Has Caltrans fully explored the least intrusive options for replacing the Green Bridge? Many in the community are concerned that it hasn’t.
Over the past week, a stirring plea by the owner of the Point Reyes Animal Hospital and questions raised by another affected resident led to an outpouring of letters calling for a new look at a seismic retrofit—an option Caltrans dismissed in its draft environmental impact report on the project.
The agency has agreed to extend the public comment period’s deadline from June 9 to June 24 and to appear at a special meeting, scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 15 at the Dance Palace. The extended comment period will give residents more time to sift through the 400-plus-page environmental report, which was released in April.
In the discounting of a retrofit, that document references a seismic analysis published in March—just a month before Caltrans released the draft E.I.R.
The 26-page seismic analysis document addresses the seismic vulnerabilities of the existing structure, explaining that the bridge lacks redundancy and that the failure of single critical bridge feature could cause collapse. It identifies the optimum seismic retrofit strategy, but does not offer a timeframe or detail environmental or community impacts of a retrofit.
“This analysis does not recommend, or even compare, a retrofit option with the other alternatives for this project,” explained Jodi Ketelsen, the project’s environmental manager. “It simply offers the best possible option if a retrofit were to be conducted.” Ms. Ketelsen said the analysis was provided due to “interest from the public.”
Yet Point Reyes Station resident David Moser, who has closely followed the Green Bridge proposal since its inception, said the analysis is new enough that it most likely did not inform Caltrans’ decision to disregard a retrofit in draft E.I.R. (Mr. Moser, an attorney, co-owns a second home directly adjacent to the bridge that would be severely affected by the proposed construction zone.)
Among other documents, Mr. Moser had requested a seismic analysis of the bridge since 2015.
“It’s my suspicion that that draft E.I.R. was 95 percent complete before the seismic analysis was published,” Mr. Moser said. “I wonder how much it really informed the environmental impact report.”
Nor did the stakeholder working group organized by Caltrans, which met three times in 2016, benefit from the information in the seismic analysis. The group, which at first seemed to prefer a retrofit option, ultimately decided against it.
The draft E.I.R. outlines why a retrofit option was not evaluated in a section discussing build alternatives that “were considered but dismissed.” It states that structural engineers found existing deficiencies associated with the piles, piers, abutments and the truss itself, meaning that “virtually each major structural element of the bridge would require reinforcement, replacement or refurbishing,” and that a retrofit would be unpredictable and could have unforeseen delays.
A massive temporary support structure would have to be built under the bridge for support during the dismantling, as the bridge deck, T-spans, gusset plates and more would need to be replaced. The support structure would “be difficult to construct and remove within the limited allowable in-water work period mandated by the federal Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species,” it states. A creek water diversion would be necessary.
The report says a temporary detour bridge would be necessary because neither would there be enough room on the bridge for both construction workers and moving vehicles, nor would the support structure alone be strong enough to carry both the weight of the bridge and of passing vehicles.
Caltrans also states that the retrofit would not resemble the existing bridge because the steel members would be thicker, the piers and abutment foundations would be enlarged and the lanes would be narrower in order to accommodate the required protective railings. There would be no improvements to sidewalks for bicycle, pedestrian or equestrian users.
The assessment concludes: “Because the retrofit alternative would be an extensive effort, would result in comparatively much higher environmental impacts (including use of park land and adverse effects on special status species) than other alternatives under consideration, would not provide improvements for multimodal connectivity (such as pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrian users), this alternative was not carried forward into further environmental review.”
Yet one Point Reyes Station resident questions the assessment.
Alistair Lizaranzu, a structural engineer who has worked on Caltrans bridge retrofit projects, submitted four new retrofit options (with three different enhancement options included for each one, for a total of 12 new possible designs) two days ago as part of the public comment period. He believes that all of these designs would have a lesser environmental impact than the alternatives proposed in the draft E.I.R.
Mr. Lizaranzu expressed “tremendous respect” for Caltrans as an agency, and particularly for its engineers. But he said the issue is that the engineers do not get much say in projects; instead, it’s the developers who have the power.
“Any retrofit option will certainly be more difficult for the contractors,” Mr. Lizaranzu said. “Bigger contractors will want the replacement not only because it’s less difficult, but because it’s more work and more money.”
Another Point Reyes Station resident has been studying the draft E.I.R. in depth: Cathleen Dorinson, who sat on the Caltrans working group. Based on research into other Caltrans projects, she believes a retrofit could still result in extensive impacts. “People hear the word “retrofit” and they assume that it will be less impactful,” she said. “But that’s not necessarily true.”
There are currently three design alternatives on the table for the bridge’s replacement—a three-span, short steel-truss bridge, a three-span concrete bridge and a full-span steel-truss bridge. Though Caltrans initially offered only a three-year construction timeline, there is now a one-year possibility for each of the alternatives (though the faster option comes with a hitch of a total closure for two to three weeks in the summer).
All of the options would be larger than the existing structure, increase weight-bearing capacity and have larger shoulders and sidewalks for safety purposes.
Yet all of the design alternatives on the table entail using the front parking lot of the Point Reyes Animal Hospital as a staging area for construction. Owner Mary Whitney said doing so would threaten to run her out of business.
“Instead of replacing the bridge, we must ask Caltrans to consider a true seismic retrofit,” Ms. Whitney wrote in a letter to the editor last week. “The agency quickly dismissed the only retrofit option it proposed (which was a complete rebuild, rather than a seismic retrofit). A true seismic retrofit option, though promised to our community in a public meeting, has never been presented by Caltrans.”