Grand Street
Designing for Safety Improvements:
Shore Line to Clement
Community Workshop
May 31, 2023
1 Agenda
2 6:05 pm Welcome & Background - Jennifer Ott, City Manager 6:10 pm Presentation - Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building & Transportation Director & David Parisi, Parametrix
• Why Grand St is important
• Alternatives for full corridor
• Preliminary staff conclusions
6:30 pm Open House
• View and comment on alternatives
• Ask questions of multiple staff available
• Dialogue with others
8:00 pm Adjourn
Background
3 • November 2022 - Council approved street designs from Shore Line to Encinal as part of a re-paving project
• Constrained by curb-to-curb dimension
• Prior to Active Transportation Plan approval
• Staff committed to review entire corridor
• January 2023 - Staff retained new transportation consultant to review entire corridor • Direction to explore alternatives without budget and curb-to-curb constraints • Paid special attention to citywide importance of unique north-south connection • January – June 2023 - Staff and consultant study corridor alternatives and gather community input
• Staff considering recommendation of alternative design Corridor Study Goals - Updated
4 • Improve safety for all consistent with recently approved Active Transportation Plan and other policy goals
• People walking, bicycling and driving, and youth, seniors and those with disabilities • Design for the full length of Grand Street corridor from Shore Line to Clement • Conditions vary over corridor’s 20 blocks
• Consider the full width of the public right-of-way, including sidewalks • Not just the street from curb-to-curb
• Consider costs and funding
• Don’t lose the $827,000 in grant funds due to delays and balance costs & benefits • Consider phased construction over time
• Deliver project in phases (similar to Cross Alameda Trail implementation) • Recommendations to City Council on one or more phases in July 2023 • Important to move quickly to address safety concerns
Why is Grand Street important?
5 A critical connector:
• Northern to southern
waterfront
• Cross Alameda Trail to
Shore Line Dr, two major
east-west, low stress
bikeways
• One of only two
north/south streets
between Eighth St and
Park St
Shore Line Dr
Cross Alameda Trail
Grand Street
Important Link in Citywide Low Stress Network
6 Active Transportation Plan
A Key School Access Route
7 • Grand St travels
through the center of
Wood Middle School
enrollment area
(shown in green)
Wood
Middle
School
Map of AUSD middle school
enrollment areas
A High Injury Corridor
8 City of Alameda, Vision Zero
Action Plan
Countywide, Alameda CTC
Countywide Active Transportation
Plan
Region, MTC regional High Injury
Network
Bicycle High Injury Corridors
Map, Vision Zero Action Plan
Grand Street Today
9 • 2 Travel lanes (11’)
• 2 Parking lanes (8’)
• 2 Sidewalks (5-6’)
• 2 Standard unprotected bike lanes (5’)
• 2 Landscaping areas (6’)
• Street is 48’ wide (curb to curb)
Grand St Improvements: Three Segments
10 Current Plan: Parking Protected Bike Lanes
Segment A:
Shore Line to Otis
Segment B:
Otis to Encinal
Segment C:
Encinal to Clement
Grand Street
Encinal Ave
Clement Ave
Corridor Study Results:
4 Alternatives to Consider
Council-Approved Design (November 2022):
• Segment A: Shoreline to Otis:
• 2-way bikeway on east side next to Wood School
• Segment B: Otis to Encinal:
• 1-way parking/bollard-protected bikeways on each side of street • Segment C: Encinal to Clement: TBD with further study Alternative #1: 2-way bikeway for whole corridor (Shoreline to Clement) Alternative #2: 1-way raised bikeways on each side of street (Otis to Clement) Alternative #3: Enhanced raised 1-way bikeway (Otis to Clement) 11 Alternatives are similar in many ways
12 Council
Approved
Design
Alternative 1A l t e r n a t i v e 2A l t e r n a t i v e 3 2 travel lanes
Pedestrian improvements
Low stress, separated bike
lanes
Bikeway raised to sidewalk
level
Auto parking on both sides of
street, at the curbs
Curb to curb street width
narrowed
Council-Approved design for
Segment A: Shore Line to Otis
2-way bikeway
13 • Parking/bollard-protected, on east side of street, next to Wood School • Fully funded using $827,000 grant funding
• Can be ready for construction in 2024
• No alternatives developed for this segment
Council-Approved design for
Segment B: Otis to Encinal
1-way bikeways
14 • Bikeways on both sides of street, protected by parked cars or bollards • Parking for half blocks only, on each side of street (“chicane”) • Can be ready for construction in 2024
Council-Approved design for
Segment B: Otis to Encinal
1-way bikeways
15 Council-Approved design extended North
Segment C: Encinal to Clement
1-way bikeways
• More frequent driveways from Encinal to Clement, so more parking impacts • Up to 75% parking loss (as compared to Otis to Encinal at 60%) • If parking is on one side of street only, then less parking loss (50%) 16 Council-Approved design extended North
Segment C: Encinal to Clement
1-way bikeways
17 Alternative #1: Raised 2-way Bikeway
18 • Moves curb 11 ft. to create 2-way raised bikeway on east side of Grand • Street width curb to curb is reduced from 48’ to 37’ wide • Parking on both sides, at curb
Alternative #1: Raised 2-way Bikeway
19 Pros
• More separation between
bicyclists and cars
• Less striping and plastic bollards
• Parking at curbs
• Less parking loss (5% to 15%
total reduction)
Cons
• Intersections more complicated
and costly than 1-way bikeways
• More expensive than Council-
Approved design
Alternative #2: Raised 1-way Bikeways
20 • Moves curbs 6’ on both sides of street, for 1-way raised bikeway on each side of street
• Street is reduced from 48’ to 36’ wide
• Parking on both sides, at curbs
Alternative #2: Raised 1-way Bikeways
21 Pros
• More separation between bicyclists
and cars
• Intersection/driveway crossings more
intuitive than 2-way bikeway
• Less striping and plastic bollards
• Parking at curbs
• Less parking loss (10-30%) than
Council-Approved, but more than
Alternative #1
Cons
• Narrowest bikeways of all Alternatives
• Narrowest curb to curb width (for
cars)
• More expensive than Council-
Approved and Alternative #1
Alternative #3:
Enhanced Raised 1-way Bikeways
22 • Moves curb 5’ on each side of street (similar to Alternative #2) • Moves all utilities and replaces mature trees to allow for 1-way bikeways next to sidewalks • Parking on both sides, at curbs
• Street is reduced from 48’ to 38’ wide
Alternative #3:
Enhanced Raised 1-way Bikeways
23 Pros
• Most separation between bicyclists and
cars
• Intersection/driveway crossings more
intuitive than 2-way bikeway
• Parking at curbs
• Less parking loss (10-30%) than Council-
Approved, but more than Alternative #1
Cons
• Most expensive of all alternatives
• Takes longest to build
• Removes all mature trees, and replaces
with younger, smaller trees
Bikeway example: Orion St
Grand Street with
mature trees
Cost Comparison
24Costs estimates are total costs: construction, design, construction management, escalation, and contingencies.
Design Cost Estimate
Increase over
Council-Approved
design
Council-Approved Design
Segment A: Shore Line to Otis - Fully funded with grant $ 1,500,000 Segment B: Otis to Encinal $ 2,970,000
Segment C: Encinal to Clement $ 4,080,000
Total (Segments B+C) $ 7,050,000
Alternative #1: Raised 2-way bikeway
Segment B: Otis to Encinal $ 5,610,000 $ 2,640,000 Segment C: Encinal to Clement $ 7,720,000 $ 3,640,000 Total (Segments B+C) $ 13,330,000 $ 6,280,000 Alternative #2: Raised 1-way bikeways
Segment B: Otis to Encinal $ 6,880,000 $ 3,910,000 Segment C: Encinal to Clement $ 9,690,000 $ 5,610,000 Total (Segments B+C) $ 16,570,000 $ 9,520,000 Alternative #3: Enhanced raised 1-way bikeways
Total (Segments B+C) $ 24,370,000 $17,320,000
Parking Comparison
25 Ranges are estimates, and are primarily based on amount of red curb added at driveways, to be determined based on site conditions, best practices and safety.
Design Percent of Existing Parking
Removed
Council-Approved 60-70%
Alternative #1: Raised 2-way bikeway 5-15%
Alternative #2: Raised 1-way bikeways 10-30%
Alternative #3: Enhanced raised 1-way
bikeways
10-30%
Implementation Timing Comparison
26Timing based on estimates of availability of, and success in securing, grant funds.
Design Estimated Year to Begin Construction
Council-Approved Segments A and B in 2024
Segment C in 2026 (grant funds needed)
Alternative #1:
Raised 2-way bikeway
Segment A in 2024
Segment B in 2025 (if all local funds); in 2026-27 (if grant funds) Segment C by 2030 (grant funds needed)
Alternative #2:
Raised 1-way bikeways
Segment A in 2024
Segment B in 2025 (if all local funds); in 2026-27 (if grant funds) Segment C by 2030 (grant funds needed)
Alternative #3:
Enhanced raised 1-way
bikeways
Segment A in 2024
Segment B in 2028-29 (with grant funds)
Segment C by 2030 (grant funds needed)
Summary Comparison
27 Design Overview
Council-Approved • Parking/bollard-protected bikeways
• Least expensive
• Quickest to build of all three segments
• Most parking loss
Alternative #1:
Raised 2-way bikeway
• More separation between bicyclists and cars; 2-way bikeways less intuitive for all • Second least expensive
• Second fastest to build
• Least parking loss
Alternative #2:
Raised 1-way bikeways
• More separation between bicyclists and cars, but narrowest bikeways • Third least expensive
• Also second fastest to build
• More parking loss than Alternative #1, but less than Council-Approved.
Alternative #3:
Enhanced raised 1-way
bikeways
• Most separation between bicyclists and cars
• Most expensive
• Takes longest to build
• Most disruptive to neighborhood character
• Similar parking loss to Alternative #2 27
Preliminary Staff Conclusions
• Proceed with Council-Approved design for Segment A: Shore Line to Otis.
Construct in 2024.
• Consider recommending Alternative #1 instead of Council-Approved design, to create a continuous 2-way bikeway for the full corridor. • Drop Alternative #2. More expensive and not as good as Alternative #1, which is less costly and has less parking loss.
• Drop Alternative #3. Too expensive and too disruptive to neighborhood. 28 What do you think?
• Tell us during the Open House!
• Add your comments to posters, fill out comment form
• Staff is available to answer questions
• Participate in future meetings:
• Virtual Open House (same presentation) – June 13
• Transportation Commission Meeting – June 21
• City Council Meeting – July 18
• All workshop materials and recordings will be posted to project webpage:
www.alamedaca.gov/grand 29