When Bancroft Ave in San Leandro was restriped from 2 traffic lanes in each direction to 1 traffic lane, a bike lane, and a center turning lane, it not only provided room for cyclists, but made it safer for pedestrians - with minimal impact to automobile traffic low. See page 4 for more on Road Diets. (Photos: Michael Kiesling)
Members of the Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) met on March 22 to discuss strategies to reauthorize the 1/2-cent sales tax measure. On the street outside the meeting, some 50 transit, bicycle and pedestrian advocates organized by Bay Area Transportation Choices Forum chanted: "ACTA, ACTA get a clue! Building freeways just won't do!"
Soon afterward, members of the ACTA Expenditure Plan Development Steering Committee (EPDSC) listened as two election consultants, Max Besler and Jim Moore, assessed the November election results. Besler and Moore concluded that for Measure B to garner the necessary 2/3rds voter support (it received 58.5%), the reformulated measure must embrace opponents and avoid unpopular project proposals (i.e., freeways & BART Warm Springs extension). They also suggested a slimmer tax measure (the EBBC first suggested a 1/4 cent transit-first tax in 1997).
Newark Mayor Mark Green, Chair, disagreed with the "pessimism by the pollsters." Despite the unified chorus of opinion from advocates, election consultants, and voters, other members of the EPDSC also sided with Mayor Green in seeking to make only small changes to the failed tax package.
Initial responses, however, of the ACTA staff and EPDSC to our goals to target real bicycle and pedestrian needs were more positive. The following proposal was formally presented to ACTA in writing and at the meeting.
We feel that the "poaching" of the bike/ped funds in the prior plan created a climate of skepticism that passage of Measure B would lead to significant gains in non-motorized transportation. We therefore propose a 5% program that is both geographically equitable and will guarantee the integrity of the nonmotorized funds. This is a crucial strategy to win these voters.
Overall, we would like to de-emphasize the prior focus on creating a "wish list" of capital projects. Such advance planning of bike/ped projects is beyond the scope of all but the East Bay Regional Park District. Instead of a premature identification of projects, we want to see a support structure created that will assist the communities of Alameda County in planning, designing and funding a truly worthwhile network of bike/ped facilities. Our goals are to accommodate current nonmotorized use and significantly increase the use of non-motorized transportation while reducing the number of injuries to bicyclists and pedestrians.
The items we seek in the Expenditure Plan to meet the above goals are broadly described as follows:
Models for establishment of this office exist in San Francisco and Contra Costa County. Bicycle professionals with credentials in engineering or planning effectively coordinate with public works and transportation staffs in many U.S. cities.
Alameda County currently lacks a comprehensive plan. Such plans require revision every five years at a minimum. Without valid plans, projects are not eligible for funds from the State Bicycle Lane Account, Transportation Fund for Clean Air, Transportation Enhancements and others.
BAC's are currently mandated by State statutes to review and prioritize projects submitted for TDA Article 3 funds (see MTC Resolution 875). Support for regular meetings with local public works or transportation staff and an annual field review of projects represents a minimal expenditure.
This program would provide technical assistance in the County and to local communities to "jump-start" their facility design. Currently, many communities do not have the resources to make traffic counts or preliminary cost estimates needed to apply for funding. The B/P Services program would be modeled after MTC's Traffic Engineering Technical Assistance Program (TETAP) which hires consultants to assist local needs.
An annually competitive fund to make significant local contributions to needed projects. Over one-half of the funds should be allocated for on-street bicycle improvements.
This project would be implemented by the Alameda County Health Department and serve to monitor of the effectiveness of the above programs in reducing injuries while also providing an education outreach.
-Robert Raburn
The California Bicycle Coalition, along with the Surface Transportation Policy Project, is co-sponsoring Assembly Bill 1475 (Soto), the Safe Routes to School Bill. AB1475 will create a $13-18 million annual fund to be used to improve walking and bicycling conditions near California schools. The goals are to reduce pedestrian fatalities and to encourage more bicycling and walking by children of all ages. For more information, see the fact sheet at www.baypeds.orgor contact the CBC at 916-446-7558, email: cbc@jps.net.
COMMUNITIES BY DESIGN is presenting a workshop entitled Streets, People, Cars: A Practical Tool Kit for Redesigning the Right Street. The workshop will be given in two locations: on Thursday, April 8th in Pleasanton and on Friday, April 9th in San Mateo. The daylong seminar will explore how recent ideas and trends in street design can enhance community quality while also fulfilling transportation and infrastructure needs. (More info: contact Kristen Paulsen at kristen@cbdcom.com or at 530-792-1751)
FREMONT Access to the only bike/ped bridge crossing Alameda Creek is threatened by members of the Southwycke Homeowners Association who are seeking to curtail a long-standing public easement and create a gated community. Southwyke is located adjacent to the Alameda Creek Trail at the junction of the bike lanes on Thornton and Paseo Padre. Already the group has posted signs at both subdivision entrances stating NO THRU WAY FOR BICYCLES. It will be difficult to establish convenient access to the proposed Quarry Lake Regional Park without the easement. Conditions for access set by the Fremont Planning Commission in 1998 are being ignored according to nearby resident Judy Guiraud (510-794-0955). A hearing by the Fremont City Council is slated for May 4.
OAKLAND Council and Mayor heard from plenty of bicyclists to urge that the Bicycle Master Plan be made a priority. While the Foothill/Bancroft bikeway proposal was lost until next year, members of the EBBC joined City Staff and a Design Consultant in a walk with neighbors and merchants along Grand Ave on March 22.
LAKE TEMESCAL trail is slated for a belated completion according to embarrassed officials with the Alameda County Transportation Authority and the East Bay Regional Park District. The EBBC declined to participate in the ribbon-cutting ceremony at the 13/24 Interchange because the Class I bike path was not ready for safe travel. EBBC member Derek Liecty (510-339-2345) continues to monitor the decade-old project.
LAFAYETTE Council and Mayor will write a letter to Caltrans District 4 Director supporting our goal to establish an Office of the Bicycle Coordinator. Thanks go to Yehuda Sherman for presenting our resolution to the Council.
ELIHU HARRIS STATE OFFICE BLDG may soon cut the long-delayed purchase order for bicycle parking in the garage and short-term racks near the entrances, reports bike parking guru Geoff Palmer (888-764-2453, www.bikeparking.com). Bicycling tenants report that access to the gated garage is also problematic. They seek to meet with management to negotiate ride-in card-key access and after-hours elevator access.
BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL awarded a proclamation to Critical Mass, commending it for providing a fun, safe, positive place for bicycling. "We want people to feel welcome to ride a bicycle in Berkeley, and to celebrate the bicycle, and we recognize that the ride helps people to get familiar with riding in the city," said Councilmember Kriss Worthington, author of the proclamation.
At the March 16 EBBC General Membership Meeting the group voted in favor of a motion to: 1) insist that the transportation function of Class I bicycle paths like the Iron Horse Trail be acknowledged in the EBMUD impact assessment; 2) insist that bicycle travel in this corridor be unimpeded throughout the project; 3) request that mitigation measures for any disruption and disturbance include full restoration of the facility, plus improvements like lighting, directional signage, and landscaping; and 4) urge the EBRPD as the trail operator to adopt a protective stance toward the full functional preservation of this crucial bicycle transportation route.
The above points are in addition to a comments on the Walnut Creek-San Ramon Valley Improvement Project DEIR sent by the EBBC under the signature of John Ruzek, Contra Costa Liaison, prior to our knowledge of the comment period extension to April 15. A brief article "EBMUD Project Threatens Bicyclists" appeared in the March 1999 issue of rideOn. We urge individuals to send comments to Harvey P. Hanoian at the address listed below or to:
hhnoian@ebmud.com.
Harvey P. Hanoian, Senior Civil engineer, MS #701
EBMUD
375 Eleventh Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4240
Unfortunately, many trails besides the Iron Horse Trail suffer frequent disruption of service, poor maintenance, little or no lighting, and nighttime closures. The California Supreme Court has also ruled that municipalities are not liable for injuries caused as a result of poorly maintained Class I bicycle paths.
Often, these trails are built with transportation money (such as ISTEA) but are not treated as vital transportation routes.
Albany could soon become a much friendlier place to ride. The City is currently considering a proposal to add bicycle lanes to Marin Avenue, one of the busiest streets in town and the only viable east-west route connecting the Berkeley Hills to the planned Bay Trail. In addition to benefiting bicyclists, the proposed bike lanes should make life much easier for pedestrians and neighboring residents. Unfortunately, most people in town are still unclear on the proposal details, leaving the door wide open for opposition based on misinformation and scare tactics.
The basic concept is fairly straightforward. It calls for restriping Marin Avenue from four lanes to three, from Kains Avenue east. Thus two through lanes for cars in each direction would convert to one through lane in each direction with a left-turn lane in the middle. Restriping would free up space for standard-width bicycle lanes in each direction, preserving on-street parking.
The idea for the bike lanes originated with Albany's Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), a citizen committee formed by the City Council in 1995 to develop a bicycle master plan. (The impetus for the BAC came from the EBBC.) The committee recognized the need for a safe, visible, and direct east-west route through town south of Solano Avenue. Seeing Marin as the only viable alternative, the committee proposed bike lanes to create a buffer space between traffic and parked cars. The left-turn lane was included to keep traffic flowing smoothly and give bicyclists a way to turn left safely.
Despite the obvious benefits to bicyclists, the features that really sold the proposal to the BAC were the potential benefits to pedestrians and residents. Crossing the street at non-signalized intersections would be much safer because the distance to cross would be shorter and the left-turn lane would provide a buffer zone in the middle. The lane reduction would also eliminate the dangerous tendency drivers have to switch lanes to pass a car that has stopped for a person in the cross-walk. Finally, the new design was seen as a strategy for slowing down traffic, reducing noise, and increasing safety.
Before including the Marin project in the bicycle master plan, the BAC arranged for funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to evaluate the effects of restriping Marin on traffic flow. The traffic analysis concluded that the restriped street would still be able to handle the traffic volumes but travel speeds would be slower (Residents have been lobbying for slower speeds for a long time).
The proposal gained additional momentum from a Citywide Transportation Plan the City of Albany recently conducted. Input from residents put Marin Avenue at the top of the list of concerns regarding speeding, noise, and pedestrian safety. Traffic statistics (measured speeds, volumes, and accident reports) reinforced neighborhood concerns. Marin/Buchanan is a residential street that passes within one block of two schools, a library, community center, several churches, and the town's shopping district. The existing four lanes of 30-40 mph traffic are simply inappropriate.
Despite the apparent benefits of restriping, resident reactions have been mixed and increasingly negative. A petition opposing the proposal is circulating. It cites concerns of increased difficulty crossing the street. A scathing editorial in the local newspaper condemned any efforts to make the town more bicycle/pedestrian friendly as "political correctness" and "social engineering."
In response, a handful of Albany residents has begun organizing in support of the proposal. The strategy is quite simple: educate the community and show public support to the City Council. The key is to build a diverse coalition of bicyclists, pedestrians, Marin Avenue residents, parents, seniors, business owners, and environmental advocates. This issue is expected to go before the City Council by June or July so we have a narrow window of opportunity. If you live or work in Albany, your involvement is critical. To find out how you can help, call Bruce Mast at 510-527-2284 or send an email to bmast@pcsyes.com.
-Bruce Mast
Besides Marin Avenue, Road Diet restriping has been studied for Claremont Avenue and East 14th St. in Oakland and San Leandro.
In San Leandro, a 12-member Citizens' Advisory Commission formed in 1996 recommended striping 14th with one lane in either direction, and a dual left-turn lane. The road was originally striped for 2 lanes.
In an Oakland Tribune article published March 24, 1999, city traffic engineers stated that the new configuration is safer for drivers and pedestrians. "According to transportation director Bill Algire, accidents declined 55 percent between December 1996 and October 1998, after the lane changes were made. Injuries declined 46 percent."
According to Road Diets, roads with ADT's of up to 25,000 do not suffer a loss of capacity when converted from 4 lanes to 2 through lanes, a left turn area, and shoulders or bike lanes. The Road Diets document is downloadable from http://www.walkable.org/download/rdiets.pdf.
Those of you who know the Bike Trail around Lake Temescal may be able to relate to my experience there on Tuesday!
For two years, I've commuted from my home in the Oakland hills to Rockridge BART via Lake Temescal (in the AM). During that time, the new bike trail has been under construction (as interminably as the whole project - CalTrans must have a record here for prolonging a project well beyond all reasonable expectations!).
The trail has basically been complete for about two years, although once CalTrans told me on the phone that it was still "under construction." Last fall & winter, it was closed for about 3 months so that a hole could be dug and then refilled at the south end of the trail (adjacent to the tunnel entrance to Temescal Park). At that time, a sign stated that the trail was closed "until 12/31." A rational observer would therefore conclude that when the "closed" sign was removed, the trail was "open." Further circumstantial evidence came through local media reports that the new freeway ramps opened last month, including reports on the "new bike trail through Lake Temescal."
Happily convinced that the trail was now officially "open," I've been using it regularly for several months. No signs or barricades have been posted to suggest that the trail was not open.Early Tuesday morning, I happily rolled through the tunnel, over the curb, and up the hill onto the trail. At the top, I encountered the first of two trucks parked in the middle of the trail. The first truck was in a fairly tight area, requiring that I leave the paved trail to get around it. I wasn't upset, but seeing a worker just beyond the truck, calmly suggested to him that it would be nice if they could move the truck just a wee bit off the trail to leave room for bikes to get by.Next thing I know, his co-worker is shouting obscenities at me, waving his arms, and telling me to "get the hell out of here!" I was still fairly calm, so stopped to try to explain to him that I was just asking if they could give a little break to bikers - he continued to wave his arms frantically, and shout at me to leave! He was very upset!
Just then, worker #3 appears from around the second truck, rolling up his sleeves, flexing his biceps, asking "is there a problem here?" and clearly itching for a chance to provide me with a physical education as to the error of my ways. Since I was alone, with no witnesses, there was not much percentage in going in harm's way to prove a point (besides, I had to get to work), so I informed the three stooges that the problem was theirs, not mine, and boogied on to BART.
Reflecting on the experience, I decided that CalTrans sub-contractors should not be harassing innocent bikers, so called and located the project manager for the 13-24 project. The response was OK, but certainly not "memorable" in any positive way.
The Project Manager is Emanuel (Manny) Calaya at 510-881-7425. Manny was sympathetic to my plight, but certainly not overly concerned that I had been threatened by his sub-contractors. He was much more focused on "explaining" why that might have happened than he was on apologizing for the appalling behavior.
He first told me I should have known the trail was not yet open. He was unable to explain how I might have known that since no signs are posted and it looks "open" in all respects!When I allowed as how it seemed excessive to spend more than two years completing a 1/2 mile trail, I heard lots of "explanations" about punch lists and other "problems" that CalTrans has encountered in completing this interchange - nothing that convinced me the trail could not have been done much faster! And no good explanation as to why the trail is wide open, but not "open" to bikers.
Manny called me back about 15 minutes later to say he talked with the primary contractor on the job (the three fence builders work for a sub-contractor). Still no apology or embarrassment about the offensive workers, but he explained why no signs were posted to tell me the trail was closed - "those bikers just tear down the signs." And, by the way, did I happen to be affiliated with that "group" that was tearing down the signs? I assured him I was not, but I told him I could certainly understand how bikers might get frustrated seeing a wide open trail that stays "closed" for months and months on end.
As if all this wasn't enough, Manny then told me that I "should have realized that the path was unsafe since the chain link fence had not yet been completed!" Those who use the trail regularly know that the 3 foot concrete barriers have been in place for a long, long time - the chain link fences are being added on top of the concrete barriers. I tried to explain to Manny that the concrete barriers were quite adequate to keep me from either leaping onto the adjacent freeway or hurtling down the adjacent embankment. Thus, I do not perceive the path as unsafe in any way.
Actually, thinking about that theory afterwards, I realized that I should probably stay off of all CalTrans road projects, since nearly all of them appear to me to be a lot less safe for bikers than this well protected trail!
Anyhow, that's my story. Sorry to be so long-winded. Good luck to others who encounter the three fence builders!
Rick Rickard
CalTrans Makes a Counter-offer to the BCDCAs the EBBC continues to advocate Option 4, which would transfer the space that CalTrans proposes for the left shoulder to a bicycle/pedestrian pathway 8 feet wide, CalTrans has made the following public access counter-proposal:
1. Hourly shuttle for three hours during morning and evening commutes, as well as bi-hourly (every two hours) during weekend days for a two-year period.
2. Contribution of $250,000 by CalTrans to the CA Dept. of Fish and Game for construction of bike/pedestrian pathway along the Baumberg Tract.
3. Commitment to sponsor a $1 million application to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to fund unspecified South Bay pathway projects.
BCDC staff reportedly has many concerns regarding the proposal: Why the two year limit? What is the likelihood of the CTC approving $1 million application? Who would administer the fund, and what criteria would be used? Is any proposal short of including bicycle/pedestrian access on the bridge sufficient to fulfill the Commission mandates?
As reported in the February issue of rideOn, Option 4 would cost an estimated $3.8 million and still provide for three traffic lanes in each direction and a full right-hand shoulder, next to a solid barrier separating an 8-foot path from the roadway.
The public hearing will be on Thursday, April 1. If you cannot attend the hearing, you can submit written comments to the BCDC before May 5th. For more BCDC information, contact Art Duffy, 415-557-8766 (arthurd@bcdc.ca.gov).
CalTrans' proposed striping after the $164 million widening