Title
Recommendation to Endorse a Preferred Design Concept for the Grand Street Safety Improvement Project for a continuous Two-Way Bikeway from Shore Line Drive to Clement Avenue
Body
To: Chair Soules and Members of the Transportation Commission
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes four design options for the construction of a low-stress bicycle facility and safety improvement on the Grand Street corridor from Shore Line Drive to Clement Avenue (Exhibit 1). Each design option improves the safety of the street for all users, including Wood School students walking and bicycling to school, seniors, people with disabilities, and local residents walking, driving, and bicycling on the street. The report presents staff’s recommended design option to construct an uninterrupted two-way bikeway from Shore Line Drive to Clement Avenue.
The purpose of bringing this item to the Transportation Commission is for the public and the Transportation Commission to review and comment on the four options and staff’s preferred design option. The Commission’s recommendations and the public comments will be made available to the City Council for their deliberations at the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council on July 18.
BACKGROUND
After public hearings before the Transportation Commission and City Council in Fall 2022, the City Council ultimately:
• Approved a concept plan to restripe Grand Street from Shore Line Drive to Otis Drive (referred to in this report as “Segment A” of Grand Street) with a two-way bicycle facility on the east side of the street adjacent to Wood School and Rittler Park. This concept was generally supported by the community and all of the Council members.
• Approved a design concept to restripe Grand Street from Otis Drive to Encinal (referred to as “Segment B”) with one-way separated bicycle lanes on each side of the street located between the curb and either parked cars or bollards. This action received less support than the action for Segment A. In November 2022, two of five council members voted in opposition to the plan.
• Highlighted the need for staff to start the planning and design process with the community for the remaining portion of Grand Street from Encinal Avenue to Clement Avenue (“Segment C”).
In December 2022, after meetings at the Transportation Commission and City Council, the Council-Approved the City of Alameda Active Transportation Plan, which identifies the Grand Street corridor from Shore Line Drive to Clement Avenue as a critical link in the City’s plan to create a citywide low-stress bicycle network, and calls for separated bike lanes to be constructed on the corridor.
Since the 2022 decisions, a team of City staff and consultants from Parametrix have studied how best to create a low-stress bikeway with pedestrian improvements along the entire Grand Street corridor from Shore Line Drive to Clement Avenue. The result of this work was four design options for community, Transportation Commission, and City Council consideration.
DISCUSSION
Critical Connector. Grand Street plays an important role in the citywide transportation system.
• North-South Connector. Grand Street is the only street between Eighth/Westline Street and Park Street in central Alameda that provides an uninterrupted connection between Alameda’s southern shoreline and Crown Beach to the northern shoreline and the Cross Alameda Trail. (The only other street that cuts through the lagoons is Willow Street, which is narrow and jogs at Otis Drive.)
• Wood Middle School Enrollment Area. Grand Street serves as the central spine running down the center of the Wood School enrollment area which covers central Alameda from Webster Street to Park Street and from the northern shoreline to the southern shoreline. Students walking and bicycling to Wood School must use Grand Street for at least some portion of their trip to school. Franklin Elementary School, Franklin Park, and St. Joseph’s School are all also within two blocks of Grand Street.
• Citywide Low-Stress Network. Grand Street is a critical link if the City is to create a citywide, safe, low-stress network for bicycling, as called for in the Active Transportation Plan.
Congestion Management. To better manage the limited capacity of the citywide roadways and parking supply, it is essential for Alameda create a low-stress network of streets that all community members feel is safe for them to use for those trips that can be done on foot or on a bicycle. Alameda’s population will continue to increase over the next 10 years, and Alameda must take all actions possible to make modes of transportation that take less space than a vehicle more attractive and safe. Every non-recreational trip that an Alameda resident makes on a city street on foot or on a bicycle alleviates congestion and reduces the need for a parking space at trip destinations, which helps those who rely on automobiles. National and local studies confirm that people are reluctant to walk or use a bicycle for a local trip if they feel that is will be stressful or dangerous to do so. Parents will drive their kids to school if they do not feel safe letting their kids walk or bicycle to school.
Safety. The Alameda Vision Zero Action Plan calls for the City to prioritize safety improvements on High Injury Corridors. Due to the number of documented automobile, bicyclist and pedestrian-involved crashes on Grand Street, it is identified as a High Injury Corridor by the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), and the City of Alameda Vision Zero Action Plan (further data provided in Exhibit 2). Furthermore, collisions on Grand Street disproportionately affect youth and elders: per state records from 2013-2022 for Grand Street from Shore Line to Clement, 39% of bicyclists injured in collisions were youth under age 18 (9 out of 23) and 86% of pedestrians injured or killed in collisions were elders age 65+ (6 out of 7, including one fatality). In addition to the collisions, automobile speeding on Grand Street has been and continues to be a documented problem. Vehicle speeds measured on Grand from Encinal to Shore Line routinely exceed the 25 miles per hour (mph) posted speed limit, with 32 mph as the 85th percentile speed.
Health. Studies show that children who walk or bike to school benefit from the exercise, including performing better on cognitive tests for hours after arriving at school. Making it safe for children to use active modes to school supports their success.
Four Options for Grand Street
The City staff/consultant team has developed four design options that could be applied to the entire corridor to improve bicycle, pedestrian and automobile safety and reduce speeding on Grand Street from Shore Line to Clement Avenue. All four options are described below, and they are illustrated in Exhibit 1. The options are referred to in this report as:
• Council-approved design, extended to the full corridor
• Alternative 1: Raised Two-Way Bikeway
• Alternative 2: Raised One-Way Bikeways
• Alternative 3: Enhanced Raised One-Way Bikeways
All four options have some common features:
• Segment A. All four options include the Council-approved design for a two-way bicycle facility in front of Wood School on the east side of Grand Street. This design is fully funded due in part to an $827,000 Caltrans grant. To avoid losing the grant funds, staff is working closely with Caltrans and Alameda Unified School District to ensure that the City is ready to request construction bids in fall of 2023 and begin construction in 2024.
• Low-Stress Bicycle Facilities. All four alternatives are designed to provide a low stress, safe bicycle facility for the entire corridor. The configuration of the bicycle facility differs in each option, but staff believes that all four options can be designed to provide a low-stress bicycle facility with a high level of safety that is a dramatic improvement over the level of safety and comfort provided in the current condition.
• Safer Pedestrian Crossings. All four alternatives are designed to provide much improved pedestrian safety at all intersections. In between intersections, all four options maintain the existing sidewalk width and location immediately in front of the private properties and homes. All options provide safer pedestrian crossings by updating the lane striping, reducing exposure in the intersections, installing high visibility crosswalks, adding red curbs to improve intersection visibility, and installing three Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) systems near school crossings: at the mid-block crossing for Wood Middle School and at the intersections with San Jose Avenue and San Antonio Avenue. Additional RRFBs can be considered at intersections north of Encinal Ave. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 also have shorter pedestrian crossing distances compared with the existing conditions and the Council-approved design.
• Automobile Travel Lanes. All four options provide two automobile travel lanes, similar to the current condition. The automobile capacity of the street is not reduced in any of the options.
Although the four options are the same for Segment A, for Segments B and C, the options differ in respect to the curb to curb dimension (width of street), the location and design of the bicycle facilities, the number and location of on-street public parking spaces, and the cost and time to construct each alternative.
Council-Approved Design
As shown in Exhibit 1, the Council-approved design, which was approved for Segment A and Segment B only, would include the two-way bikeway on Segment A, bus stop improvements and a flashing beacon and pedestrian island by Wood School.
For Segment B (Otis Drive to Encinal Avenue), this alternative would provide a one-way separated bikeway adjacent to the existing curb. The City evaluated extending the same design to Segment C. The major characteristics of this design are:
Curb to Curb Width. The existing curb to curb width is maintained at 48 feet. Existing curbs and gutters are not moved or reconstructed in this alternative.
Location and continuity of Bicycle Facilities. In this alternative, bicyclists traveling north on Grand Street past Wood School travel within a two-way bikeway past Wood School and Ritler Park until they get to Otis Drive. At Otis Drive the bikeway transitions to a one-way bikeway on each side of the street, using the protected intersection at Grand and Otis. Within the existing 48 foot space between the two curbs, a one-way 6.5-foot bicycle lane is provided on each side of the street adjacent to the curb. A 3-foot buffer is provided next to the bike lane. On one side of the street, parking is provided next to the buffer to protect bicyclists from moving vehicles. On the other side of the street, curb stops and plastic bollards are provided within the buffer to protect bicyclists from moving vehicles.
On-Street Parking. Since there is not enough room within the 48 foot right of way to include separated bikes lanes, buffers and parking on both sides of the street, one parking lane must be removed. To provide parking on both sides of the street, half of the remaining parking is placed on the east side of the street and half is placed on the west side of the street. Because of this distribution of parking, the travel lanes shift mid-block to accommodate the shift in parking location, resulting in more than half of the parking space being removed. This shift creates a “chicane”, a feature that can reduce automobile speeds and promote traffic calming.
This alternative results in the largest number of lost parking spaces. Along the corridor from Otis to Clement, approximately 70% of all the on-street parking would be lost (see Exhibit 3). Because the blocks get slightly shorter in the northern portion of the street (Segment C) and because there are more curb cuts, the parking loss is greater in Segment C than in Segment B, where the lots are large, the curb cuts are fewer, and residents have more off-street parking options. If parking for Segment C were limited to the east side of the street, eliminating the chicane, the parking loss would be approximately 50%.
Access for People with Disabilities. The design provides high visibility crosswalks with minimal cross slopes to facilitate usage by people with limited mobility or using wheelchairs, upgraded truncated domes/detectable warning surface at street corners to guide people with visual impairments, shorter pedestrian crossings to reduce exposure to motor vehicles, flashing beacons with accessible features at San Jose Avenue and at San Antonio Avenue, and designated accessible on-street parking spaces on Grand Street or on adjacent side streets (approximately one per block). Additional flashing beacons may be considered north of Encinal Ave. Where the designated accessible on-street parking spaces are located adjacent to the separated bikeway, a marked accessible path and curb ramp is provided to the sidewalk. At other locations, the designated accessible on-street parking spaces are located as close as possible to an accessible curb ramp.
Costs and Time. Because this option does not require extensive reconstruction of curbs and gutters, it is the least expensive of all the options. Because it is the least expensive, it is also the option that would be the fastest to implement for the entire corridor. Based on the current cost estimates, staff believes that construction on Segment A and Segment B could commence in 2024, and construction might be able to commence on Segment C in 2026, depending on the City’s success acquiring transportation grant funds (similar to the grant already received for Segment A).
Alternative 1: Raised Two-Way Bikeway
Alternative 1, the “Raised Two-Way Bikeway,” provides an alternative design which includes a raised two-way bikeway on the east side of the street between Otis Drive and Clement Avenue. The major characteristics of this design are:
Curb to Curb Width. Alternative 1 reduces the curb-to-curb dimension of Grand Street from Otis to Clement from 48 feet to 37 feet. The reduction occurs as the result of moving the curb on the east side of Grand Street 11 feet into the existing roadway, making it possible to construct a new raised two-way bikeway from Otis Drive to Clement Avenue on the east side of the street. Many residential streets in Alameda are 36 feet in width.
Location and continuity of Bicycle Facilities. In this alternative, bicyclists would have a continuous two-way bikeway for the entire length of Grand Street connecting the existing two-way bikeway along Shore Line Drive to the existing two-way bikeway on Clement Avenue (the Cross Alameda Trail). A two-way bikeway would allow people biking to carefully pass one another while riding in the same direction, and allow children to ride side-by-side on the way to school in the morning and when returning home in the afternoon.
As shown in Exhibit 1, the two-way bikeway between Otis Drive and Clement Avenue would be raised up to the height of the sidewalk providing curb separation and elevation change between parked cars at the new curb and gutter and the elevated two-way bikeway. The existing landscape strip and street trees would border the two-way bikeway on its inside edge.
Good intersection design is critical when designing a two-way bikeway to ensure that automobile drivers making turns onto a cross street are aware of bicyclists moving in both directions on the two-way bikeway. Similar considerations have been, or are being, addressed in the design of the Cross Alameda Trail two-way bikeway, the planned Central Avenue two-way bikeway between Pacific Avenue and Eighth Street, the planned two-way bikeway on the west side of Main Street, and the planned two-way bikeway on West Midway Avenue in Alameda Point. These examples have multiple intersections at signalized and non-signalized intersections. The cost estimates for this alternative include improvements to the signals to modify the phasing to provide a separate (i.e., third) phase for bikeway and sidewalk users. This will reduce conflicts for users compared to the other alternatives, but can add some delays to motorists.
On-Street Parking. This alternative results in the lowest number of lost parking spaces. Along the entire corridor, approximately 5% to 10% of all the on-street parking will be lost (Exhibit 3). The parking loss is the result of providing areas of red curb at driveways to ensure that automobile drivers making the turn into and out of driveways have good visibility of bicyclists in the two-way bikeway. In some cases adding a short area of red curb will reduce the amount of space for curbside parking between closely-spaced curb cuts. Parking would continue to be against the curb instead of “floating” next to a bikeway buffer as in the Council-Approved Plan.
Access for People with Disabilities: The design provides all the same improvements as the Council-approved design, but it has two additional advantages. Since there is no change to the curbs and parking lane on the west side of the street, on-street parking for people with disabilities can be designated on the west side of the street with minimal changes. On the east side of the street, disability parking could be added with modifications to the curb and two-way bikeway at the designated location. These modifications are easier to make with Alternative 1 than with the Council-approved design.
Costs and Time. Because Alternative 1 does require reconstruction of all the curbs and gutters on the east side of Grand Street from Otis Drive to Clement Avenue, it is a more expense option than the Council-Approved design. Based on the current cost estimates, staff believes that construction could commence on Segment A in 2024, and on Segment B in 2025 if local funds are identified. If local funds are not identified for Segment B, construction would be delayed until grant funds are secured, possibly in 2026 or 2027. Work might be able to commence on Segment C in 2028 or 2029, depending on the City’s success acquiring transportation grant funds (similar to the grant already received for Segment A.)
Alternative 2: Raised One-Way Bikeway
Alternative 2, “Raised One-Way Bikeway,” includes a raised one-way bikeway on both sides of the street from Otis Drive to Clement Avenue. Similar to the Council-approved concept, Segment A (Shore Line to Otis) includes the two-way bikeway, but at Otis Drive, bicyclists transition to a one-way bikeway on each side of the street. The major characteristics of this design are:
Curb to Curb Width. Alternative 2 reduces the curb to curb dimension of Grand Street from Otis Drive to Clement Avenue from 48 feet to 36 feet due to the relocation of each curb 6.5 feet into the street. Moving each curb creates space for a raised 5-foot bike lane and 1.5-foot buffer area between the new curb and the existing landscape strip on each side of the street.
Location and Continuity of Bicycle Facilities. In this alternative, bicyclists would transition between the two-way bikeway on the east side of the street in Segment A to the one-way raised bikeways on each side of the street from Otis Drive to Clement Avenue at the Otis Drive intersection. As shown in Exhibit 1, the one-way bikeways would be raised the height of the sidewalk providing curb separation and elevation change between parked cars at the new curb and the elevated one-way bikeway. The existing landscape strip and street trees would border the bikeway on its inside edge. The space for the bikeways, including buffer, is relatively narrow at 6.5 feet and bicyclists would need to be careful of passenger side doors opening when passing a parked car. It should also be noted that the bikeway would be crossing driveway aprons, which will result in bike lane that rises and falls as the bike lane crosses each driveway.
On-street Parking. This alternative results in approximately 10% to 30% of the existing on street parking being removed due to the need to provide areas of red curb at driveway locations to ensure that automobile drivers making the turn into and out of a driveway have good visibility of bicyclists in the bikeway (Exhibit 3). The amount of lost parking is double the amount lost in Alternative 1 simply because the bikeways are on both sides of the street instead of just the east side. Parking would continue to be against the curb instead of “floating” next to a bikeway buffer as in the Council-Approved Plan.
Access for People with Disabilities: The design provides all the same improvements as the Council-Approved design. Adding disabled parking on Grand Steret would be difficult given the narrow bikeway immediately adjacent to the curb and the narrower travel lanes.
Costs and Time. Because Alternative 2 requires reconstruction of all the curbs and gutters on both sides of the Grand Street from Otis to Clement Avenue, it is more expensive than Alternative 1 and the Council-Approved design. Based on the current cost estimates, staff believes that work on Segment A could commence in 2024, work could commence on Segment B in 2025 if local funds are identified. If local funds are not identified for Segment B, construction would be delayed until grant funds are secured, possibly in 2026 or 2027. Work might be able to commence on Segment C in 2028 or 2029, depending on the City’s success acquiring transportation grant funds (similar to the grant already received for Segment A).
Alternative 3: Enhanced Raised One-way Bikeway
This alternative improves upon Alternative 2 by moving the curb and the landscape strip into the street on both sides of the street. By doing so, it allows construction of new, more protected 6 foot one-way bikeways between the new landscape strip and the existing sidewalk. The major characteristics of this design are:
Curb to Curb Width. Alternative 3 reduces the curb to curb dimension of Grand Street from Otis to Clement from 48 feet to 38 feet from Otis Drive to Clement Ave.
Location and continuity of Bicycle Facilities. Similar to Alternative 2, in this alternative, bicyclists would transition between the two-way bikeway on the east side of the street in Segment A to the one-way raised bikeways on each side of the street from Otis to Clement at the Grand/Otis protected intersection.
This alternative provides much better separation of bicyclists from automobiles because the bikeway is separated from the parked cars by a curb and a landscape strip planted with new trees. Existing trees would need to be removed.
On-Street Parking. Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative results in approximately 10% to 30% of the existing on street parking being removed due to the need to provide areas of red curb at driveway locations to ensure that automobile drivers making the turn into a driveway have good visibility of bicyclists in the bikeway before making the turn into the driveway. Parking would continue to be against the curb instead of “floating” next to a bikeway buffer as in the Council-Approved Plan.
Access for People with Disabilities: The design provides all the same improvements as the Council-Approved design. To add disabled parking on Grand Street would be easier in this alternative.
Costs and Time. Because this option require reconstruction of all the curbs and gutters on both sides of Grand Street from Otis to Clement Avenue and relocation/replacement of all existing trees and utilities, it is significantly more expensive than any of the other alternatives. Since all of the mature street trees on Grand Street would need to be removed, this alternative is also the most disruptive to the character of Grand Street. Given its very high cost, this alternative will take the longest to build.
Community Engagement. On May 31, 2023, staff held a public workshop, with over 110 people in attendance, to present and hear input on the new alternatives. Residents living along the full corridor received a mailing about the workshop, and flyers were posted all along Grand Street and were available at City Hall and the three City libraries. All of the workshop maps, cross sections, and other materials, along with a recording of the presentation, were posted to the project web page (www.alamedaca.gov/grand <http://www.alamedaca.gov/grand>), and the presentation is attached as Exhibit 4. On June 7th, staff posted an online version of the comment form that was distributed at the workshop. In addition, an online virtual community workshop is planned for June 13th.
The full comments received at the May 31st workshop are attached as Exhibit 5, along with comments sent via email to staff in May and early June. The key comments staff have heard thus far through this community engagement period are shown below.
• General support for moving away from the Council-Approved design for Segments B and C, although some concerns that this change will slow down the overall project completion.
• Strong support for Alternative 1, but with some concerns about two-way bikeways and their safety.
• Support for Alternative 2, with some rating Alternative 1 and 2 roughly equal, but preferring Alternative 1 since it’s a bit less expensive.
• General agreement that Alternative 3 is too expensive and would take too long, and so should not move forward.
Staff will provide a summary of additional comments received after the publication of the Commission agenda, at the Commission meeting.
Recommendations:
Preferred Alternative. Staff recommends that the City Council designate Alternative 1: Raised Two-Way Bikeway as the preferred design concept for Grand Street. Staff recommends Alternative 1 for the following reasons:
a) Alternative 1 provides a continuous, uninterrupted two-way bikeway from the two-way bikeway along Shore Line Drive from West Alameda to Park Street, to the two-way bikeway planned and under construction for the Cross Alameda Trail from Alameda Point to the Miller-Sweeney Bridge. In combination with the other planned two-way bikeways in Alameda, Alternative 1 provides an excellent addition to a citywide low-stress bicycle network.
b) Alternative 1’s two-way bikeway on the east of Grand Street is a design for a bikeway that is well-suited to young people riding to middle school in groups. Alternative 1 allows for groups of kids to ride comfortably and avoids the need for middle schoolers on bikes to negotiate a transition from one-way bike lanes on each side of the street to a two-way bikeway on one side of the street at Otis Drive intersection. All the other alternatives require this transition.
c) With Alternative 1, only driveways on the east side of the street cross the bikeway. In all other options, all driveways on both sides of the street cross bikeways.
d) Alternative 1 is more expensive than the Council-Approved design, but it maintains more on-street parking than the Council-Approved design and therefore will have less of an impact on on-street parking availability for the residents of Grand Street and the adjacent neighbors on the side streets. Preserving more curb space also facilitates the growing number of delivery vehicles on our streets by reducing the likelihood that double parking will interrupt the orderly flow of traffic on this Neighborhood Collector.
e) Alternative 2 is significantly more expensive than Alternative 1 and does not serve as well as Alternative 1 on the three points raised above.
f) Alternative 3 is the most expensive and most disruptive alternative of the four. Staff cannot recommend removing all the mature trees and paying the costs to relocate all the utilities on both sides of Grand Street for Alternative 3, when Alternative 1 provides the advantages described above at significantly less cost.
Implementation. Staff recommends that the City Council proceed with Alternative 1 as follows (and as summarized on page 26 of Exhibit 4):
Segment A; Complete preparation of construction drawing for Segment A (Shore Line to Otis). Bid project in fall 2023. Return to City Council with construction contract in spring 2024. Begin construction in 2024.
Segment B: Complete preparation of construction drawings for Segment B (Otis to Encinal.) Bid project in spring 2024. Return to City Council with construction contract in 2024. Begin construction in 2025.
Segment C: Begin grant seeking grant funding for Segment C (Encinal to Clement). Prepare construction drawings when funds acquired. Begin construction by 2030, depending on grant funding.
ALTERNATIVES
The Transportation Commission may consider a range of alternatives to recommend to the City Council:
• Designate Alternative 1: two-way bikeway as the preferred design for Grand Street, which includes Segment A as approved by City Council in 2022, and as recommended by staff.
• Designate the Council-Approved concept or Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 as the preferred concept, which all include Segment A as approved by City Council in 2022.
• Maintain the existing configuration from Otis to Clement, and proceed with Segment A as approved by City Council in 2022. This alternative would not be consistent with the recently approved Active Transportation Plan or with General Plan policy.
• Request that staff conduct additional community outreach before making a final recommendation to City Council with a preferred concept. Given the deadleins for the use of the $827,000 Caltrans grant for Segment A, if City Council wishes to delay a decision on the preferred alternative, the Council should decide if the delay should also include Segment A or not.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Roadway resurfacing and safety improvements in Alameda are typically funded with funds from Measures BB, Alameda County’s transportation sales tax, which is administered by the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Additional funding for Grand Street is provided by a One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) program, administered by the MTC, which distributes federal transportation funding from the Federal Highway Administration to projects and programs throughout the Bay Area.
Funding for the various alternatives have not been secured and in all cases will include a combination of Measure BB funds and grant funding for street safety improvements. The initial costs estimates for each alternative to implement all three Segments (Shore Line to Clement) are provided below and shown in detail, for Segments B and C, on page 24 of Exhibit 4:
Council-Approved design: $8,550,000
Alternative 1: $14,830,000
Alternative 2: $17,070,000
Alternative 3: $25,870,000
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The recommended improvements to Grand Street are consistent with Alameda General Plan mobility goals, including:
• Equity: Provide for the mobility needs of all Alameda residents, workers, and visitors regardless of income, age, ability, or neighborhood.
• Safety: Eliminate fatalities and severe injuries on Alameda’s streets, sidewalks, crosswalks and trails by 2035.
• Choices: Expand and improve alternatives to low occupancy automobile trips to incentivize mode shift to more environmentally sustainable modes of transportation while recognizing the diverse needs for mobility.
• Sustainability: Reduce the impacts of transportation systems on the environment, and transition to a more resilient transportation system to address the impacts of climate change.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Grand Street project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) Existing Facilities (Minor alterations to existing facilities including bicycle facilities) and Section 15304(h) Minor Alterations to Land and the creation of bicycle lanes on existing public rights of way.
If the City Council wishes to pursue Alternative 3 which requires trenching to underground and relocate utilities, additional environmental review would be necessary.
CLIMATE IMPACT
Since vehicle miles traveled in Alameda is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Alameda, City staff is expecting that the proposed improvements to Grand Street would have a positive climate impact. The concept is being developed to make it safer and more convenient to ride a bicycle, use the bus and walk and to reduce congestion and idling motor vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
Endorse a preferred Design Concept for the Grand Street Safety Improvement Project for a continuous two-way bikeway from Shore Line Drive to Clement Avenue
Andrew Thomas, Director of Planning, Building and Transportation
Robert Vance, Public Works Deputy Director/City Engineer
Exhibits:
1. Grand Street Overview + Four Options: Cross Section, Rendering + Plan Views
2. Grand Street High Injury Corridor: Methodology and Data
3. Grand Street Parking Analysis: Otis to Clement
4. Presentation to Community Workshop, 5/31/23
5. Community Engagement Summary, Notes and Emails