San Leandro just updated their Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. Check it out at:
Our comment letter included these concerns:
The Draft Plan is lacking many critical bike lanes and the City of San Leandro needs to here from us. Bike Lanes should be included on E. 14th Street, Davis Street, Alvarado Street, Washington Street, as well as a better connection to San Lorenzo. And where bike lanes are not being provided, traffic calming, slowing and an increase in motorists’ awareness of bikes should be part of the Plan.
In addition, the draft Plan should include an analysis of bicycle crashes (only a pedestrian crash analysis is included) and should include a bicycle parking ordinace requiring secure bike parking for new residential and commercial development. Do you have additional thoughts and concerns? Please share them with us in this blog.
Questions about the Plan can be submitted to:
City of San Leandro
835 E. 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Here is EBBC’s full Letter dated July 23, 2010:
July 23, 2010
Mr. Reh-Lin Chen
City of San Leandro
835 E. 14th Street
San Leandro CA 94577
Re: Draft San Leandro Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan–2010 Update
Dear Mr. Chen:
The East Bay Bicycle Coalition is happy to provide comments on the Draft San Leandro Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan–2010 Update. San Leandro has been a leader in the East Bay in bicycle planning and implementation and we are encouraged that this update will continue this trend. We commend you for your efforts. However, there are still many improvements that the roadways of San Leandro need over and above those included in this draft Plan. Thus, we provide the following comments on the Draft Plan:
- Bicycle Planning Position: The City of San Leandro should commit, as a goal of the Plan, to hiring a full-time bicycle planner and a full-time pedestrian planner. There is much work to do to implement this Plan and it is easily a job for two people;
- Bicycle Parking Zoning Ordinance: the Plan should include regulations for bike parking requirements in new residential and new commercial development;
- Class III Bikeways: the Plan includes little information on the proposed improvements for Class III bikeways other than signage and possible pavement markings, and this is a significant shortcoming. The Design Guidelines presumably will include more information, but this Plan is the implementing document and should include sufficient information about the types of project and design details that the public can expect from Class III bikeways on specific streets;
- Diagonal Parking: where diagonal parking exists on bikeways and no bike lanes are proposed, the City needs to do more than sign the route. For example, on Bancroft Avenue where the bike lanes terminate and diagonal parking exists, the speed limit and the prevailing speed needs to be reduced below 30mph. A shared lane situation cannot allow for speeds any higher than 20-25mph, and this holds true throughout the Plan–speeds need to be reduced where cyclists are sharing roadway space with cars.
- E. 14th Street: the Crash Map on page 57, in our opinion, are your marching orders for bike lanes on E. 14th Street. A Class III treatment on this street, in fact, is not going to make it safe for cyclists. E. 14th Street has a lot of commercial activity and destinations, and a lot of traffic. Thus the need for bike lanes. We strongly encourage San Leandro to reconsider the idea of a center median on E. 14th Street (or any street for that matter). Yes, center medians add greenery and that is a good thing, but greenery can be added along the sides of the street, which is the better practice cause it also allows for bike lanes. What center medians also do is encourage motorists to pay less attention to pedestrians crossing (and bicyclists crossing) the street from the motorists’ left side, and medians also encourage faster traffic, as there are fewer conflicts presented to the motorist. Center medians are simply a bad idea for pedestrians and bicyclists and their goals can better be achieved with other measures;
- The intersection of MacArthur Blvd and Estudillo Ave needs significant improvements, given the three bicycle crashes at this interestion. Signage and pavement markings are not sufficient;
- Davis Street: with heavy truck traffic and a posted speed of 35mph, it is difficult to see how a sharrow design makes for safe bicycle travel. More than sharrows are necessary;
- Crash Data: the Plan addresses pedestrian collisions, but not bicycle collisions. Why not analyze bicycle collisions? There should be an analysis of bicycle collisions and appropriate strategies and priorities for improvements in the implementation section;
- The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is a good thing, but the concepts of traffic calming should also be applied to implementation of the Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan. In otherwords, traffic calming should not only occur at the requests of neighborhoods, but also as part of the City’s proactive implementation strategies of the Plan, particularly as applied to Class III bikeways;
- Bicycle Network (Chapter 3): the use of the term “safer” in the second paragraph (“this network would furnish safer and more direct travel paths”) should state “safe” and not “safer.” The roadways of the Bicycle Network should be reasonable safe on which to ride a bicycle, as certified by the City’s lead traffic engineer. “Safer” than before or less dangerous is not sufficient. In addition, the Plan should note that all streets should be improved for safe bicycle travel and that streets not selected for inclusion on the Bicycle Network should still be improved for safe bicycle travel when opportunities arise and of course are subject to the MTC’s Routine Accommodations Checklist;
- Connection into San Lorenzo: the Plan should include a bike crossing of San Lorenzo Creek at Hebron Court. The EBBC understands concerns about school safety, but the Bicycle Plan should include the bikeway over the Creek and acknowledge the safety issue and have an implementation plan that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. Otherwise, cyclists have to travel or mile out of direction to cross between San Lorenzo and San Leandro;
- Pedestrian Streetscape Improvements: this section needs to state that streetscape improvements also include traffic calming improvements and traffic awareness improvements, which collectively make it safe for pedestrians to cross a street;Overall, in the Pedestrian section of the Plan, more attention and detail recommendations are needed to address the issue of traffic speeds and motorists’ awareness of pedestrians. Speeds must be reduced and the Plan is not adequately addressing this issue. Improvements help, like bulb outs, and refuges (not medians), but these improvements cannot be implemented without slowing traffic speeds;
- Relation to the Climate Action Plan: the Plan should address in more detail how its implementation will help the City achieve its Climate Action Plan goals. Information is needed on the number of ped/bike trips to be generated with the build out of the ped/bike networks and how mode shift will occur and how much this mode shift will help the City meets its Climate Action Goals;
Overall, we feel the Plan could be much stronger and better reflect the needs of cyclists and the input they have provided to date. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on the Plan and we will look forward to see revisions that lead to final Plan adoption.