UPDATE ON ROUTE 92 EAST WIDENING PROJECT THROUGH THE WATERSHED
Return to DaniWeber.com
See a viable alternative to the proposed interchange - a roundabout
The Half Moon Bay City Council has asked the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to ask Caltrans to
reopen the EIR, as well as request participation on a citizen's advisory committee to oversee the design and construction of this project.As of 1/02, Caltrans has determined that it is "conceptually feasible" to designate the shoulders as Class 2 bike lanes,
although we have not yet pinned down the details.
Article in Acterra's newsletter
Article in HMB Review Opponents demand more alternatives
Published Wednesday, July 25, 2001, in the Half Moon Bay Review
The Issue:
Rte. 92 is a critical east west route for cyclists, as it is the only paved access to the coast for many miles.
Improvements to Rte. 92 for cyclists are identified in the San Mateo County Bike Plan as Project No.9 on
the top ten list of projects. It is not only a popular and well-established cycling route for locals, but also
for long-distance cyclists, carrying the 3000 riders of the AIDS Ride this year as well as many other
charity rides and is a vital link in many tours.The Problem:
Currently, Caltrans is studying the widening and straightening of Rte. 92 from Hwy 35 South to Hwy 35
North to add a new uphill "Slow Vehicle" Lane, a solid divider, wide shoulders, a bridge and is planning
to add a freeway-style interchange at Hwy 35 South and Rte. 92, thus replacing the stop sign at South
35 that currently exists. See the study on the Peninsula Bicycle & Pedestrian Coalition website.
View the proposed freeway-style interchange. This interchange proposal is not listed as a project in the
Measure A voter's pamphlet. Only a proposal to widen the road is listed. In addition, even then, the
pamphlet states that further study will be necessary to determine whether the new road will be two
lanes, three or four. As we read this, the voters did not approve an interchange, so Caltrans cannot
build this with Measure A funds.The plan presently indicates that trucks are going to be ³sharing the shoulder with bicycles². Allowing
this proposal to be implemented as written WILL DEFINITELY result in an increased number of fatalities
among cyclists using that same shoulder. Such an outcome contradicts Caltran's objective to increase
the safety for all.This project is a safety project using Measure A funds, and the use of such funds
may not "negatively affect cyclists."The Solution:
1.) That Caltrans study alternative designs to the proposed freeway-style interchange at South 35 and Rte.92.
Such alternatives could include a signalized intersection or a modern roundabout or other designs.2.)Designating the shoulders of Rte. 92 from Highway 1 to North 35 as Class 2 bike lanes.
Endorsements:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
REBAC
San Mateo County Transportation Authority Citizen's Advisory Committee
Midcoast Community Council
Loma Prieta chapter of Sierra ClubReason for Our Concern:
Studies have shown that increased speeds will increase accidents. Widening and straightening this route and
creating a freeway style interchange at South 35 and 92 will result in higher speeds.
http://www.highwaysafety.org/news_releases/1999/pr011499.htm
Another study which shows that widening and straightening road does not improve overall safety: http://penbiped.org/highway-safety-not.pdfIt is our theory that widening the section of Hwy. 92 from South 35 to Pilarcitos Creek has resulted in
more commercial truck traffic that is going faster and is resulting in more serious accidents and collisions.
One collision report: http://www.oaklandtribune-ang.com/default.asp?PUID=557. We believe that data
requested from the CHP will back this allegation up. It would be wise to learn from past mistakes in order
to avoid future ones, and to ameliorate those mistakes made to limit their future effect.It is our contention that the planned widening and straightening of Rte. 92 East and the imposition of a
freeway-style interchange will negatively affect bicyclists by encouraging bigger, heavier double and
triple axle trucks to drive on Rte. 92. The high possibility of higher speeds, the tendency of truckers to
drive on the shoulder and the increased likelihood of roll-over accidents and runaway trucks from this
widening dictate that some mitigation measures be incorporated in this design.Further, alternative designs for the proposed interchange will be safer for all travelers, more cost effective,
have less impact on the environment, be less likely to destabilize the hill and will be able to be built more
quickly with less obstruction to traffic.Explanation of Our Solution:
Primarily, Caltrans should untertake a complete environmental impact report on this project,
including more than one design alternative and assessing cumulative impactsFor the Intersection:
Caltrans should study all practical alternative designs for this interchange. This should include all designs
from no-build to a signal to a roundabout to a modified interchange.
Flexibility in design is recommended in this Caltrans memo: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/design/m110299.htm
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/apdx_htm/apdx_bb/apdx_bb.htmRoundabouts are a design which should be studied. Caltrans has new directives on creating
roundabouts:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/db80.htm See video at top of page.
Cities in San Diego County are the latest to experiment with modern roundabouts including the latest
addition in Carlsbad and others planned for El Cajon and San Diego; some 30 other modern roundabouts
exist in other California cities including Truckee, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Arcata, a town that boasts
the absence of any signalized or stop sign-controlled intersections (SDUT 5/20)...The Institute for Highway Safety has conducted a study that demonstrates that modern rounabouts
can cut traffic collisions by 40% and deaths by up to 90%.For the shoulder:
As of 1/02, Caltrans has determined that it is "conceptually feasible" to designate the shoulders as Class 2 bike lanes,
although we have not yet pinned down the details.The intent of new state and federal laws and funds for bicycle facilities is to encourage cycling.
The County Bike Plan already recognizes Rte. 92 as a critical east west corridor for cyclists and it is
the intent of the County in creating the Bike Plan to encourage cycling, not restrict it. Measure A
funds cannot be used for a project that will negatively affect cyclists. Widening and straightening
Rte. 92 without providing some mitigation for cyclists will negatively affect our travel. Class 2 bike
lanes afford the cyclist better legal protection because motorists can be cited for driving in the
bike lane. Class 2 bike lanes also cannot be striped out of existence with no public review the
way a shoulder can. Thus Class 2 bike lanes are a natural result of the intentions put forward
by the county, the state and the federal government in accommodating cyclists on Rte. 92
where the widening otherwise threatens our access and safety on this route. There is no
liability in designating Class 2 bike lanes. The liability lies in not addressing cyclists' concerns
by failing to implement such lanes, which may leave the County and Caltrans open for legal
redress and make this project ineligible for Measure A funds.The Rte. 92 East Uphill Widening Project plan revision projects 5 foot uphill shoulders and
10 foot downhill shoulders. The rest of Rte. 92 to Highway 1 either already has shoulders
at least 5 feet wide or has plans for shoulders greater than 5 feet. This is more than
adequate for a bike lane. The minimum requirement for a Class 2 bike lane is 4 feet.Caltrans' Highway Design Manual (HDM)Chapter 1000 on bicycles contains provisions for adding
Class 2 bike lanes to a rural highway, such as Rte. 92:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/chapters/figures/f1003_2a.htm
"Figure 1003.2A(4) depicts bike lanes on a highway without curbs and gutters. This location
is in an undeveloped area where infrequent parking is handled off the pavement. This can be accomplished by
supplementing the bike lane signing with R25 (park off pavement) signs, or R26 (no parking) signs. Minimum widths
shall be as shown. Additional width is desirable, particularly where motor vehicle speeds exceed 55 km/h.Also as stated in Caltrans' Highway Design Manual, bike lanes are specifically defined as
Class 2 bike lanes and Caltrans acknowledges that bike lane striping can increase our safety:"1003.2 Class II Bikeways Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for preferential use by bicycles
are established within the paved area of highways. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote an orderly
flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by
motor vehicles. This effect is supported by bike lane signs and pavement markings. Bike lane stripes can increase
bicyclists' confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they remain
within the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to
swerve toward opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists. "Merely providing shoulder striping will not accomplish the same effect. Motorists will have a
tendency to cut the corners or drive on the shoulder in the event of a traffic jam because
they will not see bike lane signs that would give them reason to believe cyclists may be
present. This will result in a motorist who will inadvertantly drive on the shoulder and be
unable to stop when suddenly confronting a cyclist around the bend. If this motorist is
driving a tractor trailer truck, he will most likely be unable to avoid killing the cyclist at
the increased speeds that may reasonably be expected for vehicles to drive on this new road.Merely providing Class 3 facilities ( "Bike Route") is not acceptable. Class 3 bike routes
are considered by Caltrans' own Highway Design Manual to be shared facilities:" Class III facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with
pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary."Shared use of a shoulder with high-speed vehicles, especially commercial trucks is highly
dangerous, thus designating Rte. 92 as a Class 3 facility will be no protection at all.
Rte. 92 cannot be considered a secondary road for cyclists, because there is no other
road for cyclists to use.Finally, we are not requesting a Class 1 facility - a bike path separated from the road.
This would entail additional widening with no increase in benefit for cyclists and at the
risk of further damaging the environment. In addition, such a path running next to a
road is not recommended by the HDM, either.We are supporting the equestrian groups in their call for a dirt trail, which will not have a
significant impact on the environment.We are not asking for any additional widening of the road.
The issue of continuity:
Class 2 bike lanes on this section of Rte. 92 would be contiguous and consistent with
other planned bicycle facilities on Rte. 92. Ultimately, all of Rte. 92 should have Class 2
lanes. Caltrans has stated that their new directive stresses contiguity and consistency.
We contend that Class 2 bike lanes on this section of Rte. 92 will be contiguous, because:
1) The bike lanes will run the entire length of the project in question. The words contiguous
and consistent were established in order to keep Caltrans engineers from only placing bike
lanes through a partial section of a project, not to mean that any new bike facilities must
connect directly with other bike facilities already established on roads outside the project¹s
scope. It is not reasonable to expect that roads or parts of roads outside this project be
required to also maintain the same level of bike facility. If that is going to be the basis of
approval of any new bike lanes, then it will mean that few, if any bike facilities could ever
be built. This directly contradicts with the intent of this directive.2) It is already clear that the planned and existing widened sections will have more than
adequate width for Class 2 lanes. This will ultimately allow cyclists to ride on Class 2 lanes
from Canada Rd. to Highway 1.Precedence has already been established. The TDA Article 3 application for bike lanes on
Rte. 92 in Half Moon Bay, which has been approved and funded and is the result of
resolution No. C-7-99, City of HMB resolution, provides for separate, striped and signed
bike lanes 1.5 meters wide. These are not specifically listed as Class 2 bike lanes,
merely ³bike lanes², but the Highway Design Manual defines bike lanes as Class 2
bike lanes. When the CCAG BAC approved funding for this project, there was broad
understanding that ³bike lane² meant ³Class 2 bike lane². If that is not , in fact, the
case, it may be necessary for this project to be resubmitted.In fact, where the project¹s evaluation criteria asks: D. 1. Does the project provide connection
to and continuity of longer routes? The answer is, correctly, ³yes² and the further explanation
contained in this document is: ³Highway 92 is identified as an east/west bicycle route under
the County Bikeways Plan, and Caltrans has been incorporating wide shoulders as part of its
widening efforts. Within Half Moon Bay, the highway widening will incorporate curb, gutter,
sidewalks and bike lanes. "Our proposal is consistent with the San Mateo County Bike Plan. As stated previously,
³Highway 92 is identified as an east/west bicycle route under the County Bikeways Plan,²
Rte. 92 modifications to accommodate bicycles are Project No. 9 of this Bike Plan. This plan
was written prior to Caltrans¹ new document on accommodating non-motorized travel,
thus it does not ask specifically for bike lanes. However, nowhere in the Bike Plan is it
written that these goals should limit or restrict the construction of a better class of bike
facility.Providing a separated path for non-motor only access across the intersection:
Part of the current County Bike Plan project is a separate non-motor overpass for non
motor travel. We believe that the current plan containing a combined motor and non-motor
overpass is in violation of this project and that Caltrans¹ new directive requires that the
Bike Plan¹s non-motor overpass be adhered to. This would be easier and safer if the Rte. 92
plan is modified to put a simple signalized intersection or roundabout at 35 South and 92,
instead of the planned interchange. We do believe that a non-motor underpass is more
desirable than an overpass and would serve the same function, so could be reasonably
used as an alternate, more cost-effective option. This would connect to a multi-purpose
trail to the vista point at the south-east corner of South 35 and Rte. 92.Finally, the ³liability² issue of Class 2 bike lanes is bogus: Verbally, we have been told by
Caltrans personnel, ³it would create a liability to put class 2 bike lanes on 92 because it
would encourage cycling, and cycling is dangerous² and that "bike lanes would encourage
cycling and we do not want to encourage cycling on this road." There is no liability issue in
providing bike lanes and Caltrans knows it. Bicycles are legally allowed to ride on this
highway, which is not a freeway and thus bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities
to ride on the road that motorists do. This argument is nothing but a red herring.
For updates, contact:
Dani Weber,President., Peninsula Bicycle & Pedestrian Coalition 709 S. Eldorado St. ,
San Mateo, CA 94402, 650-579-4728 dani@daniweber.com
Highway Design Manual CHAPTER 1000 BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN Topic 1003 -
Design Criteria 1003.1 Class I Bikeways Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities
with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Section 890.4
of the Streets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the
exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians".1003.2 Class II Bikeways Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for preferential use by bicycles
are established within the paved area of highways. Bike lane stripes are intended to
promote an orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between
areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. This effect is
supported by bike lane signs and pavement markings. Bike lane stripes can increase
bicyclists' confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they
remain within the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists
will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve toward opposing traffic in making
certain they will not hit bicyclists. Class II bike lanes shall be one-way facilities.
Two-way bike lanes (or bike paths that are contiguous to the roadway) are not
permitted, as such facilities have proved unsatisfactory and promote riding against
the flow of motor vehicle traffic.(1) Widths. Typical Class II bikeway configurations are illustrated in Figure 1003.2A
and are described below:Figure 1003.2A(4) depicts bike lanes on a highway without curbs and gutters. This
location is in an undeveloped area where infrequent parking is handled off the
pavement. This can be accomplished by supplementing the bike lane signing with
R25 (park off pavement) signs, or R26 (no parking) signs. Minimum widths shall be
as shown. Additional width is desirable, particularly where motor vehicle speeds
exceed 55 km/h. The typical traffic lane width next to a bike lane is 3.6 m. Lane
widths narrower than 3.6 m must receive approval as discussed in Index 82.2.
There are situations where it may be necessary to reduce the width of the traffic
lanes in order to stripe bike lanes. In determining the appropriateness of narrower
traffic lanes, consideration should be given to factors such as motor vehicle speeds,
truck volumes, alignment, and sight distance. Where favorable conditions exist,
traffic lanes of 3.3 m may be feasible. Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep
downgrades, where bicycle speeds greater than 50 km/h are expected. As grades
increase, downhill bicycle speeds will increase, which increases the problem of
riding near the edge of the roadway. In such situations, bicycle speeds can
approach those of motor vehicles, and experienced bicyclists will generally
move into the motor vehicle lanes to increase sight distance and maneuverability.
If bike lanes are to be striped, additional width should be provided to accommodate
higher bicycle speeds. If the bike lanes are to be located on one-way streets, they
should be placed on the right side of the street. Bike lanes on the left side would
cause bicyclists and motorists to undertake crossing maneuvers in making left turns
onto a two-way street.(2) Striping and Signing. Details for striping and signing of bike lanes are included
under Topic 1004. Raised barriers (e.g., raised traffic bars and asphalt concrete dikes)
or raised pavement markers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. Raised
barriers prevent motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right turns,
as required by the Vehicle Code, and restrict the movement of bicyclists desiring
to enter or exit bike lanes. They also impede routine maintenance. Raised pavement
markers increase the difficulty for bicyclists when entering or exiting bike lanes, and
discourage motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right turns. Bike
lane stripes should be placed a constant distance from the outside motor vehicle
lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted (3.3 m to 3.9 m between the bike lane line
and the curb) should not be directed toward the curb at intersections or localized
areas where parking is prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists from following
a straight course. Where transitions from one type of bike lane to another are
necessary, smooth tapers should be provided.(3) At-grade Intersection Design. Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections.
For this reason, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a
manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will permit
both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the road. Figure 1003.2B
illustrates a typical at-grade intersection of multilane streets, with bike lanes on
all approaches. Some common movements of motor vehicles and bicycles are
shown. A prevalent type of accident involves straight-through bicycle traffic
and right-turning motorists. Left-turning bicyclists also have problems, as the
bike lane is on the right side of the street, and bicyclists have to cross the path
of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicyclists are proficient enough to
merge across one or more lanes of traffic, to use the inside lane or left-turn
lane. However, there are many who do not feel comfortable making this maneuver.
They have the option of making a two-legged left turn by riding along a course
similar to that followed by pedestrians, as shown in the diagram. Young
children will often prefer to dismount and change directions by walking their
bike in the crosswalk.Figure 1003.2C illustrates recommended striping patterns for bike lanes crossing
a motorist right-turn-only lane. When confronted with such intersections, bicyclists
will have to merge with right-turning motorists. Since bicyclists are typically traveling
at speeds less than motorists, they should signal and merge where there is
sufficient gap in right-turning traffic, rather than at any predetermined location. For
this reason, it is recommended that all delineation be dropped at the approach of
the right-turn lane. A pair of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane crossing) to
channel the bike merge is not recommended, as bicyclists will be encouraged to
cross at a predetermined location, rather than when there is a safe gap in right-turning
traffic. A dashed line across the right-turn-only lane is not recommended on extremely
long lanes, or where there are double right-turn-only lanes. For these types of
intersections, all striping should be dropped to permit judgment by the bicyclists to
prevail. A Bike Xing sign may be used to warn motorists of the potential for bicyclists
crossing their path. At intersections where there is a bike lane and traffic-actuated
signal, installation of bicycle-sensitive detectors within the bike lane is desirable.
Push button detectors are not as satisfactory as those located in the pavement
because the cyclist must stop to actuate the push button. It is also desirable that
detectors in left-turn lanes be sensitive enough to detect bicycles (see Chapter 9
of the Traffic Manual and Standard Plans for bicycle-sensitive detector designs).
See Figure 1003.2D for bicycle loop detector pavement marking. At intersections
(without bike lanes) with significant bicycle use and a traffic-actuated signal, it is
desirable to install detectors that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles.(4) Interchange Design. As with bikeway design through at-grade intersections,
bikeway design through interchanges should be accomplished in a manner that
will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists. Designers should work closely
with the local agency in designing bicycle facilities through interchanges. Local
Agencies should carefully select interchange locations which are most suitable
for bikeway designations and where the crossing meets applicable design
standards. The local agency may have special needs and desires for continuity
through interchanges which should be considered in the design process. When
a bike lane approaches a ramp intersection that intersects the local facility at
or close to 90° (typical of a compact or spread diamond configuration), then
Figure 1003.2C may be the appropriate method of getting bike lanes through
the interchange. However, when a bike lane approaches one or more ramp
intersections that intersect the local facility at various angles other than 90°
(typically high-speed, skewed ramps), Figure 1003.2E should be considered.
Figure 1003.2E, shows a bike lane through a typical interchange. The 150 mm
bike lane stripe should be dropped 30 m prior to the ramp intersection as
shown in the figure to allow for adequate weaving distance. The shoulder
width shall not be reduced through the interchange area. The minimum shoulder
width shall match the approach roadway shoulder width, but not less than 1.2 m
or 1.5 m if a gutter exists. If the shoulder width is not available, the designated
bike lane shall end at the previous local road intersection. Depending on the
intersection angles, either Figure 1003.2C or 1003.2E should also be used for
multilane ramp intersections. Additionally, the outside through lane should be
widened to 4.2 m when feasible. This allows extra room for bicycles to share
the through lane with vehicles. The outside shoulder width should not be
reduced through the interchange area to accommodate this additional width.
1003.3 Class III Bikeways Class III bikeways (bike routes) are intended to
provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along
through routes not served by Class I or II bikeways, or to connect discontinuous
segments of bikeway (normally bike lanes). Class III facilities are shared facilities,
either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in
either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class III facilities are established by placing
Bike Route signs along roadways. Minimum widths for Class III bikeways are not
presented, as the acceptable width is dependent on many factors, including the
volume and character of vehicular traffic on the road, typical speeds, vertical and
horizontal alignment, sight distance, and parking conditions. Since bicyclists are
permitted on all highways (except prohibited freeways), the decision to sign the
route should be based on the advisability of encouraging bicycle travel on the
route and other factors listed below.(1) On-street Bike Route Criteria. To be of benefit to bicyclists, bike routes should
offer a higher degree of service than alternative streets. Routes should be signed
only if some of the following apply: (a) They provide for through and direct travel
in bicycle-demand corridors. (b) Connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes.
(c) An effort has been made to adjust traffic control devices (stop signs, signals)
to give greater priority to bicyclists, as compared with alternative streets. This
could include placement of bicycle-sensitive detectors on the right-hand portion
of the road, where bicyclists are expected to ride. (d) Street parking has been
removed or restricted in areas of critical width to provide improved safety. (e)
Surface imperfections or irregularities have been corrected (e.g., utility covers
adjusted to grade, potholes filled, etc.). (f) Maintenance of the route will be
at a higher standard than that of other comparable streets (e.g., more
frequent street sweeping).1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways In some instances, bicyclists are permitted on freeways.
Seldom would a freeway be signed or striped as a bikeway, but it can be opened
for use if it meets certain criteria. Essentially, the criteria involve assessing the safety
and convenience of the freeway as compared with available alternate routes. However,
a freeway should not be opened to bicycle use if it is determined to be incompatible.
The Headquarters Traffic Liaisons and the Project Development Coordinator must
approve any proposals to open freeways to bicyclists. If a suitable alternate route
exists, it would normally be unnecessary to open the freeway. However, if the
alternate route is unsuitable for bicycle travel the freeway may be a better alternative
for bicyclists. In determining the suitability of an alternate route, safety should be the
paramount consideration. The following factors should be considered: Number of
intersections Shoulder widths Traffic volumes Vehicle speeds Bus, truck and
recreational vehicle volumes Grades Travel time When a suitable alternate route
does not exist, a freeway shoulder may be considered for bicycle travel. Normally,
freeways in urban areas will have characteristics that make it unfeasible to permit
bicycle use. In determining if the freeway shoulder is suitable for bicycle travel, the
following factors should be considered; Shoulder widths Bicycle hazards on shoulders
(drainage grates, expansion joints, etc.) Number and location of entrance/exit ramps
Traffic volumes on entrance/exit ramps When bicyclists are permitted on segments
of freeway, it will be necessary to modify and supplement freeway regulatory signs,
particularly those at freeway ramp entrances and exits (see Chapter 4 of the Traffic
Manual). Where no reasonable alternate route exists within a freeway corridor, the
Department should coordinate with local agencies to develop or improve existing
routes or provide parallel bikeways within or adjacent to the freeway right of way.
The long term goal is to provide a safe and convenient non-freeway route for bicycle
travel.1003.5 Multipurpose Trails In some instances, it may be appropriate for agencies to
develop multipurpose trails - for hikers, joggers, equestrians, bicyclists, etc. Many of
these trails will not be paved and will not meet the standards for Class I bikeways.
As such, these facilities should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they should be
designated as multipurpose trails (or similar designation), along with regulatory
signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropriate. If multipurpose trails are primarily
to serve bicycle travel, they should be developed in accordance with standards for
Class I bikeways. In general, multipurpose trails are not recommended as high
speed transportation facilities for bicyclists because of conflicts between bicyclists
and pedestrians. Wherever possible, separate bicycle and pedestrian paths should
be provided. If this is not feasible, additional width, signing and striping should be
used to minimize conflicts. It is undesirable to mix mopeds and bicycles on the same
facility. In general, mopeds should not be allowed on multipurpose trails because of
conflicts with slower moving bicyclists and pedestrians. In some cases where an
alternate route for mopeds does not exist, additional width, signing, and striping
should be used to minimize conflicts. Increased patrolling by law enforcement
personnel is also recommended to enforce speed limits and other rules of the road.
It is usually not desirable to mix horses and bicycle traffic on the same multipurpose
trail. Bicyclists are often not aware of the need for slower speeds and additional
operating space near horses. Horses can be startled easily and may be unpredictable
if they perceive approaching bicyclists as a danger. In addition, pavement requirements
for safe bicycle travel are not suitable for horses. For these reasons, a bridle trail
separate from the multipurpose trail is recommended wherever possible.
1003.6 Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria The following are miscellaneous bikeway
criteria which should be followed to the extent pertinent to Class I, II and III
bikeways. Some, by their very nature, will not apply to all classes of bikeway.
Many of the criteria are important to consider on any highway where bicycle
travel is expected, without regard to whether or not bikeways are established.(1) Bridges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coordinated with
approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For example,
bicycle traffic bound in opposite directions is best accommodated by bike lanes
on each side of a highway. In such cases, a two-way bike path on one side of
a bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one direction of bicycle traffic would
be required to cross the highway at grade twice to get to and from the bridge bike path.
Because of the inconvenience, many bicyclists will be encouraged to ride on the wrong
side of the highway beyond the bridge termini. The following criteria apply to a two-way
bike path on one side of a highway bridge: (a) The bikeway approach to the bridge
should be by way of a separate two-way facility for the reason explained above.
(b) A physical separation, such as a chain link fence or railing, shall be provided to
offset the adverse effects of having bicycles traveling against motor vehicle traffic.
The physical separation should be designed to minimize fixed end hazards to
motor vehicles and if the bridge is an interchange structure, to minimize sight
distance restrictions at ramp intersections. It is recommended that bikeway
bridge railings or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at
least 1.4 m high to minimize the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the railings.
Standard bridge railings which are lower than 1.4 m can be retrofitted with
lightweight upper railings or chain link fence suitable to restrain bicyclists. Separate
highway overcrossing structures for bikeway traffic shall conform to Caltrans' standard
pedestrian overcrossing design loading. The minimum clear width shall be the paved
width of the approach bikeway but not less than 2.4 m. If pedestrians are to use the
structure, additional width is recommended. (2) Surface Quality. The surface to be
used by bicyclists should be smooth, free of potholes, and the pavement edge uniform.
For rideability on new construction, the finished surface of bikeways should not vary
more than 6 mm from the lower edge of a 2.4 m long straight edge when laid on the
surface in any direction. Table 1003.6 indicates the recommended bikeway surface
tolerances for Class II and III bikeways developed on existing streets to minimize
the potential for causing bicyclists to lose control of their bicycle (Note: Stricter
tolerances should be achieved on new bikeway construction.) Shoulder rumble
strips are not suitable as a riding surface for bicycles. See Traffic Manual Section
6-03.2 for additional information regarding rumble strip design considerations for
bicycles. (3) Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways. Drainage inlet
grates, manhole covers, etc., on bikeways should be designed and installed in a
manner that provides an adequate surface for bicyclists. They should be maintained
flush with the surface when resurfacing. Drainage inlet grates on bikeways shall have
openings narrow enough and short enough to assure bicycle tires will not drop into
the grates (e.g., reticuline type), regardless of the direction of bicycle travel. Where
it is not immediately feasible to replace existing grates with standard grates designed
for bicycles, 25 mm x 6 mm steel cross straps should be welded to the grates at a
spacing of 150 mm to 200 mm on centers to reduce the size of the openings adequately.
Corrective actions described above are recommended on all highways where bicycle
travel is permitted, whether or not bikeways are designated. Future driveway construction
should avoid construction of a vertical lip from the driveway to the gutter, as the lip may
create a problem for bicyclists when entering from the edge of the roadway at a flat
angle. If a lip is deemed necessary, the height should be limited to 15 mm. ,
(5) Obstruction Markings. Vertical barriers and obstructions, such as abutments, piers,
and other features causing bikeway constriction, should be clearly marked to gain the
attention of approaching bicyclists. This treatment should be used only where unavoidable,
and is by no means a substitute for good bikeway design. An example of an obstruction
marking is shown in Figure 1003.6B. Signs, reflectors, diagonal black and yellow markings,
or other treatments will be appropriate in other instances to alert bicyclists to potential obstructions.*************************************************************************
http://www.oaklandtribune-ang.com/default.asp?PUID=557Published Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News Highway 92 fuel
cleanup continues well into evening The California Highway Patrol expected to reopen
Highway 92 near Half Moon Bay on Monday night after hazardous materials crews
finished cleaning up a fuel spill from an overturned tanker truck. Eastbound Highway 92
was to open around 9 p.m. at the site of the noon crash about three miles east of the
junction with Highway 1. The highway had been closed to clear the road and clean up
spilled fuel. Once the eastbound lanes were reopened, the CHP said, westbound lanes
would be closed intermittently throughout the night to finish the cleanup that was
postponed to allow commuters to return home to Half Moon Bay. Eastbound traffic was
diverted at Highway 1 during the cleanup operation. Only minor delays were reported
in westbound lanes Monday evening because Highway 92 commuters, long used to
checking traffic reports before getting on the frequently congested road, sought
alternate routes home, authorities said. The CHP had advised drivers traveling eastbound
Monday night to use highways 17 and 84 instead of Highway 92. Three other vehicles
were involved in the incident that closed the road. No injuries were reported, according
to CHP spokesman Paul McCarthy.***********************************************************************************
Professor Noland's new paper examines the effect of several factors that have been
hypothesized to cause an overall reduction in traffic related fatalities in the United States.
He analyzed data from 50 states over 14 years to determine the effect of highway
infrastructure "improvements" (mainly lane widenings and increases in road capacity)
on both fatalities and injuries. His results strongly refute the hypothesis that engineering
design improvements have contributed to the reduction in the fatality rate. Instead,
findings suggest that such changes have actually led to about 2,000 additional fatalities
per year. Other factors, including demographic changes, increased seatbelt use, and
advances in medical technology have accounted for a large share of overall reductions
in fatalities. These results have major implications for how highway agencies improve
road safety, the cost benefit analysis of highway projects, environmental impact analysis,
and new Federal planning regulations that require safety to be considered as a planning
factor. Dr. Robert Noland is a Lecturer in Transport and the Environment in the Centre for
Transport Studies at Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine in London.
Previously he was a policy analyst at the US Environmental Protection Agency and a
post-graduate researcher at the University of California, Irvine. He has conducted
research into the demand inducing impact of highways, the behavioral responses of
individuals to travel time variability, and the modeling of non-motorized transport.
He received his Ph.D from the University of Pennsylvania. :*********************************************************************************
REASON FOR REQUESTING EXCEPTION Be thorough, but brief; justification must be as
complete and convincing as possible. Reasons exceptions have been granted in the past
include a combination of excessive cost, right of way impacts and/or environmental impacts.
Supportive factors have included low accident frequency, local opposition, and consistency
with adjacent highway segments.Traffic safety is of primary importance to both Design and Local Programs Program (DLPP)
and FHWA when considering approval or rejection of design exceptions. To strengthen
the justification for design exceptions, the Fact Sheet must include an analysis of accident
data to identify prevalent accident types and causes, plus an evaluation of the effect of
the requested design exceptions on accident types and frequencies. Summarize an
analysis of how the proposed project will help alleviate identified safety problems; or as
a minimum, how it will not contribute to any increase. This analysis must be based on
evaluation of TASAS Table B statistical data regarding both the number and severity of
accidents as well as actual versus statewide average accident rates. For design
exceptions related to spot locations (i.e., nonstandard vertical curve) on existing
highways, analyze only the accident data within the vicinity of the feature. The
analysis should also examine Table C data for high accident frequency spot
locations, if any are within the proposed project limits.
History:
Download Our Petition,Write a Sample Letter We got over 741 signatures
on the petition. thanks to everyone who participated. You made a difference.EPA Rejects MTC Regional Transportation Plan, which includes this road-widening project.
Article in LA County Times: Published Wednesday, August 8, 2001, Bay Area Smog Proposal Revives
Blame Game Cleanup: Officials in the Central Valley say the plan would do little to reduce wind-borne air
pollution from the coast that reaches far inland. By Gary Polakovic, Times Environmental Writer"Heeding those objections, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the ARB seek an additional 23
tons of emissions reductions daily from the Bay Area by 2006--a move that puts a greater onus on coastal
oil refineries, small businesses and residents. The air board plans to reconsider the Bay Area plan Sept. 20.""Without a plan that will pass muster, the Bay Area is vulnerable to a cutoff of federal highway funds that could
begin in October. The EPA, frustrated that Bay Area officials let clean-air gains slip away and missed last year's
Clean Air Act deadline for cleanup, has threatened to impose those sanctions."MTC Solicits comments on Draft RTP which includes this project:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/projects/rtp/downloads/draft/Attachments.pdf