Every roadway project should be a bike project, and a walking project, and a transit project, and not just a car project.
When the streets you ride on or walk across are repaved, a bike lane should be striped, crosswalks upgraded, traffic speeding issues addressed, and transit improvements incorporated from the start.
Before roadway projects start, planners should first consider how to spend your city’s transportation dollars, considering the needs of everyone who uses the streets, including people like you who walk and ride. They should also consider how proposed projects meet the City’s goals for better roadways and better communities. The result would be streets that look more like Photo A (A vision of Telegraph Ave as a "complete street") and less like Photo B (East 14th Street in San Leandro today).
Good news! The days will soon end when planners and engineers devise ways to move more cars and speed them up on the roadways without regard to the impacts on pedestrians, people on bikes, and transit users. In the coming years, these transportation professionals will be required to sit down with community stakeholders and ask what improvements to the streets people would like to see, what problems they are experiencing, what goals should be set to increase the number of people walking and using a bike. And the day is coming sooner rather than later thanks to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission approving a new Complete Streets Policy on May 17, which will govern future transportation projects in the Bay Area.
Despite Tea Party distractions, our elected officials are committed to directing more transportation money towards in-fill, transit-oriented development, and they are committed to ensuring these dollars are spent for the benefit of all, drivers and bicyclists alike. Every city in the East Bay is now required to adopt a Complete Streets Policy by Council resolution no later than January 31, 2013. Your Bicycle Coalition will be working with local bicycle/pedestrian advisory committees and planners in each of our cities to start the challenging work to develop these policies and seeing that they are implemented, so that they result in new bike lanes and safer streets for you to use everyday.
What you can do:
Attend an upcoming meeting of your city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and provide your input on what improvements you want to see in upcoming roadway projects:
• In Berkeley, the next meeting is from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. Monday, June 11, at the North Berkeley Senior Center at Hearst Avenue and MLK Jr. Way.
Here's the schedule in neighboring cities:
• Oakland: The Complete Streets Policy is on the July agenda. Oakland’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meets from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on the third Thursday of every month in Hearing Room 4 of City Hall, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza.
• Emeryville: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meets from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on the first Monday of every month in the ground floor Garden Room of City Hall, 1333 Park Ave.
• Richmond: Meetings are held from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on the second Monday of every month on the second floor of City Hall, 450 Civic Center Plaza.
If your city is not listed here, please contact Dave Campbell, EBBC Program Director, and help us form a Bicycle Advisory Committee in your City.
The East Bay Bicycle Coalition works for safe, convenient and enjoyable bicycling for all people in the East Bay. Visit our website: www.ebbc.org to learn more about our efforts to encourage more people to try bicycling.
Automobiles and trucks (together with the road systems they drive on) have dramatically improved the efficiency of the economy, increased personal freedom and mobility, and raised the standard of living of every American, even you. Look around you. Everything you see that is not rooted in soil came to you in a car or a truck. Not a bicycle. Cars and trucks also cause many deaths. It is worth it. Wax eloquent if you like, but reality will not yield to romantic utopian visions.
Realistically, of course trucks are necessary, no one's saying they aren't. But too many people are completely dependent on their cars to the point where gas prices are all half of people talk about. Know the last time I worried about the price of gas? Well, the last time I filled my tank was over 6 months ago, and I didn't worry much then since it was one of only a few tanks I bought all year. To me, that's freedom and gives me more money to truly go and enjoy myself, like going out to nice dinners, taking a trip, etc.
Do what you want, but cyclists should pay for the incremental infrastructure they seek. Do you seriously think that cars don't delivery HUGE net value to consumers? If not, why do they drive them? Is this mass hysteria we are witnessing? As an aside, I (mostly) drive a Volt that is powered by sunshine (PV Solar), so I am not a slave to anyone.
I do seriously think that cars don't delivery [sic] a HUGE net benefit to consumers. I think they cause stress, ill-health, money-wasting, and less fun. But people drive because that's what they do. We're all so convinced we're in some huge hurry. For so many daily purposes, a car is SO overkill. Going a mile up the road to get a gallon of milk? You really need a 3000-lb car to get you there? In a car, you're limited by speed limits; on a bike, you're limited by your own fitness and desires. You can ride as fast or slow as you want. You're right about one thing, riding a bike probably does have a higher incidence of injury/death per mile. But the vast majority of those come about from interactions with cars, which is exactly why we want better infrastructure. Lastly, cyclists do pay for infrastructure. We pay taxes, most of us own cars (pay for registration), and buy gas too. Educate yourself please: http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_20622810/roadshow-green-bike-lanes-arent-hit-everyone
Independent? Seems to me that you are now exceedingly dependent on car manufacturers, oil companies, insurance companies, vehicle maintenance providers, parking lot attendants, transportation infrastructure, the car wash, the DMV, tire stores, etc.. Call us when you become fully self-sufficient, for only then can you claim true freedom.
"America has a long way to go before it smartens up" - is so typically elitist - (I know better than you) - It's very dangerous to have a few in power regulating everything - where does it stop when you are monitered with drones and smart meters - where does it stop? Imagine the power that can be disguised through environmentalism. Unfortunately the way the power elite are trying to take control is not good for the environment in general either. More bike lanes and walking are great. That's fine - people know what's good for them. They don't need to have slightly smaller candy bar regulated. But let's get an elevator to work at BART and make the trains more reliable before we take over other's lives. We are broke too - it's absurd !
One can not help but admire your fortitude, T. Gunter.
by the car drivers and the bikers.
'Oh wait, you mean on the steepest road in the entire bay area, you wish to put bike paths?' ... That's EXTRA stupid. Well, you're correct. We shouldn't put bike paths on patently unsafe areas, roads too steep, too narrow,, etc. ' Well, on narrow roads': lets put them on ONE side only;... that too is unsafe. As an example, I was making a left off-of Marin, I pulled to the center isle (left turn lane), and carefully threaded the needle between the onslaught of on-coming cars...BUT a bicyclist was traveling in the wrong direction in the Marin bike lane at 20 mph. I didn't see him/her, as they were parallel to me (off my rear left) when I began my turn, and... OK.... so ONE bike lane on any road is a dangerous idea, it lends support to bikes going in both directions. Bike riders can die in poorly planned bike-paths; in an illusion of safety. That fact brings to the statement: " ... transportation professionals will be required to sit down with community stakeholders and ask what improvements to the streets people would like to see...". THEY ALREADY DO; and they do it with a skill-set that is already beyond comprehension of the simplistic discussions going on here.....IMHO. They already do that.
A person with their butt on a bicycle (not walking the bike) IS a vehicle by state law, and all rules of the road, and liability is then upon them. For instance, there are rules about pedestrians (and those walking bikes) at intersections: they have right-of-way. There is NO right-of-way given to a person sitting on a bicycle, other than those due to a motorcycle or car in the same position. For example, a bicycle being ridden in a cross-walk, or on a sidewalk IS illegal. Further: those bikes riding on the bike path under bart on the trail have the SAME liability as a motorcycle riding on the same trail- if a dog or child gets in their way: that is: NO right-of-way. When a car slows and stops to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk: that's the law; to do otherwise citable. EVEN if a pedestrian flags a vehicle to go on, the vehicle's driver IS breaking the law... (who's driving the car, the pedestrian? ) If it is a paused bicyclist poised in the crosswalk, the bicyclist is already breaking the law. Cross walks are for pedestrians, not vehicles.
I have a blind neighbor; when he decides to go up Solano just two blocks (from Key Route) to the Safeway store: he takes the bus. I asked him why? He said there are shin and head busters all the way up to Safeway, and it's much safer for him to take the bus for the4 blocks; he said it wasn't always this way, but that's the way it is now. If you think this is NOT the case, grab yourself a cane and a blindfold, and walk up the four blocks to Safeway, be prepared for: Six concrete planters; 15-trees, 4 which have the sidewalk diverted around them; 4-metal benches; 10-light posts, 4 parking posts; 4, metal bike-parking pipe structurers, 8-metal/concrete trash cans; 3-commercial signs (that move around). Then: look at the west side of Key Route blvd. in the 900 to 1200 blocks. There is NO room for an island between the 3' sidewalk and the curb; the sidewalk IS the curb. Never-the-less, the city inserted 'Clean the street' signage IN this side walk, narrowing the usage to 2' in many areas. This is IN VIOLATION of the cities own rules about providing 3' minimum of sidewalk space. (Has Albany installed these signs everywhere? NO, but here, they illegally have!)
Beyond that, AS&R was motivated to perform the sidewalk census to inform itself whether the anecdotal perception of pervasively poor sidewalk conditions was accurate. AS&R considers the census results confirmed this.
Currently the City identifies the need for road maintenance, contracts for and manages the maintenance, and pays for it out of funds contributed by all of us every year. This includes a parcel tax Albany passed in 2006 that charges about $100 per residence per year. In contrast, sidewalk maintenance, including identifying the need, contracting for and managing the maintenance, and paying for it is the responsibility of whoever owns property nearest the sidewalk (although the City will reimburse half afterwards under certain conditions and if funds have not run out). This, even though the sidewalks are on public property just like the roads. This inequitable approach to maintenance means that some sidewalks remain damaged for decades in my experience because the adjacent property owner will not take action, and when owners do take action it is relatively more expensive due to small scale. Why should sidewalks and their users be relegated to this second class status compared to roads and road users, particularly in a City that prides itself, or at least claims, to be one of the greenest around?
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/
You did not touch upon the west side of Key Route blvd. (in the 900 to 1200 blocks) in which there is NO room for an island between the 3' sidewalk and the curb; ywt the city inserted 'Clean the street' signage IN this side walk, narrowing the usage to 2' in many areas. This remains IN VIOLATION of the cities own rules about providing 3' minimum of sidewalk space. It would be one thing if there were trees here actually dirtying the street, but as said: there can be none. It would be a further issues if the entire city of Albany suffered this signage, but that too isn't the case; Key Route was among the first. What does this mean to the residents? The hazard presented by the narrowing of the sidewalks to 2' to clear the signs means their children cannot safely ride their bikes upon it, and must cross the street inorder to find safer passage. You might argue that this is the result of poor and unique sidewalk design; and your correct: BUT it was the greed of the City that allowed this design in the first place. Suggestion: The city should remove the sign posts that impinges on the 3' width rules, or should the impacted homeowners do this themselves?