Design Options

Option A

Focus safety improvements on the north side of the road, by providing a wide bicycle and pedestrian multi-use path on the north side, leaving the south side as is to reduce costs. Parking is relocated from the south side to the north side, and acts as a safety buffer between the multi-use path and the road. This option provides a safe pathway for bikes and pedestrians, retains parking and 2 way vehicle travel.

Estimated Price

This option is significantly lower in cost than Option B or C. Assuming utility poles are moved to a utility easement outside of the right of way, and not placed underground, this option will cost an estimated $895,000 to implement.

Option B

Maximize pedestrian and bicycle safety, utilizing both sides of the street for bikes / pedestrians, and eliminates parking. This option retains 2 way vehicle traffic, calming traffic with a narrowed roadway. Safety is maximized by placing the bike path on the south side, effectively separating bikes and pedestrians. A raised separation area between the bicycle path and roadway keeps bicyclists safe from vehicles, and provides a place for utility poles, streetlights and hydrants.

Estimated Price

This option is fairly costly, at an estimated $2,959,151 to implement, if utilities are left above ground and moved into the raised separation area between the bike path and roadway. Undergrounding of utilities utilizing Rule 20A funds would increase City costs to an estimated $4,157,396, assuming the full $995,861 available is utilized for this option.

Option C

Retain parking and provide for separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways, reducing the roadway to one-way for a majority of the corridor length. Safety would be improved both by wider and separate infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians, and also by significantly reducing traffic on Chestnut Street to one direction. This option would require additional studies to assure roadways that would receive additional traffic as a result are able to accommodate the demand.

Estimated Price

This option is the most costly, at an estimated $3,076,194 to implement. This cost does not include the cost of additional studies needed. Should utilities be undergrounded, the cost of the project to the City (assuming Rule 20A funds are used), is estimated at $4,314,439.


The City Council ultimately chose Option A as the best plan. The decision was made at the City Council meeting held on August 27, 2012.