by: Robert Raburn
The EBBC's pet item at the recent Caltrans District 4 Quarterly Bicycle Advisory Committee (Ct4QBAC) meeting agenda was "Bikeway Planning along Caltrans District 4 Corridors for Transportation Enhancement funds." Despite tremendous funding support from Congress for nonmotorized transportation in the TEA-21 bill, we have not seen many dollars programmed for local projects.
The problem is that our bikeway projects are not included in the Regional Transportation Plan. Bicycle projects are currently treated like medieval corvée road projects where each landowner (jurisdiction) is responsible for only their adjacent route section. Rather than a network, we end up with a hodgepodge!
We strongly urge compilation of a comprehensive regional bikeway plan. This is crucial if we are to progress from the current ad hoc method construction to coordinated programming of some $53 million in funds.
A recent MTC Memorandum, "Criteria and Guidelines for 2nd Cycle STP/CMAQ: Corridor Management Program," written by Lisa Klein (August, 26, 1999) notes:
"For bike and pedestrian projects, the 2nd cycle program will emphasize gap closures and improving access to transit and other major activity centers. In addition, bike/pedestrian crossings over freeways will be eligible."
We have been promoting project proposals to close bikeway gaps along the planning corridors. In the Bay Area there are 16 such planning corridors, most are freeways. A few projects that the former CoCoCo Bicycle Coordinator assembled for the I-80 and SR24 corridors are already proposed. As well, there is a pressing need for connections along SR237 (w/I-880 & US101) at the foot of the Bay. Because this latter route transcends three counties it has been very problematical as illustrated by the lack of a Bay Trail connection between Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.
We urge Caltrans and the MTC to make regional bikeway projects a priority. Otherwise, the best of intentions at the Congressional level will be lost in the confusion caused by a lack of planning and coordination between the myriad cities and counties.
At first glance, the picture of police ticketing cyclists is not a pretty one. But what if safety is the primary reason they are doing so. Most of us know that there are many bicyclists (myself included) who ignore basic regulations of the road, such as stopping at intersections. This creates a real danger to ourselves and others. Historically, police, as well as the rest of us, have turned a blind eye to this. Well, this is no longer the case in some communities, including Walnut Creek and Brentwood in Contra Costa County. Law enforcement, local health officials, and a growing number of safety conscious bicyclists see police participation in correcting unsafe bicycling practices as important to changing dangerous behavior. Police participation has taken the form of Bicyclist Diversion Training.
What is diversion training and how can it help improve safety? Simply put, diversion training is ticketing cyclists who are breaking traffic laws. In lieu of paying a fine or court appearance, the cited cyclist is offered the option of attending safety training. Not surprisingly, most take the workshop option. Here they get training, designed for their age group, that includes rules of the road, common traffic events and proper response, and equipment and clothing that contributes to safety. In some cases, training will include videos and practical exercises including use of mock cities, or actual trips on city streets. Training normally ends with a test to emphasize important teaching points and a departing gift that relates to safety such as helmet or headlight. Again, the goal is not to be punitive but provide training where it is needed.
Should police be in the business of ticketing bicyclists. My opinion is why not? They are certainly in the best position to see and respond to dangerous behavior performed by anyone on our roadways, including bicyclists. As a bike advocate, I feel that bikes have equal rights (as the vehicle code states) to be on the roads, but we also have equal responsibility to follow all laws and regulations. If bicyclists choose not to follow these simple rules, they should be ticketed like anyone else. However, diversion training does offer the option to avoid fines and courts and receive important training on safe biking practices that can save lives. This is why I have become a proponent of diversion training in Contra Costa County, and helped implement diversion training as part of the Bicycle Safety Program for the City of Walnut Creek. If anyone has questions, comments, or concerns about diversion training, I welcome the opportunity to hear from you. I can be reached by calling 925-299-1522 or email bart_carr@yahoo.com.
-Bart Carr
Bart Carr is a member of EBBC, an active bike advocate in the Lamorinda communities and Contra Costa County, and former member of the BART-Bike Advisory Task Force.
The Caltrain rail service on the peninsula is one of the oldest commuter railroads in the world - it opened for passenger service more than 136 years ago. And thanks to the procurement policies of the Joint Powers Board (which oversees Caltrain), it will be stuck with rail cars almost as old.
Ok, that is a slight exaggeration. The cars will be merely 40 years out of date.
The Joint Powers Board (JPB) is planning to buy 20 "new" rail cars using $30 million that has been sitting in the bank for over 5 years. Anyone who has ridden Caltrain knows why the locals call it "CowTrain" - the ride is like something out of an amusement park. It is fun watching laptop users struggle to hit the right keys as their computers bounce around. Even worse, access is atrocious for persons with disabilities as they have to struggle with steep stairs at the door. Loading a wheelchair throws the whole schedule out of sync as it can take over 5 minutes to operate the lift.
Unlike BART, Caltrain is a standard, conventional design which allows it to use the latest the industry has to offer. So, will the JPB be purchasing the new, low-floor cars that are so popular on the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)? Perhaps one of the latest designs from Europe or Japan? Nope; they will be purchasing more of the same junk.
The JPB plans on spending the entire $30 million on a design that is not much different than what they currently have. This 40-year-old design has many shortcomings:
Bad handicapped access
Single door choke-point, which drastically increases station dwell time
Cramped "vestibule" area at the door, which also increases dwell time
High platform design, which is challenging to persons with mobility problems as well as cyclists
Bumpy, loud, shuddering ride
So why should cyclists in the East Bay care? These cars are expected to last 20 years and one day they may be running here in the East Bay. The VTA has received funding to run commuter rail between Union City BART and downtown San Jose. It has also been proposed to repair the Dumbarton rail bridge, which would allow Caltrain to run from Redwood City to the East Bay, where it might also connect to Union City BART.
While Caltrain has been progressive on bicycle access, providing bike racks on all the "cab" cars, it is not easy to hoist a bike up into the passenger car. Also, the cramped vestibule area significantly increases the amount of time it takes to load up passengers (and their bikes) at platforms, as well as slowing up passengers disembarking. To make matters worse, each car has just a single door which further constricts passenger flow.
The following Q-A was written by Richard Mlynarik and distributed at the Caltrain "historical-replica" rail car unveiling on October 18, 1999. For more information, contact Peninsula Rail 2000, http://www.rail2000.org, 650-961-4493.
Q: Hasn't Caltrain been promising that new cars would arrive "in two years" since 1992?
A: Yes! But since nobody has ever been fired from Caltrain for accomplishing too little, that's been of no consequence to anybody but Caltrain passengers.
Improved handicap access...in Vancouver
Q: Whenever there's a wheelchair boarding or alighting Caltrain gets delayed for at least five minutes as the passenger is manhandled on and off the high interior platform of the rail cars. Will the wheelchair lifts on the new cars help with this?
A: Caltrain staff have done as little as they could get away with and still meet the letter of the ADA law. The new cars do have a built-in wheelchair lift, but using it will still involve quite a production and considerable delay. Having seen the commuter trains in Chicago use the slow and complicated mechanical system Caltrain's new cars will have, the best thing that can be said is that it will be an improvement over Caltrain's existing procedures.
Q: Couldn't Caltrain's new cars have provided roll-on roll-off wheelchair access? Wouldn't fewer and lower steps in new cars have been a major improvement, not just for the disabled but for all passengers, including the elderly, those with small children or anybody with luggage?
A: Caltrain could have purchased far more accessible cars, ones with a single low step up from the platform which can be bridged by a simple wheelchair-mountable ramp. Such cars are in use in Los Angeles, San Diego, Stockton-San Jose, Dallas-Fort Worth, Vancouver, Miami, Toronto and soon in Seattle. In fact, every commuter rail operator outside the North East uses them, with the exception of Caltrain and Chicago's Metra. Unfortunately, Caltrain's staff decided that strict historical compatibility with the existing design, dating from the mid-1950s, was most important.
Q: Caltrain trains are routinely delayed because it takes people a long time to get on and off the trains. Having just one doorway per 150+ seat car and having to negotiate three steep steps just to get to the lower car level seems like a blockage point. 30 seconds delay here and 20 seconds there and soon the train is running really late, yet again. Do Caltrain's new cars do anything to improve this?
A: No. Even though the cars which Metrolink, ACE and others use feature two wide doors per car - enough to discharge or board a full load of passengers within 90 seconds - Caltrain staff decided that maintaining strict historical compatibility is more important than operating efficiency or passenger convenience.
Q: I've ridden on that really nice ACE train from Stockton via Pleasanton to San Jose. (Metrolink in Los Angeles has the same trains.) It sure would be nice if Caltrain could have rail cars that nice. Why don't we?
A: Actually, Caltrain could have bought those same cars and could have put them in service two years ago, and they would even have been cheaper! After all, that's what Metrolink did at the end of 1995: using the same source of money as Caltrain's new car funds, they had 26 cars in service in early 1998. At Caltrain, by contrast, staff preferred to sit on the cash, do nothing, draw a salary, and claim that "lack of equipment" prevented them from running any trains. Caltrain didn't even get around to ordering these cars until early 1998!
ACE ordered its eight Metrolink-like cars in October 1996, and saved over five million dollars by "tagging on" to a production run being made for San Diego's commuter rail system. Caltrain, by contrast, bought unique cars of an antique design, and so an entirely new production line had to be set up just to build them. Analogies to Caltrain's bizarre procurement would be an airline placing an order with Boeing for decades-obsolete 707 airliners, or a rental car agency ordering a small fleet of 1955 Chevrolets.
Q: I remember there was some controversy in January of last year about perhaps ordering that other car design. Every member of the public said that the alternative was superior, but Caltrain's Executive Director said that any reconsideration them would delay everything by two years, and so the Caltrain Joint Powers Board reluctantly went along with more of the same old same old. What was the deal with the threatened big delay?
A: What delay? Seattle's new regional transit agency ordered 38 cars in June 1998, requiring that at least six be in service by the end of this year with five new cars a month scheduled to be delivered starting next January. Bombardier, the company which makes the standard cars which ACE and everybody else uses, easily won the contract. Yet Caltrain's unique cars, ordered earlier, will be arriving later and more slowly. The only lesson to take from this is that nobody at Caltrain has ever been fired for doing too little, nor for systematically and deliberately misleading the public and the Caltrain Board.
Q: Caltrain's existing cars ride incredibly badly. It's hard to write or type, and often impossible to read because the train jerks around so badly. This happens even in those locations where new "ribbon" tracks have been installed during the past couple of years. Can we expect anything better with the new cars?
A: No. Caltrain staff specified exactly the same trucks and suspension as on the old cars. Though passenger train design has advanced elsewhere in the last 40 years to produce trains which are as smooth as silk at 200 mph, at Caltrain the maintenance of historically correct Olde Tyme Railroading Ambiance is paramount. Why else would Caltrain run so infrequently, with such lovingly recreated historical replica equipment, and to a timetable geared almost exclusively towards 1950s-style 9-5 commuting from the suburbs to San Francisco?
Q: Did Caltrain's staff conduct any public outreach to solicit input on the new rail car fleet? After all, it's about the only rider visible change which has been made in the service in the last seven years.
A: No. It was not until after the contract for the cars had been awarded that Caltrain's staff engaged in token customer contact. The shade of the carpet, the position of the lighting fixtures and perhaps the choice of the seats were about all that could be changed: the fundamental parameters of this $30 million contract were set without the slightest input from anybody other than Caltrain staff.
Q: Weren't these new cars supposed to have electrical outlets for laptops?
A: Yes, they were.
- Richard Mlynarik.
Mly@POBox.COM
BERKELEY BIKESTATION grand opening on October 27 attracted bicycle professionals from throughout California and local elected officials from BART and Berkeley. The Bicycle Friendly Berkeley Coalition (510/549-7433) will staff the bikestation and offer free parking on weekdays from 6am-8pm, and weekends and holidays from 9am-6pm. We praise the efforts of the many BFBC members who made this project to counter bike theft and encourage bicycle use a reality. Geoff Palmer's (www.bikeparking.org) high-density rack design emulates the models found throughout the Netherlands. We encourage adoption of this elegant and secure bike parking solution at transit stations and garages throughout the Bay Area.
CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 Bicycle Coordinator Resolution moves ahead. It has been introduced for consideration in the Cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, and will likely be on these city councils' agendas sometime in late November. As this goes to press, the City of Concord will take up consideration of a Traffic Commission at their Nov. 2 Council meeting. At this meeting, cyclists intend to emphasize the need for a BAC in the county's largest city.
CYCLES OF CHANGE offers youth training in their "crazy bikeshop" on Mondays and bicycle explorations of the East Bay each Wednesday and Saturday. You can learn more by calling Maya or Grey at 510/595-4625 or drop off repairable bikes between 2-5pm on Mondays at 20th St at 20th Ave in Oakland.
CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION is being downsized and Congressman George Miller is championing an effort to open the base to civilian use. While the Navy is removing all stored munitions, they do not intend to relinquish control of some 20 square miles of the station. This includes some 10,000 acres of scenic open space that most all environmentalists believe should remain open and undeveloped forever.
In 1995, the Navy closed both the Port Chicago Highway and Waterfront Road connecting the Martinez Shoreline and Clyde to Bay Point. This has created a barrier to bicyclists travelling to Bay Point from Central Contra Costa County.
In a call for proposals to be submitted to the House Military Appropriations Committee, the EBBC requested the Navy immediately reopen Port Chicago Highway and Waterfront Road, since they are the shortest direct route between Martinez, Clyde and Bay Point. We also seek improvements to Willow Pass and Bailey Roads through the area. As existing facilities in the administrative area of the CNWS east of the Concord Golf Course are opened, access to these by bicycle should also be allowed. Access to all historical monuments including the one dedicated to the 1944 Port Chicago Explosion in the Tidal Area should also be accessible by bicycle.
The EBBC would support the construction of extensions of the Bay Trail from the Martinez-Benicia Bridge (which will soon have a bicycle/pedestrian lane) to Bay Point through appropriate parts of the CNWS's Tidal Area.
WALNUT CREEK BAC met in October to develop a list of BAC goals and objectives. As a result of recent field trips by BAC members, a list of critical projects was developed which will be proposed for the City's next Capital Improvements Program cycle. These include, in rank order, improvements to Oak Grove Road between Ygnacio and the Canal Trail, citywide through-bike-lanes at signalized intersections having the problematic single and double right turn-only lanes, citywide safe routes to schools, improvements on Walnut between Ygnacio and Homestead, and also a crossing light on Mt. Diablo Blvd at the Iron Horse Trail intersection.
POSEY TUBE GRIME has been cleaned following our complaints. However, a two-year repair of the tunnel will disrupt bicycle and pedestrian travel. Note that the Alameda Bicycle Master Plan calls for frequent Water Taxi service between Alameda and Oakland. The proposed closures are: nightly weekdays from 9pm-6am (Sun-Thurs). Four weekends only there will be 48-hour closures. Advance notice of all closures will be posted with detours; the City of Alameda will be funded for public information purposes and of course the info will be available through TravInfo. Sometimes only one lane will be open, but then either the sidewalk will be open for bikes and peds OR the contractor will shuttle bikes and peds. At the times the entire tube is shut down, the plan is that people would take the detours recommended either by auto or public transit.
RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE Halloween protest on October 30 led to an unexpected response from Caltrans. Each of the five expansion joints on the upper westbound deck were covered by two 4' x 8' rubber mats, 1 inch thick, taped together and laid across the joints. The bad news, is, of course, that Caltrans did not allow people to cycle across. Why then the rubber mats? Alex Zuckermann speculates that they expected people to arrive in their cars en mass, then drive to the middle of the bridge and get their bicycles out and start riding.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL bill was signed by Governor Davis!
It is popular to stereotype bicyclists, both in private conversations and in public forums. It is often asserted that all cyclists run stop signs, that they block the roads and that they have an arrogant disregard for motorists.
Few people these days would dare to publicly stereotype racial or ethnic minorities, yet many make sweeping and erroneous generalizations about cyclists. Those who say these things are not evil - just insensitive and uninformed. The real damage comes not from uttering these overly broad claims but from the fact that it enables those who say them to relegate cyclists to a subhuman group whose needs and interests need not be considered.
I would like to convince you that bicyclists are a lot like the general population, though there are some differences, and that addressing their needs will advance the general public welfare. First let us consider the differences. Cyclists are typically younger and slimmer than the average citizen. Cyclists are probably a bit more aggressive on the whole than the average citizen. The reason is that those who are not either die on the road or are frightened out of their wits and give it up.
Some cyclists are quite young, but with a little training they can safely ride to school and back and get themselves to Little League or soccer practice provided that there are no serious road hazards in their way. I believe that it is an important obligation of our community to make that possible.
The priorities of most cyclists are similar to those of non-cyclists. They wish to travel safely, lawfully and pleasantly, in that order. Like pedestrians, cyclists are relatively vulnerable because they are not travelling inside a steel cage. Unlike pedestrians, cyclists spend most of their travel time on the road.
There are many roads where this is not a problem in that there is room for motorists to pass safely, but there are some places that are not wide enough to do that. If that happens in a steep uphill section, the cyclist necessarily holds up traffic and there is nothing that he or she can do about it. Is that holdup the cyclist's fault? Some motorists seem to think so and blow their horns, as if to demand that the cyclist defy gravity.
By contrast, consider what is likely to happen when a motorist encounters a slow moving tractor on a narrow stretch of road. Is that motorist likely to honk his horn in order to get the tractor driver to accelerate? Probably not, because tractors have engines and therefore have equal status, unlike the disreputable Lycra-clad bikies.
When motorists are held up by cyclists on narrow road segments, I would hope that they would consider who is really at fault: the cheapskate agency that made the road too narrow in the first place.
Aside from a few differences in behavior that are intrinsic to two-wheeled travel, cyclists are a cross-section of the community. Politically they are all over the place. Some are arrogant jerks; others are the nicest people you would like to meet. Most try to ride lawfully; some are outlaws. Unlike motorists, they are generally friendly toward other cyclists.
Bicyclists contribute to the general welfare and that governmental bodies should therefore try to encourage more people to travel that way. Consider the growing problems of traffic congestion, air pollution, and the rising costs of health care. Cyclists take much less room on the road and generally can share it with motorists. They contribute essentially no air pollution and the exercise that they get makes them healthier, which helps to keep down the overall costs of health care providers, benefiting everyone.
Dealing with cycling issues in a fair and efficient way is not hard if you are willing to put aside your stereotypes and recognize cyclists as legitimate users of the roads, with rights and responsibilities that are not much different from those of motorists. Instead of thinking of these people as some kind of mutants, please try to put yourself in their place and think about ways to help them get where they are going safely.
-Les Earnest