MaRIN COUNTY BICYCLE
COALITION
to: San Rafael Planning Commission
from: ERic Anderson, MCBC
subject: Comments on Draft San rafael 2020 general plan
date: 3/11/20043/9/04
San Rafael General Plan – Circulation Element MCBC
Comments (note this will be formatted into a “fancy” memo
format
The Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) is
pleased to be able to offerrespectfully submits the following comments
on the Circulation Element of the San Rafael 2020 General Plan.
MCBC applauds the City of San Rafael for its
attention to non-motorized and alternative modes of transportation in the
Circulation Element. The following comments are intended to help clarify,
deepen and constructively criticize these laudable planning efforts. Please note
that comments follow Circulation Plan headings which have been placed in
quotations. All comments are in follow in the order following from the
beginning of the draft Circulation Plan document.
The MCBC is encouraged by the inclusion of
bicyclist’s’ needs in both the “Overview of Key
Recommendations” and the “ Circulation Needs in San Rafael”
lists. However, we believe that bicycling should be considered as a higher priority
for implementation. Tthe
listing of bicycling behind such other modes and projects as improved ferry
service, new commuter rail and inter-modal transit hubs belies the ease and
cost-effectiveness with which bicycle projects can help to relieve traffic
congestion. For example, whereas the SMART rail project, listed ahead of
bicycle plan implementation, will cost millions and require a decades-long planning
and implementation process, many improvements listed in the bicycle plan can be
implemented quickly and cheaply (and without inter-jurisdictional cooperation),
resulting in immediate congestion reduction. In
addition,
the improvement of walking and bicycling routes to access transit terminals can
result in an increase in transit ridership.
The San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan establishes a goal of 20% pedestrian and
bicycle mode share within twenty years, roughly the same timeline as
the General Plan. In order to achieve this ambitious goal, a complete bicycle and
pedestrian network will be required in San Rafael by the year 2020. Without a complete
network, San Rafael will never full realize its non-motorized transportation
potential. Therefore,
MCBC requests that the bullet point on implementation of the bike/ped plan
be revised to read: “Full implementation of the
San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan to provide a complete bikeway, pathway and sidewalk network.”
The MCBC recognizes the
negative impact on San Rafael’s roadways of regional traffic and applauds the
City for recommending more connections between neighborhoods for pedestrians
and cyclists. However, it is unclear how increasing connections between
neighborhoods for automobiles will mitigate the impact of regional traffic on
those neighborhoods. Rather, as a means to decrease the impact of regional
traffic spill-over onto neighborhood streets, MCBC respectfully
suggests that the City focus on and expand the language in this section
that emphasizes the importance of
traffic calming in areas where neighborhoods interface with regional traffic
routes such as freeway interchanges.
Again, MCBC
recommends that the language “expanded bikeway network” be revised to read
“complete bikeway network” to reaffirm the plan’s commitment to
fully implementing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Bicycle parking is an
important amenity implementation of which could decrease the demand for
automobile parking in the critical downtown area. MCBC requests that all
discussions of parking include provisions for alternative modes such as
bicycling and recognize the importance of bicycle parking as a part of the
solution to our
ongoing
automobile problems.
The MCBC affirms the
goal of achieving mobility for all users of the public right of way. However,
we are concerned that the introduction to this section may condone and suggest
continued accommodation of single occupancy vehicles. Rather, we recommend that the plan emphasize the
environmental, health and safety dangers of an SOV-dependant
transportation system and thus the acute need for a shift away from SOVs.
Again, the MCBC supports San Rafael’s inclusion of
all modes in consideration of roadway design and applauds placing safety as a
priority. In order to clarify the hierarchy of user safety needs, we would
request that San Rafael state a policy that recognizes pedestrians and cyclists
(in that order) as the most vulnerable roadway users and establishes priorities
for mitigation accordingly.
“C-4b. Street Design
Criteria to Support Alternative Modes”
MCBC encourages the City
to remove the language “As feasible” from this section. As suggested above, for
safety reasons every roadway project should be built according to design
criteria that protect the most endangered users of the public right of way.
Level of Service is
an established automobile traffic engineering tool. Until recently, similar
tools did not exist for non-motorized users. However, methods such as the
Bicycle Compatibility Index and the Bicycle Level of Service have been
developed in order to assess a roadway’s performance with regard to bicycle user safety
and comfort. MCBC respectfully requests that San Rafael include language in the
General Plan that will lead to an adoption of a Bicycle Level of Service
methodology and accompanying standards for bike LOS. We
also encourage the City to consult your adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan as
well as Safe Routes to Schools capital improvement plans when investing in transportation
improvements.
Traffic monitoring
activities present an excellent opportunity to track both motorized and
non-motorized users. Collecting data on non-motorized users is beneficial as it
allows for demand assessment planning as well as evaluation of the
effectiveness of bicycle facilities that have already been installed. The MCBC
requests that language be added to this section calling for bicycle counts
along with automobile traffic monitoring.
MCBC requests that
this section include language reaffirming San Rafael’s commitment to implement
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan improvements whenever they are found within planned
roadway projects.
“C-7a. Planned Roadway Improvements”
The MCBC requests that
language be appended to this section requiring thatreflecting all planned roadway
projects implement that
accommodation for non-motorized transit is necessary for these projects as
identified in theprojects from the San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan
that fall within the roadway project limits..
MCBC requests that
language be adopted emphasizing the importance of bicycling and walking in
achieving mode shift. This should be
given a higher priority in Such language is currently missing from this
section.
“Transportation Demand Management Tools” (sidebar)
MCBC requests that bicycling (which is listed
behind several less effective means of achieving mode shift) and walking (which
is completely absent from the list of TDM tools) be given higher priority. One
rationale for this is that most transit-related TDM trips can
begin or end with a bicycle or pedestrian access or egress trip segment.
MCBC commends the inclusion of this promotion in
the list of possible TDM mode shift outreach activities. We would also like to
suggest that other possible promotions be listed, such as “Shop by Bike”, bicycle safety
training
classes,
“how-to” classes for would-be bicycle commuters, and or accessing open space via
transit/foot/bicycle (e.g. Transit Outdoors map and “Bike to Transit”). FinallyAlso,
we believe that these bicycle promotions should be listed before obscure
promotions such as those promoting “alternative” motorized vehicles.
MCBC requests that
bicycling (which is listed behind several less effective means of achieving
mode shift) and walking (which is completely absent from the list of TDM tools)
be given higher priority. One rationale for this is that most transit can begin
or end with a bicycle or pedestrian access or egress trip segment.
As enablers of transit as
an effective mode-shift tool, bicycling and walking are a key part of ensuring
transit trip profiles free of single occupancy vehicles (SOVs). Likewise,
transit is an enabler of bicycling and walking as regionally effective modes of
transportation that can eliminate SOV trips. MCBC requests that the transit
section of the Circulation element be revised to include this orientation
toward mode shift and non-motorized access.
MCBC requests that language be added endorsing the
current SMART Bicycle Technical Committee recommendation for a continuous
parallel off-street bikeway Class 1 pathway as
part of the overall SMART corridor. SMART will
be evaluating pathway
plans as
part of their EIR.
“C-23a. As
opportunities arise, provide better signage for bicycle, pedestrian and transit
routes to identify pathways between neighborhoods.”
MCBC requests that the
language in this section be revised to read: “As opportunities arise, improve
infrastructure and provide better signage for bicycle, pedestrian and
transit routes to
identify pathways between neighborhoods.”
“C-24a. North San
Rafael Promenade.”
MCBC is encouraged by the
inclusion of the language that “requires” sections of the promenade to be
constructed by private developers. We recommend adoption of this stronger
language for all non-motorized projects adjacent to private development or public transportation projects.
“C-25. Meeting Local
Circulation Needs Around Highway Interchanges.”
The interface of
freeway interchanges and local roads are one of the most dangerous areas for
pedestrians and cyclists. MCBC recommends that the language be revised to
read “…address
local circulation needs for all modes – emphasizing safety for non-motorized
users – when freeway improvements…”.
Similar to the language provided in the following
pedestrian improvements section, MCBC requests that the following
elements be considered, in addition to
the policies and programs outlined in both the San Rafael General Plan
2020 and the San Rafael Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan. Several of these recommendations are drawn
directly from the language found in the following pedestrian improvements
section.:
-
Study and implementation of
“bicycle boulevards” and other forms of traffic-calmed bicycle priority
streets.
-
Pursue funding
for un-funded
elements of the plan.
-
Establish priorities
for bicycle improvements in the plan.
-
Promote
improvements to bicycle access to transit.
-
Adopt and implement the
proposed Countywide Bicycle Route Signage Plan. (The County has
secured funding for this Countywide project.)
-
Pursue
enforcement strategies that will improve the safety of the bicycling
environment.
-
-
Monitor progress in
implementing the bicycle-related goals and objectives of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan on a bi-annual basis.
-
Develop a program for
prioritizing the maintenance of existing bicycle facilities based on their
transportation utility.
-
Confirm the 20-year
timeline for completion of the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan in conjunction with the timeline for the General Plan.
of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan on an annual basis.”
MCBC requests that this
language be revised to include progress evaluation at least twice yearly,
preferably quarterly. Given that the
stated goal is to achieve a 20% mode shift
share
of transportation trips by pedestrian
and cyclists in the next 20 years (an
aggressive goal by any standard), this means that an approximate 1%
shift on average must be take place achieved
each year. This will not be achieved without
diligent, frequent monitoring of the implementation process.recommends stronger
language that clarifies the requirement to implement bicycle and pedestrian
projects when those plans are within the limits of a roadway project slated for
construction.
“C-27a. Implementation.
Monitor progress in implementing the pedestrian-related
goals and objectives of
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan on an annual basis.”
See
above recommendation.
“C-28a. Urban Trail
Network Project.”
MCBC
requests that bicyclists be included in the scope of theise proposed
projects wherever conflicts
between cyclists and pedestrians will not be increased. in
order to further accomplish the ambitious mode shift goals outlined in the
Bike/Ped Plan.
““C-32. a.”
(Parking for Alternative Modes of Transportation”
)
MCBC
requests that bicycles be given priority in the consideration of alternative
mode parking efforts, ahead of more obscure and currently unutilized .
Specifically, language is needed calling for City ordinances requiring
bicycle parking at businesses, employers and residences. Such an ordinance can
be modeled after successful programs from the City of Portland, OR,regon among
others. The
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Bicycle Plan includes
language for many sample ordinances.