stairs were examined but presented geotechnical and retaining-wall complications, and that fence choices can often be adjusted late in the design or during construction to address aesthetics. The committee thanked SMART for the update and did not take action on construction funding at the meeting.
Next steps identified by SMART are continued grant-seeking, further coordination with Caltrans for wall and fence designs, and follow-up updates to the committee as grant opportunities progress.
