San Francisco Bay Trail Castro Street to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge
Final Draft Engineering and Architectural Design Criteria and Analysis
February 2012
Prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation
and Steven Grover & Associates Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 2 1.2 PROJECT PARTNERS and STAKEHOLDERS ...... 3 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 4 2. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ...... 8 2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...... 8 2.2 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS...... 9 3. RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 11 3.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 11 3.2 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA...... 13 A. Width and User Separation ...... 13
B. Running Slopes...... 14
C. Cross Slopes ...... 15
D. Pullouts ...... 16
E. Pathway Surface ...... 16
F. Design Speed ...... 17
G. Horizontal Curves ...... 17
H. Railings and Fencing ...... 18
I. Sightlines ...... 19
J. Required Geometric Clearances ...... 28
K. Signage and Striping ...... 29
L. Gratings and Drainage ...... 30
M. Lighting...... 30
N. Emergency Call Boxes ...... 31
O. Access ...... 31
P. Graffiti ...... 31 Q. Theft and Vandalism ...... 31
R. Public Demonstrations ...... 32
S. Construction Access and Constructability ...... 32
T. Elevated Structures ...... 32
U. Landscaping ...... 35
4. PROJECT ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES ...... 37 4.1 SEGMENT 1 STUDY ALTERNATIVES ...... 37 A. At-Grade Alternatives ...... 41
B. Office Hill Alternatives ...... 41
C. Flyway Alternatives ...... 42
D. Parallel Route Alternative ...... 43
E. Hybrid Route Alternative...... 43
4.2 SEGMENT 2 STUDY ALTERNATIVES ...... 43 5. ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA & SCREENING PROCESS ...... 45 5.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ...... 45 5.2 SCEENING PROCESS...... 49 6. FEASIBLE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ...... 50 7. REFERENCES ...... 52 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Study Area Map ...... 4 Figure 2. City of Richmond Bicycle Facilities Map ...... 7 Figure 3. Example Photo of Blind Curve Adjacent to Retaining Wall ...... 19 Figure 4. Example Photo of 1-inch Fencing Mesh on Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge...... 20 Figure 5. Example Photo of 2-inch Fencing Mesh on Pedestrian Bridge ...... 20 Figure 6. Example Photo of Omega Steel Fencing Mesh ...... 21 Figure 7. Photo of Fencing on Jack London Square/Oakland and Emeryville Amtrak Station Bridges ...... 22 Figure 8. Photo of Fencing on Jack London Square/Oakland Amtrak Station Bridge ...... 23 Figure 9. Photo of Fencing on Emeryville Amtrak Station Bridge ...... 23 Figure 10. Photo of Blind Spot on Inside of Curved Pathway ...... 24 Figure 11. Photo of Blind Spots on Both Sides of Fencing Along Straight Pathway ...... 24 Figure 12. Diagram of Sightline Geometry for Curving Fenced-In Pathways...... 25 Figure 13. Range of Radius of Curvature for Optimal Safety and Visibility ...... 26 Figure 14. Alignment Alternatives Considered in 2001 Study ...... 38 Figure 15. Alignment Alternatives Retained for Current Study ...... 39 Figure 16. Currently Most Feasible Alignment Alternatives for Bay Trail Connection ...... 40
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Radius of Curvature ...... 17 Table 3-2: Stopping Distances for Various Speeds and Path Slopes ...... 19 Table 3-3: Approximate Angles of Incidence (E) Where View Through Fencing Becomes Obscured...... 20 Table 3-4: Static Blind Spots on Straight Fenced-in Pathways ...... 27 Table 5: Alignment Alternatives Assessment Criteria Ranking ...... 46 Table 6: Recommended Trail Alignment Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate...... 53 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report outlines the background, design philosophy, design criteria and analysis of alignment alternatives considered for an existing gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) between Castro Street in Point Richmond and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza, as shown on Figure 1. This study builds on information provided in a 2001 study, which previously examined several route alternatives for the same segment of Bay Trail, and provides updated site constraints and trail alignments for the proposed Bay Trail connection. The first sections of this report describe the design philosophy and the recommended design criteria for the proposed trail alignment. The primary trail design criteria, based on Caltrans Design Standards and Bay Trail Design Guidelines, define trail grades and widths, site distances, curve dimensions and design speeds.
The second portion of this report examines all of the potentially feasible trail routes considered throughout the study area, which includes numerous design constraints related to existing land uses and steep terrain. Potential trail routes that cross Chevron’s Long Wharf Facility and adjacent areas must accommodate enhanced security requirements imposed by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, and local and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials and fire safety. Potential trail routes are further constrained by the narrow Caltrans Freeway 580 Right-of-Way, which bisects Chevron’s Richmond Refinery facility, and includes steep hillsides and large retaining walls adjacent to refinery facilities and residential properties.
For purposes of discussion and analysis, the Bay Trail study gap has been divided into two segments, shown on Figures 14 through 16. Segment 1 begins at the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound Freeway 580 off-ramp and ends at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza. Segment 2 begins at the Castro Street Bus Terminal in Point Richmond and ends at the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound Freeway 580 off-ramp.
The recommended trail alignment shown on Figure 16 for Segment 1 will involve construction of two elevated trail structures primarily within Caltrans Right-of-Way, the first of which begins just west of Marine Street and climbs above the existing retaining walls along the south side of the freeway. The second elevated trail structure along Segment 1 will cross briefly through Chevron-owned property over Scofield Road and the Long Wharf facility ending in the Caltrans Right-of-Way on the freeway shoulder south of the Toll Plaza. The recommended trail alignment for Segment 2, also shown on Figure 16, will involve constructing a new barrier- separated path along the base of the existing retaining wall between the Castro Street Bus Terminal and Marine along the south shoulder of the existing freeway off-ramp.
The combined cost estimate for both trail segments, as shown on Table 6, is currently just under $20 million, which includes Right-of-Way Acquisitions, Caltrans Project Initiation Documents, Construction Documents and Construction Management.
1 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND Interstate Highway 580 (I-580) provides motorized vehicular access through the City of Richmond. Non-motorized transportation within Richmond is accommodated on city streets, bicycle lanes and sidewalks with regional non-motorized routes including the East Bay Greenway and the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail). These non-motorized routes and others are described in the City of Richmond Bicycle Mater Plan.1 The San Francisco Bay Trail Plan was adopted in 1989 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) with the goal of developing a 500-mile continuous trail network around the Bay shoreline with connections to local and regional trail systems for non-motorized modes of travel.
Non-motorized access along Western Drive to Point Molate was eliminated by the development of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and State Highway 17 in the 1950s. The current route for bicycle-only non-motorized access to the Point San Pablo Peninsula is along the shoulders of I- 580, which replaced State Highway 17 in the 1980s. These bicycle-only shoulder lanes, required by California Streets and Highways Code Section 888,2 are not considered part of the Bay Trail because there is no pedestrian access, and the shoulder bicycle lanes do not meet Caltrans and Bay Trail design guidelines for minimum width and user safety.3 Existing high retaining walls and narrow overcrossing structures along I-580 and adjacent refinery infrastructure preclude development of a Bay Trail connection within the existing freeway shoulder areas.
The San Francisco Bay Trail Castro Street to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Project will provide non-motorized public access facilities to the Point San Pablo Peninsula, and a planned Bay Trail route on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. A 2001 study4 of potential public access alignments was completed with input from the City of Richmond, Caltrans, Chevron, ABAG Bay Trail staff, State Lands Commission staff and other interested agencies. In addition to the no-build alternative, a total of seven alternatives were considered in the 2001 Study. Two of these Alternatives were considered infeasible at the time of the 2001 study due to safety, security, or right-of-way ownership concerns. The 2001 Study revealed that significant portions of the most likely route alternatives would include encroachment on Caltrans right-of-way along I-580 and adjacent lands owned by Chevron. The 2001 Study, with input from the stakeholders listed above, concluded that the preferred alignment would traverse north edge of the Chevron- owned Office Hill property above the existing Caltrans retaining walls and cross over Scofield Road south of I-580 with a new elevated structure touching down in the vicinity of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza.
1 City of Richmond Master Bicycle Plan, Fehr & Peers, October 2011 2 The department, shall not construct a state highway as a freeway that will result in the severance or destruction of an existing major route for non-motorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless it provides a reasonable, safe, and convenient alternate route or such a route exists. 3 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 4 Feasibility Study of Bay Trail Alternatives to Point San Pablo Peninsula, Questa Engineering Corporation, July 2001
2 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Enhanced security requirements imposed on the Chevron Refinery and Long Wharf facilities as a result of the September 2001 terrorist attacks precluded further consideration of the project. Renewed interest in a separate Bay Trail Class I path began in 2007, following a fatal bicycle/vehicle accident on the shoulder of I-580 in September of 2006. Representatives from the City of Richmond, Caltrans, Chevron and the Bay Trail met on several occasions during this time to re-assess the alternatives and the feasibility of a trail alignment under the new security requirements. The informal advisory group determined that an apparently feasible trail alignment was possible, however, no public hearings or further studies were completed.
In addition to the recommendation of the informal advisory group, Chevron's 2008 lease renewal of the Long Wharf included a Community Benefits Agreement, which provided a public easement through a portion of their refinery property for this segment of the Bay Trail.
Project study components must include a detailed review and evaluation of alternatives leading to identification of a recommended alignment and development and evaluation of engineering and architectural design criteria such as accessibility, geotechnical conditions, utilities and drainage, user safety, security and structural issues, and environmental criteria such as visual and aesthetic considerations.
This Engineering and Architectural Design Report examines the project Design Philosophy, the Alternatives Assessment Process & Criteria, and the Recommended Design Criteria that will guide decision making for the project alignment. Further evaluation of project alternatives is discussed in the separate Project Study Report (PSR).
1.2 PROJECT PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS x City of Richmond o Lead CEQA Agency o Richmond Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee o Richmond Community x California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) o Lead NEPA Agency o Environmental, Process Review o Design Process o State and Federal Funding Disbursement x Chevron o Key Stakeholder o Funding Partner x Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) o Design and Process o Funding Partner x Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) o Shoreline Permitting and Public Access x United States Coast Guard o Homeland Security (Maritime Transportation Security Act)
3 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge x Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC) o Community Liaison x Design Team (Consultant) o Project Management o Analysis and Design o Design Alternatives and Recommendations
Figure 1. Project Study Area Map
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED Interstate 580 has been a major transportation asset to the City of Richmond since development of the freeway in the 1980s, and the Chevron refinery has been one of the City of Richmond's largest employers throughout the City's history. Development of these facilities has had significant impacts on non-motorized access by essentially eliminating bicycle and pedestrian access to the Point San Pablo Peninsula and a planned Bay Trail route on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. A Bay Trail connection through this area is constrained by challenging existing land uses, security requirements, steep topography, major utilities and roadways, and refinery infrastructure.
The purpose of the Project is to provide safe, convenient, and inviting access for non-motorized users to the Point San Pablo Peninsula and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge by closing a gap in the Bay Trail between Castro Street in Point Richmond and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza, as shown on Figure 1. The project would correct an access deficiency in the state
4 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge transportation system, and facilitate zero-emissions commuting to and from the Point San Pablo Peninsula and eventually across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.5
The project would also enhance water-oriented recreational opportunities for residents and visitors by providing bicycle and pedestrian access to the bay shoreline along the Point San Pablo Peninsula. The project would compliment land use development throughout the Point San Pablo Peninsula by providing low-cost commute alternatives, and by connecting the peninsula with City of Richmond greenways, parks, and shoreline developments, and would conform with the Richmond General Plan’s Area Specific Guidelines for the West Shoreline. The General Plan states in the Open Space and Conservation Element, “Establish a public access trail from Point Richmond to Point San Pablo including a pedestrian trail from Keller Beach to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and a bicycling trail from I-580 along Western Drive to the tip of Point San Pablo.” As shown on Circulation Plan Map 2 of 2, the Bay Trail route to the San Pablo Peninsula is to run from the end of Tewksbury Avenue over the top of Chevron¹s Office Hill to the south side of the I-580 corridor near the toll plaza.
Project Purpose
The project would close a gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail and implement a key component of the City of Richmond non-motorized transportation network through the following actions:
x Provide a safer and more enjoyable alternative for bicyclists that will accommodate a wider range of users than the current bicycle access on the I-580 shoulders. x Provide a pedestrian connection to Point San Pablo Peninsula where there is currently no pedestrian access. x Improve access to the Point San Pablo Peninsula recreation areas, future businesses, and a planned San Francisco Bay Trail route across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
Project Need
The needs for the project can be obtained from the following deficiencies and mandates:
x State Law Requires Reasonable, Safe, and Convenient Bicycle Access. Bicycle access along the study section of I-580, a regional transportation artery, is required by California Streets and Highways Code Section 888. While bicycle access is currently provided along the freeway shoulders during daylight hours, it is neither convenient nor safe to use. In addition to limited signage and striping to direct and protect cyclists, visibility is limited because of the curved and sloped roadway, and further constrained by steep topography and retaining walls on both sides of the freeway. There is currently no protective barrier between vehicular traffic and bicyclists using the freeway shoulder route, and existing
5 Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Study, August 2007, Draft Project Study Report (Project Development Support) 04-CC/Mrn-580 (PM 6.1/7.8, 0.0/2.6)
5 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge shoulders are substandard,6 and must be shared by motorists and cyclists. A bicyclist was killed and another seriously injured while riding along the current freeway shoulder route in 2006.7 x Economic, Recreational, and Transportation Development: The proposed segment of Bay Trail is included in the City of Richmond’s General Plan, the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan of the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Regional Bicycle Plan of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Contra Costa’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The project is also included in the City of Richmond’s Draft Bicycle Master Plan.8 There is currently no pedestrian access to the Point San Pablo Peninsula and bicycle access is limited to only daylight hours via the current route along the shoulders of I-580. Planned and potential Priority Development Areas located in Central and North Richmond, Greenways on Ohio Avenue, other planned bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and expanded recreational facilities and land use development will increase demand for bicycle and pedestrian access to the Point San Pablo Peninsula. x Figure 2 shows existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes within the project vicinity based on the City’s Bicycle Master Plan.
x Mandates for Mode Shifting: State Senate Bill 375: "Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases," and Assembly Bill 32: "Global Warming Solutions Act"9 require enhanced bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to induce demand for these modes and away from greenhouse gas producing modes of transportation. The proposed project will assist the City of Richmond’s goal of achieving these goals.
6 Design Standard is minimum 5-foot wide left and 10-foot right paved shoulders for freeways with four lanes of travel per Table 302.1 in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 300. Existing freeway consists of up to 6 lanes of travel along sections of the proposed project area with shoulders averaging 4 feet on the left and as narrow as 6 feet width on the right. 7 Bike path along I-580 seen as "death trap" for cyclists, Contra Costa Times, October 22, 2006 8 City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, February 2011, Proposed Bicycle Route BT-10 9 AB32 Resolution 8-47, page 9: "be it further resolved that as input to the SB 375 target setting process, the RTAC should recommend a method to evaluate the full potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in each major region of the state, and statewide, using improved land use patterns, indirect source rules, enhanced bike, walk, and transit infrastructure..."
6 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Figure 2. City of Richmond Bicycle Facilities Map
7 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 2. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
Based on an understanding of the existing conditions and the Purpose and Need for the project presented in Section 1, the design philosophy for the project is based on the goals and objectives for the project, and identifies existing constraint information. The Recommended Design Criteria, described in Section 3, provide information on specific design requirements and considerations, including user safety, refinery security, at-grade and elevated structure geometry, landings, materials, visual appearance, drainage, and other considerations that create the framework for a detailed project design. Critical requirements for functionality, safety, aesthetics, cost, constructability, operations, maintenance, permitting, environmental process, and security among other issues are established by the Alignment Assessment Criteria described in Section 5.
2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the City and State transportation system by closing a gap in the Bay Trail, and implementing a key component of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan.
Primary Project Goal:
Close a Key Gap in the Bay Trail x Replace existing unsafe bicycle-only access on I-580 and provide for pedestrian access between Castro Street and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza. Objectives:
1. Safety x Meet or exceed Caltrans, ABAG Bay Trail, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design guidelines for multi-use pathway design. x Meet or exceed National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) safety standards for a public way in the vicinity of refinery facilities.
2. Encourage Bicycling and Walking x Design for an enjoyable user experience to encourage non-motorized travel. x Provide as much separate Class I Pathway10 as possible. x Design for 24-hour access (design to eliminate or reduce need for periodic closures due to Chevron operations, maintenance and security). x Design for the greatest range of users.
10 Caltrans defines Class I Pathway as a, “…a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross-flow by motorists minimized.”
8 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 3. Value x Estimate project costs and perform value engineering. x As a publicly funded project, benefits must be weighed in comparison to other bike/pedestrian projects competing for limited funding.
4. Create and Preserve Bay View Opportunities that comply with the following: x Caltrans and FHWA visual assessment requirements.11 x San Francisco Bay Trail Plan Trail Alignment Policy No. 4.12 x BCDC’s Public Access Design Guidelines.13
5. Avoid Implementing Interim Solutions that do not Meet Project Goals
6. Facilitate Access to Trail Entry Points x Provide Trailhead Parking x Provide Clear Wayfinding
2.2 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS Site specific constraints to be addressed in the project design include:
A. Viability, Security and Safety of Refinery Operations x Prevent unauthorized access into the refinery facility and MTSA-controlled areas.14 x Maintain unimpeded access to refinery facilities, utilities, and security perimeters. x Maintain safety and aesthetic buffer zones. x Maintain required separation from existing roadways, utilities, refinery tanks, and pipelines, etc. x Additional Design Considerations: o Utilities. Service trucks must be able to access existing utility poles, vaults, and overhead lines. o Security Perimeters.
11 Caltrans: “A Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) should be considered for every project that has the potential to change the 'visual' environment. FHWA: “The public nature and visual importance of our highways require that visual impacts - positive as well as negative - be adequately assessed and considered when a highway project is developed. Project visual impacts are seen both in the view from the road and the view of the road…" 12 “Provide a wide variety of views along the Bay and recognize exceptional landscapes..." 13 BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines Objective No. 3: Provide, Maintain and Enhance Visual Access to the Bay and Shoreline; Objective No. 4, Maintain and Enhance the Visual Quality of the Bay, Shoreline and Adjacent Developments; Objective No. 6, Take Advantage of the Bay Setting. 14 Unescorted access into Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA)-controlled areas requires a Transportation Worker’s Identification Credential (TWIC) issued by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is providing significant input to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regarding the impacts and processes involved in a future TWIC program.
9 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Chevron’s Office Hill property is an existing security and noise buffer between the refinery and the adjacent residential areas. The security fence around the Office Hill property must comply with the requirements of Federal Regulations under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, (33 CFR 105 MTSA). Any updates to Interim Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Rules15 may require additional security measures in the future. o Construction Safety. Escorts and observers will be required during construction within MTSA-controlled areas of the refinery. Chevron will perform a review of the safety record of the contractor. Temporary protection of Chevron pipelines and utilities may be necessary during construction. Some existing overhead utilities may need to be relocated. o Refinery Facilities. Relocating critical refinery facilities such as the main pipe rack immediately north of the freeway at the Scofield Road crossing are not currently feasible due to cost and disruption to refinery operations. Locating the pathway overcrossing structure foundations adjacent to the I-580 corridor is expected to have the least impact on refinery operations. o Required Geometric Clearances. See Section 4, Design Criteria, for additional details. B. Operation, Safety, and Maintenance of I-580 Corridor x Preserve maintenance access to roadways, ramps, and retaining walls. x Minimize encroachment into state right-of-way to preserve maximum flexibility for roadway geometry, and future facility planning. x Accommodate additional constraints identified during the Caltrans PSR process.
C. Residential Security, Privacy, Noise, and Views x Minimize impacts of trail user traffic in residential areas. x Minimize impacts of trail lighting, fencing, and parking on adjacent residential areas.
D. Topography, Roadways, Utilities, and Geotechnical Conditions x Minimize earthwork (cut & fill), and costly slope stabilization. x Minimize relocation of utilities, roadways, environmental monitoring facilities, and retaining walls. x Avoid areas with a high potential for soil liquefaction or landslides, where possible, and accordingly design trail structures in consideration of these geotechnical conditions.
15 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has released an interim final rule, effective June 8, 2007, that imposes comprehensive federal security regulations for high-risk chemical facilities.
10 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge E. Cultural, Biological, Historical, and Visual Resources x Minimize impacts on wetlands, wildlife habitat, mature vegetation, and possible historic or cultural resources. x Preserve vividness, unity, and intactness of visual context.
3. RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA
Developing a successful design involves translating the project goals and objectives into specific physical design criteria, which are the physical qualities identified as critical to meeting the project goals while working within the existing project constraints.
The assessment process and criteria used to screen and rank the design alternatives are presented in Section 5.
3.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA To meet the project goals, it is recommended that the following design criteria be formally adopted by the City of Richmond at the outset of the Caltrans project initiation phase.16 The recommended design criteria are provided on the following pages. Below is a summary of the key criteria:
A. Width and User Separation. A minimum clear width of 12 feet (8-foot wide paved path with 2-foot wide graded shoulders), wherever possible.17 A total clear width of 15 feet (10-foot paved path width for two-way bicycle traffic with a separate 5-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk) is recommended for improved user safety along enclosed sections of elevated trail and areas of trail enclosed on both sides by retaining walls or railings.
B. Running Slopes. Not to exceed a maximum 5% (1:20) running slope, and a maximum cross-slope of 2% (1:50) per the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Design Standards.18
C. Cross Slopes. Not to exceed a maximum cross slope of 2% (1:50) per ADA Design Standards.
D. Pullouts. Pullouts areas recommended for user safety on long inclines and where users will stop to view surroundings. Pullouts shall be located and designed to provide users with safe and desirable areas to rest clear of the traveled way.
16 The project initiation phase is the first formal project phase in developing a solution for a specific transportation problem. The project initiation phase is subsequent to the System and Regional Planning process. The outcome of the project initiation process is a project initiation document (PID) that establishes a well-defined purpose and need statement, proposed project scope tied to a reliable cost estimate and schedule. The use of State funds for capital improvements on the State Highway System (SHS) requires an approved PID. Any major work on the SHS regardless of how it is funded requires an approved PID. 17 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 18 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 2010
11 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge E. Surfaces. A smooth riding surface is important to all wheeled users, however, slip- resistant qualities must not be compromised.
F. Design Speed. Caltrans has established 25 mph as the minimum design speed for Class I bicycle paths and 30 mph for bicycle paths with long inclines greater than 4%.
G. Horizontal Curves. A minimum radius of curvature of 155-feet is required for a bicycle design speed of 25 mph,19 wherever possible. Minimum radius of curvature of greater than 175 feet is recommended along segments enclosed by fencing or walls for safety, visibility and sightlines.
H. Railings and Fencing. Elevated sections of bikeway require minimum 54-inch high guardrails adjacent to vertical drops greater than 30 inches. Security fencing should be placed as far as possible from edge of traveled way. Elevated sections of trail above high-security areas shall be fully enclosed to prevent thrown objects and to deter protest activities.
I. Sightlines. Provide fencing that is sufficiently transparent when viewed perpendicularly, from the freeway, the bay, and at acute angles from the pathway. Provide a 2-inch or larger mesh opening for fencing, wherever feasible for visibility. Within and near the fence-enclosed pathway, minimum direct visibility shall be 65 feet.
J. Geometric Clearance. Exceed clearance requirements from utilities, freeway structures, retaining walls, and refinery facilities, whenever possible.
K. Signage and Striping. Only skid-resistant pavement marking materials shall be specified. Signs shall adhere to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for content and location.
L. Gratings and Drainage. Gratings shall be avoided within the traveled way. If unavoidable, gratings shall be oriented with the long openings perpendicular to the path of travel in compliance with ADA design standards.20
M. Lighting. Light-emitting diode (LED) lighting21 directed on the traveled way from below eye-level shall be provided where lighting is needed. Preserve existing roadway lighting.
N. Emergency Call Boxes. Emergency call boxes should be located at midway pullouts along any enclosed trail segments greater than ¼-mile in length.
19 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Figure 1003-1C. 20 California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (CalDAG), page 182 21 LED lighting is currently the most efficient, longest lasting light source available for pathway lighting.
12 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge O. Access. Use of bollards to restrict unauthorized vehicle access shall be avoided. Alternative methods of restricting vehicle access should be used wherever possible.
P. Graffiti. Flat vertical surfaces and lighting, which enhances visibility of any flat surfaces, shall be avoided.
Q. Theft and Vandalism. Trail and elevated structures shall include features that reduce the risk of theft or vandalism of lighting and other appurtenances.
R. Public Demonstrations. Trail and elevated structures shall include enclosures and monitoring devices that inhibit public demonstrations, which may affect refinery operations or create a nuisance to passing motorists.
S. Construction and Constructability. Pier design, location, and spacing shall accommodate existing construction access constraints such as existing roadways and utilities, particularly within high-security areas. Lengths of pre-fabricated overcrossing structures shall be minimized for highway transport and constructability.
T. Elevated Structures. Elevated structures shall meet or exceed minimum deck, wind and seismic load design requirements as specified in the California Building Code.
U. Landscaping. Trees and landscaping along pathway shall not impede visibility, or require continuous maintenance. Replacement trees and shrubs shall be appropriate native species, wherever possible.
3.2 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA A. Width and User Separation Caltrans specifies a minimum traveled way width of 8 feet for segments of two-way bicycle paths with limited use, and a minimum preferred width of 12 feet, or more, for two-way paths where heavy bicycle volume and/or pedestrian use is anticipated. The Caltrans width criteria assume an open pathway with no guardrails and a minimum clear graded shoulder area of 2 feet on each side. The Caltrans minimum horizontal clearance from intermittent obstructions is 2 feet, with a preferred horizontal clearance of 3 feet. The minimum vertical clearance to obstructions across the clear width of the path shall be a 8.5 feet, and where practical, a vertical clearance of 10 feet is desirable. 22 The width of multi-use paths should be increased by the additional distance required for safe travel adjacent to walls, fencing or guardrails. The additional distance required for safe travel from continuous objects such as fences or walls may be reduced to a minimum of one foot. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual supports this criteria by stating, “If a wide path is paved
22 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Topic 1003
13 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g. block wall), a 4-inch white edge stripe, one foot from the fixed object, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist hitting it.” Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail Design Guidelines recommend that new segments of Bay Trail meet Caltrans Class I bikeway standards of a minimum 10-foot wide paved path with 2-foot wide shoulders. The proposed trail is intended to serve both bicyclists and pedestrians in confined settings and should therefore provide the additional width needed to separate bicycle and pedestrian users for improved safety, wherever possible. The use of permanent, aesthetically-pleasing striping, or pavement coloring is also recommended for portions of path along this project where bicycle and pedestrian conflicts are anticipated. Criteria for Width and User Separation
A-1 A clear width of 14 feet to accommodate a minimum 10-foot wide paved path with 2- foot wide shoulders, wherever possible.23 Mode separation between bicycles and pedestrians in the form of pavement striping or coloring is recommended where there is a wall, fencing, or obstructions such as large trees on both sides of the pathway, and/or grades exceeding 3% for continuous runs greater than 400 feet in length.
A-2 Where bicycle and pedestrian separation is warranted, the minimum recommended width of the traveled way is 15 feet consisting of a 5-foot wide sidewalk and two 4-foot wide bicycle lanes with minimum 1-foot wide continuously paved shoulders.
A-3 Pathway shoulders shall be delineated with 4-inch wide continuous white edge stripes. For mode separated segments, bicycle and pedestrian lanes may be delineated by pavement markings and separated by a 4-inch wide continuous yellow stripes.24
B. Running Slopes Steep inclines create difficulties for children, seniors, and other users, and may lead to additional costs and functional disadvantages for non-wheelchair users associated with ADA required features on running slopes greater than 5% (1:20), such as the potential hazard created for fast moving bicycles over closely spaced flat landings. The Access Board Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (AGODA) allows for running slope grades of up to 5% for any length, and grades up to 10% (1:10) for limited lengths. No more than 30% of the overall length of a pathway may exceed a running slope grade of 8.33% (1:12).25 However, these guidelines for making trails accessible do not necessarily consider best practices for bicycles.26 ADA railings, curbs and landings imposed when running slopes exceed 5% are not recommended bicyclist safety, especially if they occur in limited sections
23 ABAG, Bay Trail Design Guidelines 24 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, CA Supplement (CAMUTCD), Part 9 25 AGODA Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (AGODA), Sec. 1017 26 AGODA draft guidelines acknowledge that shared-use trails need further evaluation and higher design standards may be required for shared-use trails.
14 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge of an otherwise unencumbered trail. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines recommend that the length of inclined segments should be kept to a minimum.27 The ABAG Bay Trail Design Guidelines recommend maximum running slope grades of 5%.28
Caltrans Bikeway Design Guidelines recommend maximum running slope grades of 5% and prefer grades no steeper than 2% on sustained inclines, to accommodate a wide range of riders. Where short segments of steeper running slopes are unavoidable, Caltrans guidelines recommend increased pathway width and curve radius for improved safety. Criteria for Running Slopes
B-1 Grades of 5% (1:20) or less shall be used for any inclines longer than 200 feet.
B-2 Landings at least 60 inches in length, with grades of less than 2% (1:50) in all directions, shall be provided a minimum of every 400 feet on continuous inclined segments longer than 400 feet.
B-3 Grades of 5%, or less, shall be used on elevated pathway segments and areas enclosed by fencing, railings, or retaining walls.
B-4 Grades exceeding 5% are not recommended and should only be considered where no other alternatives exist.
B-5 No inclines shall exceed a grade of 8.33% (1:12). Running slopes greater than 5% and less than 8.33% shall not exceed 200 feet in length with flat landings at least 60 inches in length provided at each end. Adjacent segments shall have running slope grades of 5% or less.
C. Cross Slopes Pathway cross slopes required for effective pavement drainage shall not exceed 2% (1:50) for pedestrian and wheelchair user safety per Caltrans and ADA Design Standards. Pathway cross slopes (super elevations) of up to 5% (1:20) may assist bicyclists and other faster moving wheeled users on curves, but are not recommended on multi-use paths.
Criteria for Cross-slopes
C-1 Drainage cross slopes shall not exceed 2% (1:50) on all paved surfaces. Cross slopes shall be uniform, wherever possible. Cross-sloping in one direction is recommended instead of crowning.
C-2 Cross slopes greater than 2% shall be considered as super elevations only at critical curves and only where an adjacent separate pedestrian facility with cross slope of less than 2% is provided.
27 AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, p. 39 28 ABAG, Bay Trail Design Guidelines
15 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge D. Pullouts Alignment alternatives under consideration include inclined path segments greater than 400 feet in length. To reduce the potential conflicts between users traveling at different speeds, resting or stopping points (pullouts) along the traveled way are recommended. Pullouts can be located where flat landings are required by running slope limitations and can be combined with viewing opportunities. Pullouts will provide locations where pedestrians, wheelchair users, or slower bicyclists can remain clear of the traveled way along sections where cyclists are likely to maintain higher speeds.
Criteria for Pull Outs
D-1 Pullouts shall be provided for the safety of users where the pathway is inclined and has a fence, railing, or retaining wall on both sides and is less than 15 feet wide.
D-2 Pullouts or rest areas shall be provided at maximum 500-foot spacings along straight segments or inclined areas where bicyclists are likely to maintain speeds in excess of 15 mph.
D-3 Pullouts shall be located and designed to provide users with safe and desirable areas to rest clear of the traveled way, and where users will naturally stop to view surroundings.
D-4 Pullout viewing spots should be combined with flat landings where possible.
E. Pathway Surface A smooth paved surface is required for all wheeled users, however, slip-resistant qualities must not be compromised. Pavement coloring or varying surface textures is recommended to delineate slow and fast moving areas along mode-separated pathways.
Criteria for Surfaces
E-1 Pathway surface shall consist of smooth asphalt or concrete. Concrete surfaces shall have a light sponge or broom finish for slip-resistance. Coarse concrete surfaces may create hazards for in-line skaters and other small-wheeled users and are not recommended.
E-2 Shoulder backing is recommended at all pavement edges to prevent damage along embankments and to eliminate vertical edges.
E-3 Expansion and construction joints and drainage features in the traveled way shall meet ADA requirements for changes in elevation and gaps and shall be safe for all wheeled users.29
29 US Department of Transportation, Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Chapter 4.
16 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge E-4 Speed bumps, bump strips, and other pavement modifications intended to warn, slow, or calm traffic have been shown to be unsafe for multi-use trails, and shall be avoided.30
F. Design Speed According to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, “The proper design speed for a bike path is dependent on the expected type of use and on the terrain. The minimum design speed for bike paths shall be 25 mph except as noted in Table 1003.1. Installation of “speed bumps” or other similar surface obstructions, intended to cause bicyclists to slow down in advance of intersections or other geometric constraints, shall not be used. These devices cannot compensate for improper design.”
Similarly, posted speed limits (e.g., Maximum 15 mph) should not be relied upon to slow cyclists, and should not take the place of designing the pathway to meet the requirements of the appropriate minimum design speed.
Criteria for Design Speed
F-1 Caltrans design standards specify a minimum design speed of 25 mph for Class I bicycle paths, and a minimum of 30 mph for bicycle paths with inclines steeper than 4% and greater than 500 feet in length. G. Horizontal Curves Caltrans bikeway design criteria establish a minimum radius of curvature for assumed coefficients of frictions and design speeds as follows: Table 3-1: Radius of Curvature Design Speed Minimum Radius of Curvature31 15 mph 46 feet 20 mph 89 feet 25 mph 155 feet 30 mph 261 feet
Criteria for Curves
G-1 Caltrans requires a minimum radius of curvature of 155 feet wherever possible for Class I pathways. Curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings should be installed when a radius of curvature smaller than shown in Figure 1003.1C is used because of right of way, topographical or other considerations. The negative effects of nonstandard curves can also be partially offset by widening the pavement through the curves.
30 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Topic 1003.1(7) 31 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Figure 1003.1C
17 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Note: For bikeway design speeds in excess of 25 mph, a radius of curvature of less than 155 feet will require a Caltrans design exception. H. Railings and Fencing Four railing and fencing conditions have been identified for the proposed paved pathway: x Open pathway with railings or fencing more than 10 feet from both sides x Pathway with railings or fencing adjacent to one side x Pathway enclosed by fencing or retaining walls on both sides x Fully-enclosed pathway structures with fencing on both sides and overhead
Railing and fencing requirements differ according to the height of the pathway above ground on elevated structures and the proximity of the pathway to roadways, refinery operations areas, retaining walls and steep embankments. Caltrans requires protective fencing on portions of pedestrian structures or pathways directly adjacent to roadways.32 The typical chain link fencing (Type 7) for separation of pathways from roadways extends vertically a minimum of 8’-0” above the pathway. Caltrans specifies chain link fencing (Type 3) of at least 8’-3” high and extending 3 feet inward at the top to prevent objects from being thrown onto the roadway below.33 Segments of new pathway will require security fencing to prevent unauthorized access to refinery areas, and must be fully-enclosed to prevent thrown or dropped objects where new pathway structures pass over refinery areas.
Criteria for Railings and Fencing
H-1 Railings shall be designed according to Caltrans Memo to Bridge Designers,34 the California Building Code, AASHTO, and ADA design standards.
H-2 Fencing to prevent unauthorized access and thrown objects shall be installed along sections of new trail adjacent to highway and refinery areas and shall be approved by Caltrans, USCG and the refinery operator.
H-3 Where railings and fencing are necessary on both sides, width of pathway shall be maximized, and fencing shall be placed as far from edge of path as possible.
H-4 Transparency of fencing mesh shall be maximized when viewed perpendicularly and at acute angles from the pathway.
32 Caltrans Highway Design Manual 2010, page 200-38 33 Caltrans Highway Design Manual 2010, page 200-43 34 Caltrans Memo to Bridge Designers, section 13-1; CalDAG, page 173; 1994 Uniform Building Code, section 509.2
18 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge I. Sightlines The pathway should be designed for maximum visibility to ensure the safety of all trail users. Caltrans bikeway guidelines provide sightline stopping distances as follows:
Table 3-2: Stopping Distances for Various Speeds and Path Slopes35 Slope Design speed Required stopping distance 5% downgrade 30 mph 260 feet flat (0%) 25 mph 176 feet 5% upgrade 20 mph 118 feet
The Federal Highway Administration publication Bicycling and Walking in the Nineties and Beyond gives significantly shorter bicycle stopping sight distance guidelines of 65 feet for flat grades and 131 feet for inclines. Caltrans design guidelines specify that both ascending and descending sight stopping distances should be considered where objects at the inside of curves (such as vegetation or retaining walls) may completely block sightlines and will significantly reduce sight stopping distances (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3. Example Photo of Blind Curve Adjacent to Retaining Wall Stevens Creek Multi-Use Pathway, Sunnyvale, CA Sightlines and Fencing Materials Fencing required where the pathway is immediately adjacent to the highway or refinery facilities will create an enclosed corridor that reduces sightlines and increases the potential for trail conflicts or collisions, and the risk of crime (see Figures 4 through 9).
35 Derived from Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Figure 1003.1D
19 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Looking down a straight fenced pathway, the angle of the path user’s sightline with the fence surface becomes increasingly acute as the distance from the viewer increases. When the angle of incidence becomes sufficiently acute, the view through the fencing becomes completely obscured, creating a tunnel effect. The angle where visual obstruction through a mesh surface occurs is known as the Beta angle (E) and is shown for various types of fencing in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Approximate Angles of Incidence (E) Where View Through Fencing Becomes Obscured Type of fencing material Construction Beta (E) 2-inch chain link 0.125” wire @ 2” O.C. 6° 1-inch chain link 0.125” wire @ 1” O.C. 20° Omega Architectural36 0.192” wire @ 2” O.C. 7° Steel picket fence 0.750” tube @ 4” O.C. 11°
Figure 4. Example Photo of 1-inch Fencing Mesh on Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge
Figure 5. Example Photo of 2-inch Fencing Mesh on Pedestrian Bridge
36 OMEGA ARCHITECTURAL Steel Mesh Fence Panels using 6 gage - 0.192" (4.9 mm) pre-galvanized steel wire, welded at each crossing to form rectangles of 2”x 6” (50 mm x 150 mm). www.omegafence.com
20 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Figure 6. Example Photo of Omega Steel Fencing Mesh Atlanta, GA (courtesy of Omega Co.)
21 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Figure 7. Photo of Fencing on Jack London Square/Oakland and Emeryville Amtrak Station Bridges (appears transparent when viewed from a distance at a perpendicular angle)
22 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Figure 8. Photo of Fencing on Jack London Square/Oakland Amtrak Station Bridge (remains transparent for users)
Figure 9. Photo of Fencing on Emeryville Amtrak Station Bridge (appears opaque for users)
23 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge A path user travelling along a curved, fenced-enclosed pathway, cannot see through to points beyond the curve as shown in Figure 10. However, as the angle of viewing incidence through the fencing increases, visibility of the traveled path is regained. The distance between where a user cannot see through the fencing materials and where visibility of the traveled path is regained is defined as the length of the blind area (Lb).
Figure 10. Photo of Blind Spot on Inside of Curved Pathway (blind spot appears smaller and only on inside of curved pathway, allowing views through fencing along the outside of curve, Multi-Use Bridge, Burlingame, CA)
Figure 11. Photo of Blind Spots on Both Sides of Fencing Along Straight Pathway (blind spots appear longer on both sides of fencing along straight pathway, Multi-Use Bridge, Burlingame, CA)
24 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Figure 12. Diagram of Sightline Geometry for Curving Fenced-In Pathways
A typical design condition is a bicyclist (viewer) riding three feet from the inside of a curve (d=3’) along a highly transparent fencing material (E=7°). To avoid hitting an obstacle or a stopped user ahead on the d=3’ path of travel, visibility must be adequate, both directly and through the fencing. In this situation, a curve with a radius of less than 100 feet will result in a moving blind spot of approximately only five feet long. However, due to the tightness of the curve, the rider will have less than 50 feet to stop if the obstruction in the path of travel is not visible through the fencing ahead of the blind spot, which translates to a safe travel speed of 9 mph or less. Based on stopping distance requirements, a 65-foot direct visibility minimum stopping distance, Ldv, as shown on Figure 12, is required, which translates to a minimum radius of curvature of 175 feet where fencing is used along the pathway. With a radius of curvature greater than approximately 300 feet, the length of the blind spot, L, becomes longer than 25 feet and the sense of openness of the overcrossing becomes compromised. Therefore, with fencing materials for which E=7°, a radius of curvature in the 175 to 300 foot range results in optimal visibility conditions (Figure 13). Note that for curved pathways, sight distances and blind areas can be significantly improved by altering the configuration of the fencing itself.
25 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pathway cross-section configurations which increase the effective length of “d” by placing or curving the inside fencing away from the edge of the traveled pathway are encouraged. Greater direct visibility may actually reduce overall visibility. At radii of curvature greater than 1,000’, direct visibility is available for over 155 feet, which meets the Caltrans criteria for 25 mph sight stopping distances. However, straight paths and radii of curvature over 1,000 feet actually result in significantly less visibility of the traveled way beyond this directly visible area and create less openness. Another design condition would be a trail user (viewer) on a straight path 5 feet from the fencing (d=5’) with a low ɴ (ɴ=7°) where visibility through the fencing occurs for approximately 40 feet. In this case, even if the traveled way alignment is straight with apparently transparent fencing materials, most of the approximately 250 feet of the pathway will appear as a tunnel to the user. The negative impact of this tunnel effect must be weighed against the need to provide adequate direct visibility.
Figure 13. Range of Radius of Curvature for Optimal Safety and Visibility (175 - 300 feet)
26 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Fencing materials with ɴ values greater than 7° are undesirable for any condition because, although they may have high transparency when viewed perpendicularly, the tunnel effect is significantly more pronounced. Fenced pathways with a turn at the end create a static rather than a moving blind spot. This type of blind spot can be visualized as appearing just around the corner at the end of the “tunnel”, and should be avoided to prevent the increased crime and safety concerns generated by such a hidden spot. As indicated in the figure below, the size of this static blind spot does not decrease significantly until a user actually reaches the turn.
Table 3-4: Static Blind Spots on Straight Fenced-in Pathways Distance from 50’ radius turn (on straight pathway) Length of blind spot (ß=7ȗ) 250’ 60’ 100’ 31’ 50’ 26’
Criteria for Sightlines
I-1 Pathway geometry should be designed to achieve maximum visibility between users. Sightlines on downgrades: I-2 Bicyclists shall be able to see others within 200 feet on downgrades, including users occupying any pullout or touchdown area. Note: To achieve the intent of this recommendation, consideration should be given to selection, location and maintenance of trees and shrubs. Sightlines adjacent to retaining walls: I-3 Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height along inside curves should be avoided, and where required, should be placed as far from edge of pathway as possible to maintain visibility between users. Sightlines on segments with fencing: I-4 Minimum direct visibility should be 65 feet within and near fencing enclosures. I-5 The radius of fencing should be between 175 to 300 feet along inside of curves. I-6 Wherever possible, move fencing away from the traveled way, and use fencing configurations that accommodate greater visibility (e.g. fencing that angles outward.) I-7 A 2" or larger mesh fencing with an angle of incidence angle (ɴ) of less than 7° should be used if possible, particularly along fully enclosed segments.
27 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge J. Required Geometric Clearances The clearances from any new pathway structure shall comply with all public and private rules and regulations, and shall consider the operation and maintenance of all adjacent roadway and refinery facilities. Criteria for Geometric Clearances Multi-use Pathway Clearance Requirements:
J-1 The minimum lateral distance from the edge of path to trees, signposts, and other obstructions is 2 feet, and 3 feet of clearance is recommended.37
J-2 The minimum vertical clearance measured from the path surface shall be 8 feet, and a minimum of 10 feet is preferred, where possible.38
Refinery Operations & Safety Clearance Requirements
J-3 Any new pathway structure must be at least as high as the existing I-580 Scofield Road crossing over refinery facilities.
J-4 Chevron requires a minimum vertical clearance of 25 feet over any existing paved refinery roadways (Office Hill Road, Scofield Road, Western Drive) and any new pathway structure.
J-5 Any new pathway structure must maintain separation in compliance with NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, Chapter 22 Storage of Liquids in Tanks, Aboveground Storage Tanks, 22.4.1 Location with Respect to Property Lines, Public Ways, and Important Buildings.39
J-6 A minimum clear distance of 50 feet must be maintained between any new public pathway and refinery pipeways, per Chevron’s Fire Protection Manual, Figure 1300-2.
J-7 A minimum clear distance of 30 feet must be maintained between any new public pathway and privately maintained refinery electrical utilities, per Chevron’s Fire Protection Manual.
Public Utilities Clearance Requirements:
J-8 The minimum required clearance between any new pathway structure and PG&E’s overhead high-voltage lines (12 kV) is 13 feet, per PUC General Order No. 95.
J-9 A minimum 10-foot working clearance is required during construction from PG&E primary transmission lines. The minimum horizontal clearance of 3 feet is required from any PG&E pole.
37 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 2010, page 1000-4 38 Ibid 39 NFPA 30, Chapter 22, requires that pathway structures maintain at least 60 feet of separation from above ground refinery tanks greater than 3 million gallons in capacity, and 45 feet from refinery tanks greater than 1 million gallons in capacity.
28 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Highway Geometric Clearances (per Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 2010, Chapter 300):
J-10 Alignments shall not compromise Caltrans safety standards for the geometrics of I-580.
According to Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 300, four-lane freeways (2 lanes in each direction) require minimum 12-foot wide travel lanes with 5-foot wide left (fast) lanes and 10-foot wide right (slow) lane shoulders. Freeways with greater than 4 travel lanes, which includes much of the highway along the project study area, require minimum of 12-foot wide travel lanes with minimum of 10-foot wide right and left shoulders.
J-11 Within Caltrans right-of-way, the minimum vertical clearance above a paved surface is 18.5 feet.
J-12 The minimum horizontal clearance between any new pathway structure and the existing Scofield Deck structure is to be determined by Caltrans through the PID process according to construction and maintenance access, and geometric clearances.
J-13 The minimum horizontal clearance between any new pathway structure and the existing sign supports is to be determined by Caltrans through the PID process according to construction and maintenance access, and geometric clearances.
K. Signage and Striping Signage and striping should not take the place of good pathway design. Criteria for Signage and Striping K-1 Pavement markings indicating separate bicycle and pedestrian pathways should be provided at the ends of pathway segments with mode separation.
K-2 Pavement striping shall be provided adjacent to pathway obstructions or obstacles such as fences, railings, trees, light standards, etc.
K-3 Pavement markings shall be skid-resistant.
K-4 Pathway signs shall conform to CAMUTCD standards.
K-5 Pathway signs shall provide adequate wayfinding to and from Castro Street in Point Richmond and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and Point San Pablo Peninsula.
29 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge L. Gratings and Drainage Criteria for Gratings and Drainage L-1 New drainage gratings within the new pathway shall be avoided. Gratings shall be oriented with the long openings perpendicular to the path of travel in compliance with ADA design standards.40
L-2 Pathway overcrossing drainage systems shall direct water away from Caltrans and Chevron facilities such as roadways, pipelines, and utilities.
M. Lighting Lighting shall be provided where necessary for accident prevention, security and safety, along the new pathway. Clearance of light fixtures and other obstructions in the traveled way may exceed Caltrans and ADA requirements for the safety of cyclists, skaters, and other fast moving users. Effects of any new pathway lighting shall be considered in areas immediately adjacent to the refinery, roadways, residential neighborhoods and that may disturb wildlife. Criteria for Lighting M-1 Average illumination levels of 5 lux to 22 lux should be maintained along enclosed portions of the new pathway, and higher levels of lighting should be considered where special security issues exist.41
M-2 Average maintained vertical illumination should be a minimum of 5 lux to allow for visual recognition of other people and objects, in accordance with IESNA guidelines.42
M-3 Lighting directed on the traveled way should originate from below eye-level.
M-4 All light fixtures shall be placed outside the traveled way and shall meet all previously noted vertical clearance requirements. Light posts and other obstructions within the traveled way shall not be allowed.
M-5 To minimize operations and maintenance costs, solar powered LED-based fixtures should be considered wherever feasible.
M-6 Lighting shall illuminate traveled way and avoid creating glare spots in accordance with IESNA guidelines.43
M-7 Luminaires along the pathway, spacing and lamping to provide light levels and distribution shall be per IESNA DG-5 guidelines.44
40 CalDAG, page 182 41 Caltrans Highway Design Manual, page 1000-15 42 IESNA DG-5 p.8-9, Section 9.1 & Table 2 43 IESNA DG-5 p6-7, section 6 44 IESNA DG-5 p8 section 9
30 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge M-8 Lighting shall not create glare for passing motorists.
M-9 Lighting shall be designed for a smooth transition of light levels and color rendition at abutments. N. Emergency Call Boxes Criteria for Emergency Call Boxes N-1 Emergency call boxes shall be placed in highly visible locations at approximately ¼-mile intervals along the length of the new pathway. O. Access Criteria for Access O-1 Use of bollards to restrict unauthorized vehicle access on the new pathway shall be avoided. Alternative, safer methods of restricting vehicle access should be used wherever possible.
O-2 Maintenance vehicles shall be able to access all points along the new pathway.
O-3 Gates shall allow access to the pathway for refinery personnel and vehicles in order to access refinery property or facilities, and in case of emergency.
P. Graffiti Graffiti removal programs that depend on immediate removal (within 48 hours) are challenging to maintain; therefore, graffiti deterrence through design is preferred. Actual graffiti removal, even when facilitated by graffiti-proofing surface treatments, is often impractical or cannot be done quickly enough to deter additional graffiti and accessible surfaces will be tagged with graffiti. Criteria for Graffiti P-1 Large flat surfaces, as well as lighting which highlights flat surfaces, should be avoided.
P-2 For surfaces which may be accessible to graffiti artists, surface treatments which accept cover-up paint should be chosen. Q. Theft and Vandalism Protection of communication and lighting systems and other susceptible features from theft and vandalism must be considered in the design process. Securing electrical conduits from un- authorized entry and copper theft is of particular importance. Securing electrical equipment is a primary method which can be supplemented by reducing the number of access points, placement of access points in highly visible areas, positioning of security cameras and patrols. Criteria for Theft and Vandalism Q-1 Design should include secure electrical and communications access points.
31 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Q-2 Electrical systems should consider installation of security loops and cameras.
R. Public Demonstrations The new over-crossing structure and segments of elevated trail above the refinery and adjacent to the freeway should include design features which deter public demonstrations or other disturbances that may disrupt traffic or create security risks within the refinery. Criteria for Public Demonstrations R-1 Vertical enclosure surfaces which face the freeway shall deter hanging of banners or exterior access.
R-2 New over-crossing structure and segments of trail adjacent to the refinery shall minimize the risk of disturbances and intrusion into secure areas. S. Construction Access and Constructability Temporary lane closures of Eastbound I-580 for construction of the project as well as unusual/periodic maintenance will likely be permissible and shall be coordinated according to Caltrans procedures. The length of the overcrossing elements that will be allowed to be transported to the site is typically limited to 110 feet, unless special permits are requested and granted.
Criteria for Construction and Constructability S-1 The length of pre-fabricated overcrossing elements should be limited to 110 feet.
T. Elevated Structures Criteria for Elevated Structures T-1 Specifications i. California Department of Transportation: Standard Specifications, 2005. ii. California Department of Transportation Bridge Memos to Designers. iii. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide Specifications for Design of Pedestrian Bridges, Latest Edition. iv. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fourth Edition, 2007 and subsequent Interim Specifications and California Amendments though 2009. v. California Department of Transportation: Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.4.
T-2 General i. Units & Dimensions 1) Units for structure shall be designed and detailed using the customary English units of feet, pounds/kips, degrees Fahrenheit, etc. 2) Dimensions shown on plans are measured at a normal temperature of 680 F.
32 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge T-3 Design and Analysis Methods i. Conduct static analysis to establish basic deflections and stresses in the structure under permanent loads. ii. Conduct analysis to determine the natural frequencies, mode shapes and modal masses of the structure, including vertical, lateral, torsional and combined modes. iii. Calculate accelerations corresponding to required dynamic load cases to represent excitation due to pedestrians. Conduct a time history analysis if necessary where the results of more conservative initial checks have proven to be unsatisfactory. Compare with published acceptance criteria for various dynamic load cases.
T-4 Design Loadings i. Dead Loads of Component and Attachments (DC) 1) Unit Weight of Reinforced Concrete: 150 lbs/ft3. 2) Unit Weight of Structural Steel: 490 lbs/ft3. 3) Wearing surface on deck if PC Segmental. 4) No utilities to be attached to the bridge. 5) Conduits for lighting. 6) Pedestrian Railing and Deck and Enclosure Details. ii. Live Loads (LL & PL) 1) Pedestrian Live Load (PL) – 85 lbs/ft2 per AASHTO GSDPB and AASHTO LRFD 3.6.1.6. 2) Vehicle Live Load (LL) – A standard 20,000 lbs H-10 Truck per AASHTO GSDPB and AASHTO LRFD 3.6.1.6. 3) Impact as per AASHTO and Caltrans. 4) Live load on fencing per AASHTO 13.8.2 – 15 psf on lower 6 feet of fencing. 5) Live load on railing per AASHTO 13.8.2 – 50 lbs/ft horizontally and vertically plus 200 lb point load applied horizontally to maximize forces being considered. iii. Wind Loads 1) Wind on Structure (WS) - 75 lbs/ft2 applied to the projected vertical face of all superstructure elements - per AASHTO LRFD 3.8.1. 2) Wind on Fence, Railing and Enclosure Roof – Per AASHTO LRFD 13.8.1.2 for open bay side project terrain. 3) Vertical Wind Pressure - per AASHTO LRFD 3.8.2. 4) Wind on Live Load (WL) – N/A.
33 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge iv. Vibration 1) A thin deck, if used, may be susceptible to vibration due to wind and pedestrian crossing. The response of dynamic action of walking or running shall be analyzed and investigated. 2) Maximum vertical acceleration caused by pedestrian walking and running shall be less than 0.05g. 3) Vibration analyses in accordance with Section 1.3.2 of AASHTO GSDPB may determine need for damping devices or dynamic monitoring. v. Thermal Effects 1) Uniform Temperature (TU) – Normal base temperature is 700 F. 2) Thermal Coefficient for concrete: 0.0000060 in/in per 0F. 3) Thermal Coefficient for steel: 0.0000065 in/in per 0F. 0 0 4) TUMax Concrete: 110 F (temperature rise of 40 F). 0 0 5) TUMin Concrete: 30 F (temperature fall of 40 F). 0 6) TUMax Steel: 120 F 0 7) TUMin Steel: 20 F 8) Bearings and Deck Joints – Sized for movement resulting from the combined effect of the total temperature differential, creep, and shrinkage. 9) Temperature Gradient (TG) – Apply temperature gradient, per AASHTO LRFD 3.12.3. vi. Creep and Shrinkage (CR & SH) – Calculate the strain per CEB-FIP, Chapter 2. Mean annual relative humidity assumed for design: 80%.
vii. Earth Pressure (EH & EV) 1) Horizontal Earth Pressure (EH) – Horizontal earth pressure shall be applied to pile bent, inclined strut slab and pile cap. 2) Vertical Earth Pressure (EV) – Unit weight of earth fill: 120 lbs/ft3
viii. Differential Settlement (SE) 1) All foundation elements will be supported on competent rock. Allowable differential settlement is zero.
ix. Earthquake Effects – California Department of Transportation - Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.4 with updates 1) Soil Profile Type B per Caltrans SDC, subject to confirmation upon review of the boring logs. 2) Magnitude: 7.5. 3) Horizontal spectral acceleration: 0.4 g.
34 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 4) Distance to Fault < 4 miles (Hayward). 5) Use Caltrans SCD Appendix B (2009) for design spectra unless site specific spectra is required.
T-5 Materials i. Concrete 1) Minimum 28-day compressive strength (f'c) for design: a. Superstructure : 5,000 to 8,000 psi. b. CIP Footings : 4,000 psi. c. CIP Pile bent and inclined strut slab : 4,000 psi. d. Drilled Piers: 4,000 psi. 2) Mass Concrete: Mass concrete elements shall be constructed in conformance with requirements in Caltrans Specifications. 3) All exposed edges of concrete shall be chamfered a minimum of ¾". 4) In case of no overlay, the top ½” of the deck is considered sacrificial.
ii. Reinforcing Steel 1) All reinforcing steel shall be ASTM A706 Grade 60. 2) Minimum size of reinforcing bars in the deck slab shall be No. 3. 3) Minimum size of reinforcing bars for pre-stressing anchorage zone reinforcing shall be No. 4. 4) Concrete cover requirements (to both main bars and secondary ties and stirrups) shall be in accordance with Caltrans Specifications.
iii. Pre-stressing Steel - Pre-stressing Strands: 0.6" diameter, seven wire, low relaxation strands conforming to ASTM A416, Grade 270. Pre-stressing bars: A722.
iv. Structural Steel - All steel shall be painted.
T-6 Exceeding the minimum seismic design requirements is preferred given that the bridge will pass over an MTSA-controlled facility. U. Landscaping Site landscaping should utilize plant materials that are appropriate for shoreline environments, in accordance with BCDC and Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines. This includes design utilizing sustainable planting and installation practices that will rehabilitate soils and drainage infiltration problems, utilize plants that are suited for each micro-site in size, moisture requirements, wind tolerance, pest resistance, salinity, views, visual safety and maintenance needs.
Plantings should be located and selected to minimize fire risk. Plant materials and placement should be appropriate to address issues such as drainage, soil conditions, and maintenance needs.
35 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Landscape plantings should preserve views, provide visual buffers, and replace non-native invasive species where appropriate. Water-efficient irrigation is also a key element to a successful landscape.
Criteria for Landscaping U-1 Utilize Bay-Friendly principles in landscape design and implementation.
U-2 Remove non-native invasive species and plant drought-tolerant species that are appropriate for the soils conditions, have desired size and form, provide visual interest and are suited to the microclimate.
U-3 Select plant materials in accordance with the BCDC Shoreline Plants: A Landscape Guide for the San Francisco Bay
U-4 Consider fire risk in selection and placement of plant materials.
U-5 Avoid placement of vegetation in locations that will encroach on the pathway or obscure sightlines.
U-6 Provide a water efficient irrigation system in accordance with EBMUD and Richmond’s Green Building Guidelines.
36 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 4. PROJECT ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
For purposes of discussion and analysis, the existing Bay Trail Gap between the Bus Terminal at the intersection of Castro Street and Tewksbury Avenue in Point Richmond and the Richmond- San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza has been divided into two independent segments, shown on Figures 14 through 16. Segment 1 begins at the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound I-580 off-ramp and ends at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza. Segment 2 begins at the Castro Street Bus Terminal and ends at the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound I-580 off-ramp.
This study has refined the alternatives retained from the Final 2001 Study, and has identified and developed additional alternatives, shown on Figure 15, for both of the study segments.
4.1 SEGMENT 1 STUDY ALTERNATIVES The Final 2001 Study included six alternatives, known as Alternatives 1 through 4, shown on Figure 14, and S1 and S2, described below, to close the existing Bay Trial gap between the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound I-580 off-ramp and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza.
This study includes a refined version Alternative S2 from the 2001 Study, renamed Alternative 1, to provide an interim facility for the entire Segment 1 study area. This study has also identified a new, post-9/11 alignment, Alternative 4.2 (to differentiate from Alternative 4 of the 2001 Study), which combines elements of current Alternatives 1 and 2, as shown on Figure 15, to comply with enhanced security within the Chevron Refinery, and to minimize overall changes in elevation and maximize utilization of existing infrastructure.
37 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge ENGINEERING FEASIBILILTY STUDY BAY Civil SEGMENT 1 Environmental TRAIL ALTERNATIVE, RICHMOND, CA FIGURE & Water Resources UESTA 2001 TRAIL OPTIONS (510) 236-6114 FAX (510) 236-2423 ENGINEERING CORP. [email protected] SPONSORED BY: CITY OF RICHMOND, P.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807 14 ABAG, & CHEVRON
0 200' 400'
IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 2" - THIS PLOT IS NOT TO SCALE ADJUST ACCORDINGLY 1" = 200' SEGMENT 2 ALT. 1: 12' PATH WIDEN N/S I-580 ALT. 2: OFFICE HILL TRAIL PARALLEL I-580 ABOVE RETAINING WALLS TO TOLL PLAZA ALT. 3: FLYWAY TO TOLL PLAZA
ALT. 4: CAL TRANS PARALLEL ROUTE WITH 0 200' 400' PEDESTRIAN OVER-CROSSING
ALT. 5: CONNECTION BETWEEN CASTRO AND IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 2" - THIS PLOT IS NOT TO SCALE MARINE STREETS ADJUST ACCORDINGLY 1" = 200' Civil ENGINEERING FEASIBILILTY STUDY BAY SEGMENT 1 Environmental TRAIL ALTERNATIVE, RICHMOND, CA FIGURE UESTA & Water Resources 2011 TRAIL & CONNECTOR
(510) 236-6114 ALTERNATIVES FAX (510) 236-2423 ENGINEERING CORP. [email protected] SPONSORED BY: CITY OF RICHMOND, P.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807 15 ABAG, & CHEVRON
0 200' 400'
IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 2" - THIS PLOT IS NOT TO SCALE ADJUST ACCORDINGLY 1" = 200'
SEGMENT 2
ALT. 1
ALT. 2 ALT. 5A
ALT. 3 ALT. 5B 0 200' 400' ALT. 4.2 IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 2" - THIS PLOT IS NOT TO SCALE ADJUST ACCORDINGLY 1" = 200' Civil ENGINEERING FEASIBILILTY STUDY BAY Environmental TRAIL ALTERNATIVE, RICHMOND, CA FIGURE UESTA & Water Resources 2012 PROPOSED
(510) 236-6114 TRAIL ALTERNATIVE FAX (510) 236-2423 ENGINEERING CORP. [email protected] SPONSORED BY: CITY OF RICHMOND, P.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807 16 ABAG, & CHEVRON
0 400' 800'
IF BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 2" - THIS PLOT IS NOT TO SCALE ADJUST ACCORDINGLY 1" = 400' A. At-Grade Alternatives Caltrans identified and developed three at-grade Alternatives, 1, S1 and S245 to provide separation for bicycles and pedestrians utilizing the existing Scofield Road overcrossing structure within the Caltrans freeway right-of-way.
Alternative 1 from the 2001 Study proposed widening the westbound (north) shoulder of I-580 from the existing end of the bicycle-only trail west to the Western Drive off-ramp. This Alternative would have required construction of a new retaining wall above the Chevron Administration building and a separate bicycle/pedestrian path overcrossing structure adjacent to the Scofield Road overcrossing structure, and acquisition of Chevron right-of-way and relocation of existing Chevron refinery pipelines. Alternative 1 was eliminated from further consideration in the Final 2001 Study due to the substantial conflicts with Chevron’s main refinery pipelines west of Scofield Road and the potential cost for right-of-way acquisition.
Alternative S1 proposed a partial widening of the eastbound (south) shoulder of I-580 to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians through the narrowest section of freeway, and was not intended to be a complete trail segment.46 Alternative S1 would have involved widening an approximately 450-foot segment of the eastbound I- 580 shoulder in the vicinity of the Scofield overcrossing, and construction of a new path within the widened shoulder area. This alternative would provide only a partial extension of the existing bicycle path, and would not include widening or barrier separation for the entire Segment 1 Study area. Alternative S1 was also eliminated from further consideration in the Final 2001 Study because the preliminary cost estimate was greater than the estimated cost for a separate facility.
Similar to Alternative S1 from the 2001 Study, Alternative S2 proposed improvements to the existing unprotected bicycle lane on the south side of I-580 through the narrowest section of freeway. Alternative S2 would have involved lane re-striping and placement of a traffic barrier within the existing right-of-way to create a separate 8-foot wide protected trail along the same 450-foot segment of roadway identified in Alternative S1, and would have also provided only a partial extension of the existing bicycle path for the Segment 1 study area.
The current Alternative 1, a refined version of Alternative S2, would extend the proposed 8-foot wide barrier-protected path along the south shoulder of I-580 to the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound off-ramp to form a complete separate facility for Segment 1 to the toll plaza area.
B. Office Hill Alternatives The 2001 Study considered several alignments through the Chevron-owned “Office Hill” parcel south of I-580. The various proposed alignments, represented collectively as Alternative 2 on Figure 14, would begin at the north end of Tewksbury Avenue in the vicinity of Marine Street
45 Letter to David Dolberg, TRAC, from Ken Terpstra, Caltrans Project Manager, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, October, 11, 2000. TRAC, ABAG, et al46
41 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge through the Office Hill parcel to the east end of the Scofield Road overcrossing, where the trail would join a new separate overcrossing structure south and parallel to the freeway. The various sub-alternatives identified in the 2001 Study included:
x 2A: Parallel to I-580 along the top of the existing freeway retaining walls x 2B: Switchback trail along west slope of Office Hill to meet the I-580 grade x 2C: Widen a segment of Western Drive within the Chevron-owned parcel to separate the new trail from Chevron access x 2D: Construct a short overcrossing from Western Drive within the Chevron-owned parcel to the I-580 grade Sub-alternatives 2B, 2C and 2D were eliminated from further consideration in the 2001 Study due to concerns by the advisory group that any new public right of way, which bisects Chevron’s property would substantially conflict with safety and accessibility required for refinery operations.
The 2001 Study retained only Alternative 2A for further study, which has been renamed Alternative 2 in the current study. The current Alternative 2 would cross a new public easement at the north edge of the Chevron-owned Office Hill parcel. This alignment would require extensive earthwork and new retaining walls to accommodate sections of trail above the existing freeway retaining walls, and a new 1,000-foot long pedestrian/bicycle bridge structure crossing over Scofield Road and the refinery facility to the toll plaza area.
Alternative 2B from the 2001 Study was briefly reconsidered, and renamed Alterative 3, as shown on Figure 15. The current Alternative 3 would be routed over existing paved roads within Chevron’s Office Hill parcel to provide a better user experience than current Alternative 1. The current Alternative 3 would have required similar earthwork and retaining walls and the same 1,000-foot long pedestrian/bicycle bridge structure as the current Alternative 2 described above. However, in addition to grades exceeding 10% along existing paved roads within Office Hill, Alternative 3 is no longer being considered for further study due to concerns that any new public easement, which bisects Chevron’s property, would substantially conflict with safety and access required for refinery operations and enhanced security measures enacted since 2001.
C. Flyway Alternatives The 2001 Study also considered various alignment alternatives that would connect the toll plaza area to the southwest corner of the Chevron-owned Office Hill parcel via a “Flyway” over the Long Wharf facility as shown on Figure 14. Alignment Alternatives 3A through 3D described below would have required construction of an approximately 1,000-foot long elevated trail structure routed over shallow water south of the shoreline from the summit of Western Drive (Vista Point) to the Caltrans right-of-way over Chevron’s Long Wharf facility.
x 3A: connect east side of flyway through Office Hill to Tewksbury Avenue x 3B: connect east side of flyway to Western Drive
42 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge x 3C: connect west side of flyway to mid-slope route south of I-580 to toll plaza x 3D: connect west side of flyway to top of slope route on south shoulder of I-580 Although most members of the Advisory Committee who participated in the 2001 Study acknowledged the relative high cost estimate for the flyway structure, these alignment alternatives were also recognized for spectacular views. However, since the report was issued in August of 2001, all of these alignment alternatives have been eliminated from further review due to enhanced security measures imposed by the Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 within the Long Wharf facility and along the adjacent shoreline.
D. Parallel Route Alternative The 2001 Study also considered an alignment alternative that incorporated components of the 2001 Study Alternative 1 (widening of westbound I-580 shoulder) and Alternative 2 (new elevated structure over Scofield Road), to avoid the substantial conflicts with Chevron’s main refinery pipelines west of Scofield Road, as shown on Figure 14. Alternative 4 from the 2001 Study would begin on the north side of I-580 at the western end of the existing bicycle path and continue west on the north side of the freeway until the Scofield Road Overcrossing where a new elevated structure would cross diagonally over to the south side of the freeway. The route would continue west along the south side of the freeway to the toll plaza area. The Final 2001 Study ultimately found Alternative 4 to be infeasible due to excessive anticipated costs and geometric conflicts with the existing freeway and was eliminated from further review.
E. Hybrid Route Alternative The current, post-9/11 alignment, Alternative 4.2 (to differentiate from Alternative 4 of the 2001 Study) shown on Figures 15 and 16, proposes a combination of the current Alternative 1 at-grade barrier-protected path on the existing eastbound shoulder of I-580 from the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound I-580 off-ramp, and the western portion of the Alternative 2 Class I path above the freeway retaining wall beginning east of Schofield Deck. Alternative 4.2 would require similar earthwork and new retaining walls as Alternative 2 to accommodate the section of trail above the existing freeway retaining wall, and a new 1,000- foot long pedestrian/bicycle bridge structure over Scofield Road and the refinery facility to the toll plaza area.
4.2 SEGMENT 2 STUDY ALTERNATIVES The Segment 2 Study Area was added to the Final 2001 Study in response to concerns that a common terminus must be included in the project scope that provides connection to the greater Richmond area. The Final 2001 Study identified and evaluated a single opportunity, Alternative 5, shown on Figure 14 between the Castro Street Bus Terminal and the intersection of Marine Street and the eastbound I-580 off-ramp. Two new alignments opportunities, Alternatives 5A and 5B, shown on Figure 15, have been identified and developed during the current study for Segment 2.
43 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Alternative 5, from the Final 2001 Study, proposed a new Class I path routed within the Caltrans right-of-way along the top of the existing retaining wall south of the I-580 off-ramp. The alignment was routed to avoid the greater than 20% grades and elevation gain of more than 70 feet on the only existing accessible route along Tewksbury Avenue between Castro Street and Marine Street. Alternative 5 has been eliminated from further consideration due to conflicts with private property along the top of wall and grades exceeding 5%.
Alternative 5A was added to the current study in the event that Alternative 5B, described below, is not allowed by Caltrans due to conflicts with the existing roadway geometry. Alternative 5A proposes a new Class I path from the Castro Street Bus Terminal along the north side of Castro Street under I-580, along the west side of Chevron Way, and back under I-580 along the north side of Marine Street to the intersection with the eastbound I-580 off-ramp. Alternative 5A would require new traffic barriers, fencing modifications and intersection improvements within Caltrans right-of-way, and new path grading and paving within the Caltrans right-of-way, and an additional right-of-way acquisition from Chevron.
Alternative 5B, which was added to the current study due to concerns about the feasibility of Alternative 5 above the retaining wall, proposes an at-grade Class I barrier-separated path from the Castro Street Bus Terminal to Marine Street along the shoulder of the eastbound I-580 off- ramp at the base of the existing retaining walls. Alternative 5B would require new traffic barriers, median relocation, lane reduction and re-striping, intersection improvements, and new path grading and paving within the Caltrans right-of-way.
44 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 5. ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA & SCREENING PROCESS
The pathway alignment alternatives described in Section 4 have been developed based on design constraints described in Section 2, and project design criteria given in Section 3 with the primary objective of closing the existing gap in the Bay Trail between Castro Street in Point Richmond and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza. Each of the alignment alternatives was evaluated according specific assessment criteria to determine how well they meet the project goals and constraints.
5.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Assessment Criteria consist of four categories: A) Functionality & Safety, B) Aesthetics, C) Cost, Constructability, and Process, and D) Adjacent Land Uses. For each category, both success and failure criteria are provided. The success criteria provide the basis for further evaluating alternatives that meet basic acceptability criteria. Alternatives that fail to meet the acceptability criteria are eliminated from further study or ranking. Specific reasons for eliminating alternatives are given in Table 5.
A. Functionality and Safety Success Criteria If all of the following statements are true, the alternative provides for a Class I multi-use pathway in conformance with Caltrans and ADA design standards. x Slope. Gentle grades, maximum slope of 5%. Caltrans Highway Design Manual 1003.1 (12); AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities p39; US Access Board Draft Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas 1017.17; SF Bay Trail Plan Design Guidelines.
x Climb. Overall climb is minimalized. Caltrans Highway Design Manual 1003.1.
x Pullouts. Pullouts at natural stopping points. Inclines steeper than 4% and longer than 400 feet have at least one pull out. US Access Board ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities.
x Curves and Viewing Distance. Maintain minimum 200-foot line of sight for users travelling downhill on 5% inclines. Maintain minimum 155-foot radius of curvature. Caltrans Highway Design Manual 1003.1 (8 & 9).
x Width & User Separation. Provide a minimum 8-foot wide paved trail with a minimum 2 feet of horizontal and 8.5 feet of vertical clearance to obstructions. Preferred width for multi-use facility is 12 feet. Provide additional width, signing and pavement markings to minimize conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 1003.1 (1) & 1003.5.
45 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Failure Criteria If any of the following is true, this alternative should be considered unsuccessful in meeting basic functional and safety requirements. x The slope is greater than 5% for more than 500 feet or greater than 8.33% for greater than 30 feet. More than 30% of the new trail alignment exceeds a 8.33% slope. Caltrans, Highway Design Manual 1003.1 (12); US Access Board Draft Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas 1017.17. x Clear width of paved trail is less than 12 feet where there are walls, fences, or rails adjacent to the trail. x Trail cannot be constructed in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, Class I Multi-Use Pathway Design Criteria.
B. Aesthetics Success Criteria If all of the following statements are true, the alternative provides for a new Bay Trail facility in conformance with Caltrans, SF Bay Trail, BCDC, and FHWA design criteria. x Bay Setting. Alternative takes advantage of bayside setting by creating new viewing opportunities. Orients public access areas to take advantage of views and proximity to the water as described in BCDC’s Public Access Design Guidelines Section III (6); and SF Bay Trail Plan Policies (3) & (13). x Trail Experience. Wherever possible, measures taken so that the freeway and refinery do not dominate visual and aural experience of bridge and trail users. Caltrans SER Chapter 27; FHWA-HI-88-054; and BCDC’s Public Access Design Guidelines Section III (4) & (6). x Views from Freeway. The alternative preserves intactness, vividness, and unity of the views from the highway. Caltrans SER Chapter 27; FHWA-HI-88-054; and BCDC’s Public Access Design Guidelines Section III (3).
Failure Criteria If any of the following is true, this alternative should be considered unsuccessful in meeting basic aesthetics requirements. x The alternative completely blocks one or more existing views of Bay , bridges, or mountains from the freeway. Caltrans SER Chapter 27; and FHWA-HI-88-054. x The alternative makes no accommodations for user viewing opportunities. BCDC’s Public Access Design Guidelines Section III (3) & (6); and SF Bay Trail Plan Policy (13).
46 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge x Feasible opportunities to vertically and horizontally separate the bicycle and pedestrian pathway from the freeway and/or provide a landscape buffer have not been taken. SF Bay Trail Plan Policies (13).
C. Cost, Constructability, and Process Success Criteria If all of the following statements are true, the alternative meets the project goals regarding initial cost, operating cost, constructability, and ease of implementation. x Construction Cost. Estimated construction cost per linear foot for elevated and at-grade trail segments is within 20% of recent similar Class I path in the Bay Area. (ref?) x Maintainability. Estimated maintenance cost is within 20% of recent similar projects in the Bay Area. New facility life-expectancy exceeds 25 years. x Constructability. Simplicity of construction, traffic management, use of standard materials and methods. Construction of alternative will minimally interrupt I-580 and Chevron refinery operations. x Permitting Process. Minor or no Caltrans design exceptions are required; CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), is expected; no right of way acquisition using eminent domain is necessary; and alternative conforms with Community Benefits Agreement between the City of Richmond and Chevron.
Failure Criteria If any of the following is true, this alternative should be considered unsuccessful in meeting basic project goals regarding initial cost, operating cost, constructability, and ease of implementation. x Estimated cost of either the elevated or at-grade trail segments is more than 20% higher than similar recently constructed facilities in the Bay Area. x Maintenance is expected to require replacement of primary structural components within 25 years. x Regular maintenance of the bridge or pathway requires interruption of refinery operations or traffic on I-580. x Alternative requires significant Caltrans design exception or imposes significant environmental impacts.
47 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge D. Adjacent Land Uses and Security Success Criteria If all of the following statements are true, the alternative meets project goals related to adjacent land users. x Security. Meets MTSA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security requirements for petroleum refineries and port facilities. Minor adjustments to MTSA boundary to accommodate sections of at-grade trail on Chevron property will be considered by Federal Agencies.
x Impact on Chevron Operations. Acceptable (minimal) impact to Chevron refinery operations. Accommodates clearance requirements to Chevron utilities, tanks, roads, retention ponds, and pipelines. Does not bisect the Office Hill parcel. Does not compromise safety or security.
x Impact on Residential Areas. Minimal impact on privacy and security of nearby residences.
x Impact on Environment. Minimal impact on sensitive habitat, historical, and archeological resources.
x Impact on Caltrans. Any changes to I-580 geometrics are within Caltrans’ highway design standards, and are found to acceptable to Caltrans. Alternative provides for adequate maintenance access to roadway, bridges, retaining walls, etc.
Failure Criteria If any of the following is true, this alternative should be considered unsuccessful in meeting basic project goals regarding adjacent land users. x Irreconcilable security compromise. Compromising integrity of refinery security and MTSA- controlled areas would be not be acceptable. x Pathway interrupts access routes or routine operations within Chevron property requiring frequent pathway closures at security gate crossings, relocation of Chevron pipeline, or other significant refinery infrastructure. Frequent gate closures and relocation of active pipelines would create major disruptions to refinery operations would not be acceptable to Chevron. x Significant impact to the privacy of residential properties near the trail. x Significant and un-mitigatable impact to sensitive habitat, or historic or archeological features. x Significant and unavoidable impact on safety or functionality of I-580 that no longer complies with Caltrans highway design standards. Compromising the safety of their facilities to accommodate the alternative would not be acceptable to Caltrans.
48 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge 5.2 SCEENING PROCESS The assessment and screening process has two stages: 1) an initial screening to determine which alternatives fail to meet basic acceptability criteria, and 2) a ranking process to determine the most feasible alternative from among those which meet basic acceptability criteria.
The alternatives that meet basic acceptability criteria were further evaluated on how well they meet the success criteria. Each of the alternatives was evaluated for the assessment criteria shown on Table 5. Any alternative that conflicts with an existing adjacent land use or is otherwise not feasible due to existing roadway geometry, cost or constructability will no longer be considered for further study.
The final ranking process described in Section 6 clearly identifies the most feasible alternative.
Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration - Segment 1
The current Alternative 1, at-grade along the eastbound shoulder of I-580 was retained for further consideration under the current study as an interim facility for Segment 1 due its use of existing infrastructure, modest cost and potential feasibility.47 Alternative 1 has been eliminated from further consideration because the existing roadway geometry allows for only a maximum 8-foot wide path, which fails to meet the minimum 12-foot width criteria for a Bay Trail facility, and would also require a Caltrans Highway Design exception for a right-hand shoulder width of less than 10 feet for a multi-lane freeway, which is unlikely to be granted.
Current Alternative 3, which was briefly reconsidered to provide a better user experience than current at-grade Alternative 1, has been removed from further study due to grades exceeding 10% along existing paved roads within Office Hill and concerns that any new public easement, which bisects Chevron’s property, would substantially conflict with safety and access required for refinery operations and enhanced security measures enacted since 2001.
Alignment 4 from the 2001 Study was supported by Chevron to avoid conflicts with refinery security and access. However, this alignment is no longer considered feasible due to the technical challenges of constructing an elevated structure over the existing elevated freeway overcrossing at Scofield Road in addition to poor user experience and significant visual impacts.
Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration - Segment 2
Alternative 5 from the 2001 Study above the retaining wall along the I-580 off-ramp was eliminated from further consideration due to trail grades in excess 8.33% parallel to Tewksbury Avenue within Caltrans right-of-way, and the potential for conflicts with private properties near the trail.
47 Memorandum from Questa to City of Richmond, October 2010
49 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge San Francisco Bay Trail City of Richmond Castro Street to Richmond San Rafael Bridge
TABLE 5 Alignment Alternatives Assessment Critieria Ranking
Alignment Alternatives1 Assessment Criteria Segment 1 Segment 2
2 4.2 5A 5B
A. Functionality and Safety
Slope. Gentle grades, maximum slope of 8.33%. 0 3 3 3
Climb. Overall climb is minimized. 2 2 3 3
Pullouts. Pull-outs at natural pausing points. 3 3 3 2
Curves & Viewing Distance. Gentle curves, good sightlines throughout. 2 2 2 3
Width & User Separation. Min. 8-foot wide paved trail with min. 2-foot wide 3 3 3 3 paved shoulders.
B. Aesthetics
Bay Setting. Takes advantage of Bayside setting by creating new viewing 3 3 N/A N/A opportunities.
Trail Experience. Visual and aural experience of bridge and trail users. 3 2 2 1
Views from Freeway. Intactness, vividness, and unity of the views from the 2 2 N/A N/A highway.
C. Cost, Constructability, and Process
Construction cost. Estimated cost for trail, bridge, and connections at each 1 1 1 3 end.
Maintainability. Estimated maintenance cost and required frequency. 2 2 2 3
Constructability. Simplicity of construction, traffic management, use of 2 2 2 3 standard methods and materials.
Permitting Process. Caltrans design exceptions, environmental review, right 2 2 1 2 of way acquisition.
D. Adjacent Land Uses, Security, and Habitat
Security. MTSA, US Coast Guard, and Department of Homeland Security 2 3 N/A N/A requirements.
Impact on Chevron Operations. Retention ponds, clearance over roads, 1 2 1 3 access to utilities, intactness of Chevron-owned parcels.
Impact on Residential Areas. Privacy, security, light and noise for nearby 2 3 3 2 residences.
Impact on Environment. Sensitive habitat, historical, archeological 2 2 2 3 resources.
Impact on Caltrans. I-580 geometrics. O&M of freeway, bridges, retaining 3 2 2 2 walls, etc. TOTAL RANKING SCORE 35 39 30 36
Notes 1) Alternatives which have passed an initial screening for compliance with the primary assessment criteria. 2) Alternatives ranked from 1 to 3. Ranking of 1 indicates least compliance or most impact. Ranking of 3 indicates most compliance or least impact. 3) 0 indicates failure to comply with Caltrans Standards, MTSA and Chevron Security and Access, SF Bay Trail, ADA, or other significant Assessment Criteria. 4) N/A indicates Assessment Criteria does not apply. 5) Current Alternative 2 fails to meet Assessment Criteria for slopes exceeding 8.33% grade. 6) Current Alternative 5A would require additional at-grade road crossings and right-of-way acquisition from Chevron. 7) Bay Views are not provided from any Segment 2 Alternative and Segment 2 alternatives will not impact any existing views of the Bay.
Questa Engineering Corporation November 2011 6. FEASIBLE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The Screening Process described in Section 5 and presented in Table 5, shows that Alternatives 2 and 4.2 for Segment 1, and Alternatives 5A and 5B for Segment 2 are the only alignment alternatives that meet all of the basic Assessment Criteria for a Bay Trail connection.
Analysis Results - Segment 1
Although Alternative 2 achieved the majority of the project goals, and created greater separation from I-580 than Alternative 4.2, the unavoidable 10% running slope at the north end of Tewksbury Avenue, and the unavoidable 12-foot wide corridor between the existing Chevron stormwater ponds and the Caltrans retaining walls fails to meet the minimum criteria for slope, trail width, and user experience.
Alternative 4.2 would provide a better user experience than the all at-grade interim Alternative 1 and would avoid the required Caltrans design exception needed for a barrier-separated trail on the existing freeway shoulder. Alternative 4.2 would also avoid existing road grades in excess of 8.33% at the north end of Tewksbury Avenue, would require less earthwork and slope stabilization than Alternative 2, and would avoid the narrow (12-foot wide) top of embankment corridor between the stormwater ponds and the top of the Caltrans retaining wall.
Analysis Results - Segment 2
Although Alternative 5A achieves the majority of the project goals, it will require an additional signalized at-grade road crossing, additional right-of-way acquisition from Chevron, and additional under-crossings of I-580. Because of these factors this alternative fails to achieve the level of success as Alternative 5B for safety, user experience, cost, and land use.
Alternative 5B would provide the most direct and cost effective route for Segment 2 by avoiding the additional signalized at-grade road crossing, right-of-way acquisition from Chevron, and two under-crossings of I-580. In addition, Alternative 5B would utilize the existing roadway infrastructure between Castro Street and Marine Street.
50 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, Alternative 4.2 for Segment 1 and Alternative 5B for Segment 2, as shown on Figure 16, are currently the most feasible alternatives to complete the Bay Trail between the Castro Street Bus Terminal and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Toll Plaza.
Alternative 4.2 would provide a Bay Trail Connection from Marine Street to the existing Bay Trail on the south shoulder of I-580 at the Richmond-San Rafael Toll Plaza. As shown on Figure 16, the proposed alignment would include approximately 500 feet of barrier-separated trail at the base of the existing retaining wall to a 1,200-foot long elevated structure climbing at a grade of 5% or less to the hillside above western-most retaining wall. An 800-foot long section of at-grade hillside trail above the retaining wall would lead to a 1,000-foot long elevated structure descending at a grade of 5% or less to the south shoulder of the freeway. A new 500- foot long section of barrier-separated trail would connect to the existing segment of Bay Trail that connects to Western Drive under the eastern abutment of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
Alternative 5B would provide a Bay Trail Connection from the Castro Street Bus Terminal to Marine Street within the Caltrans right-of-way. As shown on Figure 16, the proposed alignment would include approximately 1,000 feet of barrier-separated trail at the base of the existing retaining wall to a new 500-foot long segment of barrier-separated trail across Caltrans right-of- way to the existing segment of Bay Trail connecting Tewksbury Avenue to Marine Street.
The lengths of each proposed trail configuration and estimated costs are presented in Table 6.
51 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge San Francisco Bay Trail City of Richmond Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Table 6 Recommended Trail Alignment Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate
Item Begin Station End Station Unit Est. Unit Total No. Qty. Price Trail Segment 1 1 Off-Ramp Lane Shift 16+00 26+00 LF 1,000$ 150.00 $ 150,000.00 2 New Barrier-Protected Trail 16+00 24+00 LF 800$ 250.00 $ 200,000.00 3 New Elevated Structure at Wall 24+00 31+50 LF 750$ 4,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 4 New At-Grade Hillside Trail 31+50 39+00 LF 750$ 1,500.00 $ 1,125,000.00 5 New Elevated Structure Over Scofield Rd. 39+00 50+00 LF 1,100$ 6,000.00 $ 6,600,000.00 6 New Curb and Fence at Top of Bank 50+00 55+00 LF 500$ 100.00 $ 50,000.00
Subtotal$ 11,125,000.00
Trail Segment 2 7 Intersection Improvement at Castro St. 0+00 0+50 LS 1$ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 8 Lane & Median Shift 0+00 10+00 LF 1,000$ 250.00 $ 250,000.00 9 New Barrier-Protected Trail 0+00 12+50 LF 1,250$ 250.00 $ 312,500.00 10 Caltrans Fence Relocation 13+00 15+00 LF 200$ 80.00 $ 16,000.00 11 New Staging Area (Parking on Tewksbury Ave 11+00 11+00 LS 1$ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 12 Existing Trail Improvements at Marine St. 12+50 16+00 LF 350$ 100.00 $ 35,000.00
Subtotal$ 913,500.00
General Items 13 Signage 0+00 55+00 LS 1$ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 14 Utility Relocation 0+00 55+00 LS 1$ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Subtotal$ 150,000.00 Construction Subtotal $ 12,188,500.00 Construction Contingency @ 20% $2,437,700.00 Total Construction Costs$ 14,626,200.00 Engineering Design - 15% $ 2,193,930.00 CEQA, Permits, Public Hearings - Allow $ 250,000.00 Construction Management - 10% $ 1,462,620.00
GRAND TOTAL$ 18,532,750.00 7. REFERENCES
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Study, August 2007, Draft Project Study Report (Project Development Support) 04-CC/Mrn-580 (PM 6.1/7.8, 0.0/2.6)
AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999 (AASHTO GDBF) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Trail Design Guidelines, http://www.baytrail.org/baytrailplan.html#designguidelines.
California Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act, Resolution 8-47, 2006.
California Department of Transportation, Bridge Memo to Designers, July 1, 2011. California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, 2006. California Department of Transportation, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, CA Supplement (CAMUTCD), 2012.
Contra Costa Times, Bike path along I-580 seen as "death trap" for cyclists, October 22, 2006.
Fehr & Peers, City of Richmond Master Bicycle Plan, October 2011.
Gibbens, Michael P., California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (CalDAG) 2011, 2011.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Recommended Lighting for Walkways and Class 1 Bikeways, 1994 (IESNA DG-5). National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2012 Edition, 2012.
Omega Architectural, www.omegafence.com
Questa Engineering Corporation, Feasibility Study of Bay Trail Alternatives to Point San Pablo Peninsula, July 2001
Questa Engineering Corporation, Memorandum to City of Richmond, October 2010
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay, April 2005. Terpstra, Ken, Caltrans Project Manager, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, Letter to David Dolberg, TRAC, October, 11, 2000.
US Access Board, Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (AGODA), 2009.
US Department of Justice, 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, September 15, 2010.
52 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, 1999.
[misc. footnotes, need to cite]:
Caltrans defines Class I Pathway as a, “…a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross-flow by motorists minimized.”
Caltrans: “A Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) should be considered for every project that has the potential to change the 'visual' environment. FHWA: “The public nature and visual importance of our highways require that visual impacts - positive as well as negative - be adequately assessed and considered when a highway project is developed. Project visual impacts are seen both in the view from the road and the view of the road…"
“Provide a wide variety of views along the Bay and recognize exceptional landscapes..."
Unescorted access into Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA)-controlled areas requires a Transportation Worker’s Identification Credential (TWIC) issued by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is providing significant input to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regarding the impacts and processes involved in a future TWIC program.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has released an interim final rule, effective June 8, 2007, that imposes comprehensive federal security regulations for high-risk chemical facilities.
53 SF Bay Trail - Castro Street to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge