Community Workshop. City of Richmond. January 25, 2011 SF Bay Trail Connection - Castro St to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge

Transcription

1 Community Workshop City of Richmond 1

2 City of Richmond Lead Agency BPAC Richmond Community ABAG Design and Process Funding Partner Caltrans Environmental; Process Review Design Process State and Federal Funding Disbursement Chevron Key Stakeholder Funding Partner BCDC Shoreline Permitting US Coast Guard Homeland Security (MTSA) TRAC Community Liaison Design Team (Consultant) Project Management Analysis and Design Alternatives Recommendations 2

3 1. Project Purpose & Need 2. Project Goals & Constraints 3. Alignment Alternatives Studied 4. Proposed Design & Assessment Criteria 3

4 4

5 NORTH 1 2 RICHMOND- SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE 3 4 5

6 6

7 7

8 9

9 Close a Bay Trail Gap to create safe, inviting, convenient access for bikes & pedestrians. Unsafe and Inconvenient Access where California Code Mandates Safe & Convenient Access Lack of Connection where Economic, Recreational & Transportation Development Plans call for a Connection Inadequate Bike and Walk Infrastructure (Senate & Assembly Bills Mandate Enhanced Bike and Walk Infrastructure, SB 375 and AB 32) 10

10 11

11 13

12 14

13 15

14 Primary: Close a Key Gap in the Bay Trail 1. Replace existing unsafe bicycle-only access on Highway 580 and provide for pedestrian access between Castro Street and the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza. Additional Goals and Objectives: 2. Safety 3. Encourage Bicycling and Walking 4. High Benefit to Cost Ratio 5. Create and Preserve Bay View Opportunities 6. Avoid Interim Solutions that do not Meet Project Goals 7. Facilitate Access to Trail Entry Points 16

15 17

16 RICHMOND- SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE NORTH 18

17 Project Study Area Looking North TOLL PLAZA NORTH 20

18 Project Study Area Looking North OFFICE HILL Steep Topography Narrow Streets Quiet Residential Area NORTH 22

19 Project Study Area Looking North Very Steep Street NORTH 23

20 Project Study Area Eastern Terminus Looking South NORTH 25

21 Project Study Area Looking South NORTH Parking? OFFICE HILL (Chevron) RETENTION POND 28

22 Project Study Area Looking South EPA FACILITY OFFICE HILL NORTH HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER RETENTION POND 31

23 Project Study Area Looking South NORTH OFFICE HILL 33

24 Project Study Area Looking South LONG WHARF NORTH TOLL PLAZA 36

25 Project Study Area Western Terminus - Looking South NORTH RICHMOND- SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE TOLL PLAZA 37

26 38

27 REFINERY FACILITIES CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY TWIC AREA CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY TWIC BOUNDARY OFFICE HILL SECURE AREA CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY OFFICE HILL MTSA BOUNDARY RESIDENTIAL AREA 40

28 HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER RETENTION POND OFFICE HILL RETENTION POND EPA FACILITY TWIC BOUNDARY OFFICE HILL MTSA BOUNDARY 41

29 B A B A 42

30 SECTION AA 44

31 Refinery Geometrics Constraints Envelope SECTION BB 45

32 RETAINING WALL 4 RETAINING WALL 3 PINCH POINT AROUND I-580 RETAINING WALL 2 OFFICE HILL TWIC BOUNDARY OFFICE HILL MTSA BOUNDARY 46

33 48

34 52

35 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Visual Quality of Existing Resources Vividnessis the visual power or memorabilityof landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns. Intactnessis the visual integrity of the natural and manbuilt landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings. Unityis the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape. 53

36 1. Viability, Security, Safety of Refinery Operations. 2. Operation, Safety, Maintenance of I-580 Corridor. 3. Residential Security, Privacy, Quiet, Views. 4. Topography, Roadways, Utilities, Sub-surface Conditions. 5. Biological, Visual Resources Cultural, Historical. 54

37 55

38 57

39 1. Goals + Constraints -> Design Criteria & Assessment Criteria Geometrics Width, slope, mode separation needed to meet goals 2d & 3d envelope studies (where is ok for constraints) Lighting, construction, structure 2. Develop Alternatives 3. Systematic Assessment Functionality & Safety Aesthetics Cost, Constructibility, Process Compatibility with Existing Uses Screening for basic acceptability criteria Scoring to identify best alternative 58

40 59

41 61

42 Fencing Both Sides 62

43 Fencing Enclosed 64

44 Fencing Typeof Mesh 65

45 Fencing Straight 69

46 Fencing Angled 71

47 Width & User Separation 78

48 Pull outs & Stopping points 84

49 Adjacent to Vehicular Traffic Along a Retaining Wall 85

50 Adjacent to Vehicular Traffic Along a Fence 86

51 Adjacent to Vehicular Traffic Buffer Zone between Trail and Traffic 87

52 Functionality & Safety Grades Gentle, Hills not too High Pull-outs for safety and enjoyment Good Visibility, no blind corners Curves are not too sharp Aesthetics Freeway does not dominate experience Existing Bay Views are protected Bay View Opportunities are provided for 97

53 Cost, Constructability, Process Construction Cost Maintainability Constructability Permitting Process Compatibility with Existing Uses Environment Security Impact on Refinery Operations Impact on Residential Areas Impact on Highway I

54 Finalize Assessment Criteria & Process Second Public Meeting to Evaluate Alternatives Prepare Project Study Report for Caltrans Review Environmental Process (CEQA and NEPA) 103