Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031324 6.1 Commissioner NotesIHC Management Program Advisory Committee Meeting February 26, 2024 New and Emerging Mobility Modes in the Corridor Element Committee Comments • Include a cost benefit analysis for proposed mobility mode. • Technology appropriateness (age of technology and application). • What will be the financial funding mechanism and the expected maintenance costs? • Any environmental remediation costs required? • Public hearings needed or not? • Increased impact of building new housing along the trail. Could there be cost sharing with the development for trail improvements? • There will be changes to the zoning around the trail from industrial to residential. • There are plans for developing more housing along the trail. In Pleasant Hill, there is discussion of replacing the industrial area between Mayhew and Hookston with housing or mixed commercial residential similar to what is found in the Two Worlds complex in Pleasant Hill. Adding businesses like food trucks and restaurants and making the area more walkable. The Mayhew-Hookston area is unique in that it includes the County, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill and Concord jurisdictions. • Changes to zoning around the trail. Eight-year plans are coming out. • In San Ramon significant changes will occur around Bishop Ranch along the IHC. Already reviewing a housing project at BR3A will be developed behind City Hall near the new ped bridge. Should be an application at BR7 (Bishop Ranch Tenant Hub) across from where Summerhill is building housing along Camino Ramon. BR11 on John Muir area across from Kaiser offices. All three of these are part of City Walk for San Ramon, on the east side of the IHC. • These developments may require the removal of some shade trees along and just outside the IHC. • This element needs to acknowledge that trail use has changed over time, from trains to electric bikes and scooters. We have found that electric bikes do not work with pedestrians. How do we responsibly deal with this issue in a safe way and encourage more non -motor vehicle transportation? How do we plan for the future, thinking about volume and participation. • There is extensive use of the trail by children going to school. Do we need more crossing guards and over/underpasses to cross streets? The principal of Fair Oaks elementary school was asking that if we added a second land for bikes, how would children cross that trail? Do we need to create a safety area/corridor around schools? Safety has been inconsistent. Children often cross streets and spread out on the trail without looking. The speed of a -bikes in this situation is a problem. • Three schools in Danville along IHC. Motion -activated flashed lights have been added at IHC crossings, but children often do not pay attention when making those crossings and go out in front of cars. Adding a second lane for bikes will require a change at these crossings and we'll need to come up with a standard to reduce liability at these points. • Walnut Creek has Los Lomas High School, Murwood Elementary, and Walnut Creek Intermediate adjacent or near to the trail. Good luck trying to ride a bike on the trail at 7:00 am on a school day, especially at locations like behind Safeway. • Danville has a high school, middle school, and elementary school along the IHC, and the IHC is how they get to school. • We will need to engage the schools and may need more flashing lights at crossings. • Will we need emergency call boxes near schools? • Use of the trail will only go up. We have had bike/ped conflict issues for years already. • It is unlikely that we will ever have motorized trains (trains, autonomous pods, etc.) on the trail. It will be pedestrians and bicycles. • Certain types of bicycle riders prefer to ride on Danville Boulevard in Danville and Alamo, despite fatalities and accidents there. Would it be better to shift them to the IHC? Unfortunately, the "Spandex Crowd" does not like to ride with pedestrians and slower bikes and would prefer to stay on the road as it is faster. • Would hate to see the IHC turned into just another street, even if for cyclists. The IHC is an unique jewel for the County and we need to keep that in mind as we entertain any new mobility concepts going forward. • EBRPD: Bike riders on Danville Boulevard don't have to look for cars and don't have to stop for road crossings. They are different uses than we see on the trails. We don't see the packs of bikes. • The trail back up to everybody's house and bringing a commercial/commute group to the trail will be more of a challenge than just adding a second path. • Bike users on Danville Boulevard are not very compatible with the facilities in the IHC. • Getting commuter cyclists on the trail will be difficult. • Speed of electric bikes and scooters is a problem, and many exceed the allowable speeds on the trail. • Electric bikes. Scooters and illegal conveyances are the number one complaint to EBRPD trail maintenance crew's safety. Electric bikes are also the number one threat to the safety of EBRPD crews working on the trail. Electric bikes are essentially electric motorcycles and belong the street. These are not people peddling along at 15 mph. Some electric bikes are up to 45 mph. They may not understand the consequences of riding that fast. This is very hard on casual walkers. Being out for a casual walk with your family can be dangerous. Parents need to keep a tight grip on their children to keep them from being run over. • EBRPD would like to separate pedestrians from bikes at least section of the trail due to the conflicts. • The trails are already at capacity and we need to come up with a way to deal with the existing multi -modes (bike/peds). A lot needs to be done with our infrastructure and if we do that, then we need to look at EBRPD's financing to manage and maintain more infrastructure. • The 2017 Active Transport Study had sections regarding separating bikes and peds and EBRPD was generally supportive of these concepts, especially for helping get commuters to transit stations quickly. • Some parts of the trail that are farther away from transit hubs could have a more park- like setting. • We will need to figure out different designs for different sections of the trail. • Much of the trail is not safe and too narrow. The trail is way over capacity. We need to adopt a more European style for the trails. We need to think about design first. • People are walking along the sides of the trail to avoid bikes. • We need a "Complete Streets" approach to the IHC, so everyone is safe. • Use of a-bikes by those under 16 may not be allowed under proposed legislation. • How do we come up with a master plan? • Supervisor Andersen has some funding to start the planning process. CCTA could help. • It will take a consultant to come up with an overall plan for the IHC. They will have to account for changing withs of the IHC. • There are many choke points along the corridor. There are limited width bridges. Downtown Walnut Creek, such as behind Safeway and along South Broadway are emblematic of this problem. • Should we do the easiest parts of the trail, where there is lots of room, first? • Coyote Creek along the trail in south San Ramon is also a choke point. • The trail also runs through the San Ramon Golf Course, which is currently fenced. • Should the planning be done in phases? Phase 1 might be double tracking certain easier areas. Phase 2 might be getting people over streets and under roads. Phase 3 might be for places like behind Safeway in Walnut Creek, where there isn't room. The most difficult stuff. • San Ramon will be put in 4500 + 2500 - 7000 homes along the IHC. This leads to an increase of population along the trail of 20,000 people. San Ramon thinks this is a good thing and wants people to use the trail to move around the area. We need to plan for this growth in the IHC. This is not a short-term item, but work is beginning. The timing is right. • Even though phasing may be useful, well still need to have an overall plan so the different phases work together seamlessly. We need to know what the options are for the whole trail. We need a master plan, a high level view. • We need a master plan for the whole trail and a plan to phase feasible improvements. There may be several options or approaches to how the improvements could be made. • Where is there a similar situation in California that has been worked out? What communities could we look to for answers? How do we get this information? CCTA could get us a list. • Can developers help move this process? No, it is not too late. We'll need to find a nexus for the development. • BR7 and BR11 are next to the trail in San Ramon. • Housing near the trail: BR3, which is near San Ramon's new ped bridge, is part of a walking district which has been designed to get bikes and peds to transit. Does it need a "Welcome to San Ramon" arch? Developments will have to formalize connections to the trail. Larger developers are interested in trail connections. It's part of their sales pamphlet. • The IHC underground is crowded with utilities, and this will impact our ability to put in an additional pathway. Utilities are a design challenge for the path. EBRPD can't compact as well as necessary to ensure a trail with a long life due to underground utilities. Design challenges that may require new/non-standard solutions. EBRPD can't do certain maintenance operations due to the utilities. Also have to contend with utilities putting in new, larger pipes or replacing existing with our infrastructure on top. • The County has had the experience of having to cap utilities pipelines in order to build infrastructure like the Robert Schroder ped bridge in Walnut Creek. This increases the project cost. • Where is the most potential benefit to adding a second trail? San Ramon and Pleasant Hill, where development will occur. We need to build where the need is greatest. • We need to find out what other people have done. • Issues at Fostoria Crossing in San Ramon/Danville. Realignment of trail needed there. • What are the time limits (if any?) and parameters of the requirements of the actual law? • Is the time frame "'in perpetuity", or once we meet the requirement are we off the hook from the requirement? • What are the minimum requirements for action (of any assessment or report on transit)? • Is the report enough or is action required to incorporate new transit modalities? • New forms of mobility modes have already occurred din the IHC Honestly, as the bikes/e-bikes/scooters have shown. • Are we required to move forward with a report/plan to action if the funding isn't there? • What if the public support isn't there? Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee Meeting February 26, 2024 Notes from Carl Roner attached. Key takeaways from the meeting: • Updates on the Bollinger Canyon overpass. Project is on schedule and will be completed in early 2025. • Crow Canyon overpass project is in the design phase currently. • Iron Horse Trail is well over capacity currently and needs major improvements. • E -bikes are more and more popular and more dangerous than ever. • Bikes and pedestrians should be separated. • New housing projects in Pleasant Hill and San Ramon will further increase the problems with overcrowding. San Ramon alone is adding approximately 20,000 people along the Iron Horse Trail. • School safety is a concern given the number of schools that border the trail and exit onto the trail. • Underground utilities will be a challenge with any future improvements. • A master plan is needed to develop a 25 -year plan. Where does the money come from? • Funding needs to be determined. Future developers should help foot the bill. • How have other communities with similar trail systems dealt with overcapacity? In II a I k