Grand Street Improvements

July 19 Update

Good news! Staff’s recommendations for Grand Street Improvements and Allocation of Funds passed at last night’s City Council meeting by a vote of 4-1. Thanks to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, CM Vella, CM Jensen, and CM Daysog for the supportive votes. Thanks also to staff for all their work on this, and to those who spoke up or wrote in — it’s been a very long journey!

One highlight was public comment from late Supervisor Wilma Chan’s children, Jennifer and Darren, who said they did not want their mother’s tragic death at Shore Line and Grand to go in vain, and spoke powerfully in support of Vision Zero, the corridor improvements, and for additional enhancements for the intersection of Shore Line and Grand. You can hear them at 1:20:40 in this recording:

https://www.facebook.com/cityofalameda/videos/991819078519718/

As part of the approval of this item, Council directed staff to also look into rapid flashing beacons for the intersection of Shore Line and Grand.

More design refinements need to happen, but construction for Segment A will begin in 2024, and Segment B in 2025. Segment C will need grant funding, and will take longer, but per the Active Transportation Plan, by 2030.

Let’s go, Alameda!

July 12 Update

City Council will vote on Grand Street Improvements on Tuesday, July 18.
It will be Item 7-C. Meeting details and full agenda are here: https://legistar1.granicus.com/alameda/meetings/2023/7/5836_A_City_Council_23-07-18_Meeting_Agenda.pdf

Details on Item 7-C are here:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6281010&GUID=760B7AD7-1B7C-413B-AF74-C0CF60840D5D&FullText=1

How to make Public Comments and Join the Meeting

We support staff’s recommendations for Alternative 1, the continuous, separated two-way bikeway along the full corridor, and importantly, their funding proposal, which will get this critical and already-delayed project built expeditiously. Our climate and street safety emergencies are not waiting for us, and we feel it’s imperative to get key infrastructure that allows people to make greener and safer transportation choices built as quickly as possible. If you are able, please call in or write to voice support. You can reach all Members of the City Council using this address: CITYCOUNCIL-List@alamedaca.gov, and cc the clerk at: clerk@alamedaca.gov. Feel free to borrow any talking points from the letter we’ve sent to Council, here.

Thank you!

June 22 Update

At its June 21 meeting, the Transportation Commission voted unanimously in favor of staff’s recommendation of Alternative 1, the raised 2-way bikeway on the east side of the street, for Segments B and C. Here’s a photo-realistic rendering of that design, looking south:

They also supported staff’s recommendation to use local funds so construction for Segment B (Otis to Encinal) can begin in 2025. This still seems far away, but it’s years ahead of the grant-funded approach. For such an important street, and a high injury corridor, every day matters, so this is a welcome development. We’ll continue to push for ways to expedite delivery further.

In addition, the Commissioners noted that the facility should extend all the way north, to the estuary, not just to Clement, which staff acknowledged, and that sidewalks north of Clement be completed. They also recommended a public education campaign to familiarize all users with new infrastructure like 2-way bikeways and the roundabouts that will be coming soon.

You can watch a recording of the meeting here.

June 8 Update

Design Preferences

Our climate and traffic safety emergencies should inform a priority toward whatever can be implemented the soonest for this very important street. There are pros and cons to each design, but we prefer Alternative 1 for both Segments B and C, with conditions. Grand has been studied in detail by staff and multiple consultants, and we have to trust that whatever gets built will meet the highest standards for safety for all users. Given that, we support any of the designs or a combination of designs that can have construction for Segment B beginning in 2024.

A more in-depth explanation of our rationale follows. For screenshots of staff slides showing segments, different designs, etc., scroll further down this page.

****

Grand Street is one of Alameda’s most important streets: it’s a critical north-south connector; it’s a key link in our low stress network, which is important for safety and greenhouse gas emission reductions; it’s a key school access route; and it’s a High Injury Corridor per city, county, and regional metrics. We’re eager to see safety for all of its users improved as expeditiously as possible — every day counts.

For the segments being considered (B and C), our preferences are: Alternative 1 (the 2-way bikeway), for both Segments B and C, but only with conditions that would expedite implementation. Our close second preference, if those conditions cannot be met, is a mix: Alternative 1 for Segment C and the already-approved design (protected bike lanes), for Segment B. These options are shown here:

Because Segment C does not have the overabundance of parking that Segment B has, residents’ concern of losing 65% of street parking if the approved design were extended there seems more warranted. The expense of moving a curb as proposed in Alternative 1 could be justified for that segment since more people actually use the parking there. Assuming Alternative 1 is implemented for Segment C, and Segment A is already planned to be a 2-way bikeway, going with Alternative 1 for Segment B would offer a continuous 2-way bikeway along the east side of the whole corridor, and make for an elegant experience from Clement to Shore Line. Meaning, there would be no need for a southbound cyclist to cross the street twice as they go from a 2-way bikeway on Segment C to a 1-way parking-protected bike lane on Segment B, and then back to a 2-way bikeway on Segment A. This continuity, and the grade separation from cars, is what we think gives this option the edge over the other options.

Staff has confirmed that intersections will get extra safety enhancements such as raised crossings, and bike signals and phasing, easing our concerns about the safety of bicyclists at intersections where drivers may not be expecting cyclists coming from both directions.

We appreciate that Alternative 1 for both Segments B and C is staff’s favorite, too, and that it is politically the least challenging in that it removes a minimum of parking.

However, the additional cost, and related, the longer timeline of that option are really significant concerns. For Segment B, the expense of moving the curbs to accommodate parking is not very compelling, since there is plenty of parking. As compared to the approved design, it will cost our city an additional $2.6M (or about $34K per parking spot) and take at least a year longer in the best case scenario of Council approving with local funding, per staff’s current timeline. Those are significant considerations.

To support Alternative 1 in Segment B, we need implementation to be expedited. Ideally, it should begin construction on a timeframe more in line with the approved plan, which has already suffered a year’s delay. We’d like to see construction begin next year (2024). Some ideas to consider that could help expedite things:

Use local funds (ie, the General Fund) for Segment B, rather than grants. In our minds, this would be critical for several reasons. Local funding is less time-consuming than pursuing grants (as noted in staff’s presentation, a difference of two or more years), and has the added benefit of not taking safe streets grant money away from other neighborhoods in our city and region. Also, transportation funding grants increasingly have requirements around equity, which might be a challenge for well-resourced Segment B, and less of a challenge for Segment C.
We appreciate that Council must balance various priorities supported by local funds, and will respect their decision as to whether this is worth the extra cost. But if it won’t be funded locally, we cannot endorse this option — the delay is too great.
Streamline processes. Consider including contract awards and construction costs (with upper bounds that trigger review if hit) as part of the item that goes before Council when they vote to approve the concept. By eliminating the need to return multiple times to Council, staff and Council time will be saved, shortening overall timelines. There may be other process changes that could allow staff to execute more quickly on this as well as other projects, such as keeping a construction firm on retainer, much like we manage contract design firms.

If these things are not feasible, our preference would be for a mix of facility types: the approved plan for Segment B, and Alternative 1 for Segment C. This is a great solution that is much more affordable and has a more direct delivery timeline.

Additional Concerns and Asks

Segment A’s design has not changed at all, so we were disappointed to learn that that facility’s implementation has been delayed a full year. We would really like to see that expedited.
We prefer a 3-foot buffer wherever possible.
Paths that are separate from the roadway in Alameda (as is proposed for Alternative 1) have historically been poorly maintained. Our streets are regularly resurfaced through the repaving program, but our paths are not part of any such program. Tree roots break the surface and make them uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous. The paths in Harbor Bay and Marina Village are notorious examples, and we’d hate to see a Grand Street facility fall to the same fate. Fortunately, the need to create a regular maintenance schedule for these paths has been identified as a project in the Active Transportation Plan. However, there’s a growing backlog of delayed projects (Grand Street, Central, signal upgrades along the Cross Alameda Trail, the Clement section of the Cross Alameda Trail, the new access points for Jean Sweeney Park, upgrades to our slow streets/neighborhood greenways, commercial streets upgrades), and we’re concerned about building new infrastructure that will need special attention while this backup exists. So an indirect but related ask is for Council and the City Manager to identify the cause(s) of this backlog, whether insufficient staffing, funding, processes, or something else, and address it where possible. Delivering projects and programs on time, as scheduled, will be really important to building and maintaining a safe low stress network, and ultimately achieving our traffic safety and climate goals.

June 1 Update

On May 31, the city held an open house to explain their rationale for revisiting already-approved plans for Grand Street, and to share and get feedback on designs for the entire corridor. You can view the presentation recording on the City’s Facebook page, here. There was lots of information shared — below are key images and slides.

Segment boundaries:

Designs (not showing Alternative #3 because by staff’s own estimation, it’s not a serious proposal):

Parking removal comparison:

Implementation cost estimates, broken down by segment to mix and match (the whole corridor does not necessarily need to be the same treatment):

Implementation time estimates:

Their summary of pros and cons for each design:

We’re actively digesting all of this now. Stay tuned, and mark your calendars for the upcoming opportunities for engagement:

Virtual Open House: June 13, 6pm
Transportation Commission meeting: June 21, 6:30pm
Council meeting: July 18

May Update

While the Grand Street neighbors legal case continues, we understand it isn’t something that would preclude progress on this project.

However, in other significant news, staff *did* respond to a concern that the entire Grand Street corridor, which is critical to our low stress network, has not been designed yet, and further, that the approved design south of Encinal would be difficult to extend north of Encinal, where the neighborhood characteristics are very different. So staff has decided to step back and look at the whole Grand Street corridor, all the way to Clement. They feel that looking at it holistically might net us a more elegant solution overall.

We don’t yet know what will be recommended, and what it will mean in terms of project delivery timelines. Delay is a big concern, especially since we’ve been looking forward to enjoying the safety improvements that were approved for Grand between Shore Line and Encinal this year.

Over the next month, staff will be circulating corridor designs with the community to get feedback, starting Wednesday, May 31, 6pm at Mastick Senior Center — please engage where you can and share your thoughts!

January 2023 Update

In disappointing news, a group of Grand Street neighbors recently filed a lawsuit against the city, in an effort to stop the protected bike lanes that have been approved. They’re suing on procedural grounds, saying that one (of the three) City Council meetings where this plan was discussed wasn’t properly noticed. However, in reality, they’re suing because they want to preserve over-abundant on-street parking at all costs.

Read about it here:
Alameda NIMBY Sues to Preserve Parking

November 1 Update

Break out the champagne! Council voted 3-2 tonight in favor of staff’s recommendation of protected bike lanes for the full length of the project. Thank you Councilmember Knox White, Vice Mayor Vella, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, staff, and all of you who helped push this project over the finish line! Cheers!

October 19 Update

At the October 18 City Council meeting, Council voted to agendize the Grand Street item for the 11/1 meeting so new information could be discussed. If all goes as expected, staff’s recommendation will be approved, and protected bike lanes will extend along the entire corridor. This item is near the end of the agenda, as 7F, and because it’s so time-sensitive, we’re pushing for it to be moved up, so it’s sure to be heard on 11/1.

We’re hopeful and eager to spread the good news on that evening — stay tuned!

October 7 Update

Good news! Last night in her opening remarks at our Mayoral Candidates’ Forum, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft said that given information she’s received about chicanes that has satisfied her concerns around safety, she’s prepared to revisit staff’s recommendation (which was derailed at the 10/4 Council meeting). At the next council meeting (10/18), she will request that Council review this new information at its 11/1 meeting, where she fully expects to support the protected bike lanes the length of the project.

You can hear her comments about this in the video of the Mayoral Forum here.

We’re greatly relieved staff’s recommendation is back on the table and moving forward.

Thank you to everyone who continues to show up and let our electeds know how important this is for us.

October 5 Update

In very disappointing news, a Council majority (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, CM Tony Daysog, and CM Trish Herrera Spencer) voted against staff’s recommendation at the last Council meeting (recording here), and instead voted for a compromised plan that includes the latest revisions, but leaves most of the corridor with only regular, unprotected bike lanes. The revised plan includes:

Shore Line to Otis: 2-way cycle track along east side, and improvements as proposed in staff report
Otis to Encinal: Essentially repaving the existing layout with standard “door zone” bike lanes but adding green paint; pedestrian enhancements (flashing beacons and crosswalks); speed cushions

Unfortunately, the revised plan leaves a critical gap in the low-stress bike network just proposed in our newly-minted Active Transportation Plan. It’s a huge loss for safety, climate, and equitable mobility.

****

Project Background and History

As part of the repaving program, the City is re-envisioning Grand Street between Encinal and Shoreline. This street is a Tier-1 high-injury corridor:

It’s used by many kids getting to Wood Middle School, to soccer and little league games at Rittler Park, and to Franklin Elementary, Franklin Park, and Franklin Pool just a few blocks west. It’s also a key north-south connector, and as such, represents a huge opportunity to greatly improve Alameda’s network of safe, low-stress biking routes. Our current bike network critically lacks safe north or south connectivity, and because of the lagoons, there are no other mid-island opportunities beyond Grand.

Two Options

There were two options considered: one with mostly re-painted bike lanes between Encinal and Otis (not recommended by staff), and the other with separated, protected bike lanes (recommended by staff, unanimously supported by the Transportation Commission, and approved by the Commission on Persons with Disabilities).

Original (not recommended):

Updated/Recommended:

The recommended option is consistent with adopted city plans and policies which explicitly call for safer, low-stress treatments, and prioritize biking facilities over parking in our public rights of way:

Safety First: When designing streets, the safest treatments should be considered the default starting point and be degraded only if necessary after documenting rationale for the approach. (Policy ME-6, Action B.)
Space Priorities: When allocating public right-of-way space, the first consideration shall be for people walking, bicycling, and using transit. Space for on-street parking shall be the lower priority. (Policy ME-6, Action G.)
Low-Stress Bikeways: Provide separated bicycle lanes instead of unprotected, standard bicycle lanes, unless not feasible. (Policy ME-14, Action H.)

This is exactly the kind of self-enforcing infrastructure that will help us address our daunting safety and climate emergencies by making our streets safer for everyone while enabling more people, of all ages and abilities, to bike.

This upgrade faced opposition from neighbors, particularly around the parking issue, despite the overabundance of parking in the area. It was pointed out that even with the reduction, existing parking needs would continue to be met with staff’s recommended design. Most houses on Grand Street here have ample private driveways, too, that could be better leveraged for those with any extraordinary needs.

Staff addressed related concerns raised by neighbors, such as delivery vehicle management, an issue that tends to get more attention when protected bike lanes are being proposed because drivers will be physically unable to just (illegally) park in the bike lane, as they often do when there are unprotected, paint-only bike lanes.

Sadly, blocking the bike lane is rarely enforced and has become somewhat normalized, but it’s a big problem for people on bikes, because it forces them into car traffic where they are more exposed and especially at risk. Protecting bike lanes prevents this abuse, and forces thinking around solutions that don’t come at the expense of bicyclists’ safety.

Neighbors also expressed concerns about driveway maneuvers, particularly backing out. We suspect that the very generous 11-foot buffer zone will help, as will the improved daylighting. On sides with no parking, visibility will be excellent. Below is a diagram that shows how a driver might pull out using the buffer zone.

The planned traffic calming should make the maneuver even easier by reducing traffic speeds. Streets like High Street and Buena Vista have higher traffic volumes, and residents there manage with significantly less visibility and buffering than what’s proposed for Grand.

This configuration might even work better in that more bicyclists will be closer to the curb, and can be easily seen by drivers when pulling out. Additionally, it should improve the pedestrian experience as more bicyclists will choose to use the protected lane over the sidewalk, where many of them ride now, giving pedestrians more space and reducing sidewalk conflicts.

We suggested removing more parking to improve visibility further if issues around driveway maneuvers remained, as opposed to downgrading safe biking infrastructure. This would be in keeping with our City’s prioritization of safety over parking.

Further suggestions we proposed to the City:

More robust protection (concrete curb stops and more robust bollarding than shown in the visuals)
Solutions that prevent cars from entering the bike lanes at entry points, intentionally or not
A smooth surface across the width of the bike lanes (unlike the protected bike lane along Otis, which spans a gutter)
More bike lane protection for the segment between Otis and Shoreline, which is currently designated as buffered (paint-only)
Best-practice solutions that improve safety at intersections for all users, especially the most vulnerable

Council Approves Project, with Conditions

In June, City Council voted 3-2 to proceed with the project, but asked staff to return with further enhancements, namely:

Add more protection for bicyclists between Otis and Shore Line Drive
Ensure project is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities
Conduct a public safety review of the project
Add features for slowing speeds and improving pedestrian crossings, such as all-way stops, speed humps, reduced speed limits, electronic speed monitoring and feedback signs, and rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs).

Staff has now done this work (staff report here), and is returning to council at its October 4 meeting to present the upgrades. Here is a section of the two-way cycle track near Wood Middle School:

Staff will be recommending that Council approve the plan, and if all goes as expected, we should be riding safely along this stretch of Grand by this time next year!

For more details on the project, visit the City’s page, here.