centralavethomsoncomments present 2016-02-29 1521

7/24/2019 CentralAveThomsonComments Present 2016-02-29 1521

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/centralavethomsoncomments-present-2016-02-29-1521 1/18

Central Ave Complete Street

“Concept” Plans (Prepared using a $300k grant)

Our Concerns and SuggestioEugenie P. Thomson, P.E. and John A. Thomson, Jr., P.E

City Council Meeting February 29, 2016

For further info see Eugenie Thomson’s email to Council of February 23, 2016



Who we are

● Trained experienced seasoned professional Civil Engineers

● Lifetime careers in transportation

● Eugenie is also a licensed Traffic Engineer

● Avid Bicyclists

● Eugenie is Dutch○ Has researched Dutch bicycle, school and roundabout facilities

○ We both have visited the Netherlands numerous times, using bikes to get aro



Our Concerns

● Portions of concept not appropriate for School Children

● Not all users considered (Trucks & Buses)

● Ad Hoc application of latest ideas without reasoned engineering



City Reports: Central is Less Safe - True?

● We downloaded the collision data

● Staff Report: Central has more bicycle and ped injury accidents t

Alameda○ Comparison was to all 121 miles of City streets -> Very low citywide rates

○ Vast majority of those streets are quiet residential streets- (80% less than 50

● Standard of Care is to compare similar streets

● Repeat of Southwood/Gibbons and Clement Projects



APD: Bicyclists at fault 76% of Bike Accidents!

=> Education is N



Why To Not Approve the “Concept” Plan

1. Not the safest for school children

2. Will result in significant delay and diversion

3. Does not address commercial traffic

4. Does not address future development

5. Violates the standards in the Municipal Code (Ord. No. 3074)

6. Violates State minimum design criteria (narrow lane)

7. CA Vehicle Code issues have not been resolved

8. Standards for narrow lanes, etc. have Not been Adopted per Sta

procedures (CA Streets & Highway Code 891)



What are the concerns re School Children

● Gap in bicycle lanes between 8th and Webster

● Sharrows and bike boxes at intersections:○ Are NOT appropriate for school children

○ Should not be considered when nearby adjacent facilities are in place

○ Imply safety to the bicyclist when safety is not there



Recommendations re School Children Sa

● Recommendation:

○ Eliminate the Bike Boxes and Sharrows between McKay and

○ Implement the Bike Routes in the City’s Bike Plan on 9th, 3rd

○ Consider upgrading the existing Bike Route on Santa Clara w

to Bike Boulevard

○ Promote use of McKay as bike route

○ Leave Central as is McKay to Sherman



Concept Causes Delay and Diversion

● Reduction in lanes

● Very short 2 lane approaches at 8th and Webster intersections○ Much too short to operate as two lane approach

● Bicycle boxes will accentuate this delay

● Existing delay at 8th / Central is unacceptable

● Traffic would divert from this section of Central and Webster St.

● Traffic will increase on adjacent streets

Recommendation: Keep the existing roadway McKay to Sherman



Concept does not address future develop

● The Concept study relied on the future traffic model for the Alam

● That model produced unrealistically low traffic forecasts:○ One net car off island due to Alameda Point

○ No significant increases in congestion at the west end at all (including no im

○ AM Peak forecast in Posey Tube in 2035 is

■ Less than historical levels since the closing of the Navy Base (2681vph

■ Less than capacity of the tube (3600 vph)

● That model assumed 30mph operating speeds & 4 lanes on Cen

Recommendation: Maintain the existing roadway McKay to Sherman

Properly evaluate the diversion



Concept does not address Buses & Comm

● Central is a truck route

● Curb loading is unavoidable

● Mixing of truck and bicycle facilities is asking for trouble

● Truck turning movements have not been considered

● 10.2ft wide Buses & Trucks (incl mirrors) and 10 or 10.5ft lanes are

match (“AC Transit’s preferred lane width is 12 feet, although buses can operate safely in 11

● Trucks cannot stay in the 10 ft wide lanes around the west end b

Recommendations:

Keep the existing roadway between McKay and Sherman

Widen the proposed roadway west of 3rd



Concept violates Municipal Code & State

Feature Proposed Muni Code State M

Through Lane 10 & 10.5 ftNone (see State)

(AC 11 prefer 12 ft) 11 ft

Combined Parking & Class II Bike 7+5=12 ft 13 ft 5+8=13

Class II Bike Lane 5 5ft min

6ft preferred7ft high vol

Class II w/o Parking 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft

Cycle Track 10 ft 10 ft

12-14ft Bay Trail

8 + (2*2

Horizontal Clearance to Obstruction 3 ft 2 ft

Separation to street 2 ft 3 ft 3 ft



Recommended Concept

1. Implement the concept west of McKay with tweaks:a. Provide Bay Trail connectivityb. Provide good bike access to Encinal High

c. Improve access for middle school students to Wood School

d. Add crosswalks at McKay

e. Widen west of 3rd to safely accommodate trucks adjacent to bikes

2. Keep the existing roadway between Sherman and McKay

3. Implement the planned bike routes on the cross streets betweenand Central

4. Upgrade Santa Clara Bike Route to a Bike Boulevard



Our Recommendations

1. Follow required procedures to adopt standards for narrow lanes

891):a. Approval by a Qualified Engineer (i.e. a Professional Civil Engineer with bicycle desig

b. Hold a Public Hearing for adoption of alternative design criteria (for narrow lan

c. Formally Adopt the New Standards for the City, by resolution

2. Resolve the CVC compliance re narrower lanes and center turn l

3. Redo the concept for community input

centralavethomsoncomments present 2016-02-29 1521

Documents