DRAFT Report on the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART Shortcut Path and Wayfinding System Project

 


 

Table of Contents

 

 

Introduction

Process Discussion: Questions and issues regarding, project history, process etc.

Project Area Map & Descriptions of Options

Options Discussion: Responses to the various issues raised with each option. If the issue is specific to one or more option those options will be referred to in parentheses.

Recommendations

Options Summary & Cost Detail

Appendix

 

Other Project Details/Costs

 

Ownership/Jurisdiction Diagram

 

Contact Information

 

Photo/Figure/Table Index

 


Introduction

 

 

 

The purpose of the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre BART* Shortcut Path and Wayfinding System Project is to make the Contra Costa Centre BART station area more bicycle and pedestrian friendly and to improve access to and from the area, specifically in relation to the area northeast of the station.

This report attempts to address the issues identified at the November 15th walking tour, the November 18th workshop, the December 18th workshop, through written communication and consultation with residents in the area and staff of affected jurisdictions. This report is still in draft form; please forward comments to John Cunningham, contact information below.

BART, the City of Walnut Creek, the City of Concord, Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Flood Control District and M.I.G. have all provided input and assistance in the development of this report. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department is ultimately responsible for the material found in this report. Any questions should be directed to John Cunningham (925-335-1243 or jcunn@cd.cccounty.us)

Some of the input has been general, covering various aspects of the Pleasant Hill BART station area and some input has been specific to one or more options in this process. This process is documenting all comments and addressing them where possible or appropriate. Project staff is addressing each comment but makes no claim to address each comment such that any concerns are completely alleviated. This process has a goal of picking the “best” or preferred alternative, not the “perfect” alternative.

Any project, should it be pursued, would be subject to additional analysis and review. All of the options have “Issues Remaining” which will have to be addressed in the event that any of the options move forward.

 

* Per Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors action the area around the Pleasant Hill BART Station is now the “Contra Costa Centre”. The area around the station will be referred to as such in this document.


 

Process Discussion

 

1.      When and why was this process started?  Why do we need this path?

The summary of issues below establishes need for this path to justify the conduct of this process. These issues range from specific (Traffic Study for the 1998 Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan amendment) to more general, “best planning practices”. This study process is needed to identify any possible issues with the options under consideration and to identify any other possible solutions to improving station access.

The need or justification for the path is best summarized in the Recommendations section of this report (Page 35).

a)      The concept and recommendation for a bicycle & pedestrian path to and from the BART station area and the area northeast of the station is documented in the Traffic Report supporting the 1998 amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan. This recommendation was based on input received from the general public and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which included members from the Walden District Improvement Association, BART, the City of Pleasant Hill, the City of Walnut Creek, City of Concord and Contra Costa County.  The clear message from the community to the Board of Supervisors was that increased parking and roads in the area should not be a priority but that the improvement of access for pedestrians, bicyclists is crucial. This project is one of several initiatives the County has undertaken to be responsive to that direction; the Iron Horse Trail & Greenspace project and the Iron Horse Trail bridge over Treat Boulevard are other examples.

b)      The County and the surrounding cities are committed to improving the access to, and encouraging the use of the Pleasant Hill BART station, a diversity of access modes does just this. In the case of this project, pedestrian and bicycle access is being improved. The significance of this project is, in part, that it is being used to increase access to the multi-billion dollar BART system.

c)      A national survey[1] has shown that more Americans would like to walk to destinations but are held back by “poorly” designed communities. The study also indicated that people’s decision to walk was determined by distance and time, two things this project improves for trips to the BART station. This report can be found on the project website: (www.co.contra‑costa.ca.us/depart/cd/transportation/phb_path/.  Information in the 1998 BART Access Survey supports the assumption that more people would walk to the station if the route to the north east of the station were improved as proposed in this process. (See Question 19, page 21)

d)      This project is a good example of “active living by design” principles. “Active living by design” is a strategy to incorporate physical activity into daily routines (walking to the train, bus or coffee shop rather than driving) as a method of improving people’s health. This acknowledges that it is more likely to get people to incorporate physical activity into an existing, regular habit (going to work) rather than to get them to perform an additional, disconnected activity (go to the gym). This strategy has been identified as a primary tool in combating the obesity issue the country is currently experiencing. Statistics show that physical inactivity and related health maladies will soon be the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.[2]

The proposed project would accomplish this by making it more practical and attractive to walk or bike to the BART station area by making the distance more reasonable, and by making the route safer and more aesthetically pleasing for people living to the northeast of the station area.

e)      A Federal Highway Administration report[3] states that “bridging barriers to pedestrian travel” is an important component in making transit more efficient by increasing accessibility for pedestrians.

 

 

2.      Another study should be done to determine specifically how many people would use this path to ensure its “cost effectiveness” and establish an absolute need. There are other improvements that need to be made in the area that would be a greater benefit to the public.

The suggestion has been made that a “cost-benefit” study should be conducted to validate the usefulness of the project. In order to do this you must be able to accurately predict the numbers of pedestrians & cyclists using the path. There are methodologies & software programs that exist to predict pedestrian & bicycle travel. A consultant would have to be hired to develop a model for the area and run the scenarios, this would be costly. Even with this expense, the accuracy of these models isn't such that you would be able to base a “rigorous” or reliable cost-benefit analysis on the results.

In the event that such an analysis did not support such a facility, the information presented in the Recommendations (Page 35) is still sufficient enough to justify project implementation.

We have provided information in the report establishing the likelihood that people will use the path. In considering the “cost-effectiveness” of this project one needs to look not just at the cost of the project but relate it to other factors present. The most critical factor is the presence of the BART station. The Pleasant Hill BART Station is a major, regional transportation hub for trains, busses, vanpools, carpools and taxis. It is a place where thousands of transit riders rush to and from each weekday. It is a regional gateway. The BART system is a multi-billion dollar investment of public money and every reasonable effort should be made to improve the public’s access to it. Any improvements to the function of this facility are magnified by the substantial value & function of the Pleasant Hill BART station and the BART system as a whole. BART recognizes this and has developed and adopted policies (Page 7 – “Is BART Even Aware of This Project”?) that are supportive of the type of project proposed in the recommendations of this report. This project is an important part of a long term overall strategy to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the Pleasant Hill BART station and in the Contra Costa Centre area as a whole.

Individuals participating in this process have made the observation that there are other improvements in the area that should be done before a shortcut path to the BART station. Some that were described are improvements to the Mayhew/Bancroft and David/Minert/Bancroft intersections, sidewalk installation around the station area, and improvements to the existing path under the BART tracks along Las Juntas Way.

These projects clearly have merit; this project does not detract from that. However, these projects do not shorten the path to the station area as significantly as the proposed path across the Walnut Creek Channel does. One particular issue highlighted by the residents of the area was the issue of the improvements that are needed to make the existing path under the BART tracks (along Las Juntas Way in the vicinity of Cherry Lane) more functional. Project staff looked at this issue and is recommending that these improvements be made concurrently with any path project that occurs as a result of this process (See Page 46).

3.      I wasn't involved in the 1998 Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan amendment process; therefore I wasn't involved in recommending this pedestrian connection. Besides, that document is over 5 years old; I wasn't even here when that document was developed.

Planning documents such as the Specific Plan are long-term in nature. The document is still very valid & well within its anticipated plan effectiveness period.

The plan was developed as a part of a very public process and received substantial public input. Input was received from the general public and a Technical Advisory Committee which included members from the Walden District Improvement Association, BART, the City of Pleasant Hill, the City of Walnut Creek, City of Concord and Contra Costa County.

The plan is, and has been for some time, available for public review. It is advisable to exercise due diligence and review the long term plans of an area in which one lives or works.

4.      Is the path a “sure thing”?

No, this process is one of the first steps to improving access to the David/Minert/Bancroft area. These first steps are meant to determine if access improvements are needed/warranted and to get input from residents in the project area. The end result may be that we will be able to address some concerns and partially address other concerns. This process is also identifying the issues that have to be further addressed should a project proceed. All of the alternatives would require consultation with and the continued participation of agencies in addition to the County (BART, Walnut Creek, Concord).

This planning process is aimed at finding out if it is possible to improve access, and if so, what is the best way to go about it.

5.      (Option B, C) Is BART even aware of this project? Are they involved?

Yes. BART is an active, supportive partner in this process and their staff has been involved from the beginning. There are no objections on the part of BART staff at this time, given the exploratory nature of the study. This project is consistent with the goals and direction found in BART’s Strategic Plan[4], BART Station Access Guidelines[5] (See Page 53 for diagram), BART Pleasant Hill Station Comprehensive Plan and Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines[6]

BART, engineering, real estate, planning and safety staff have met with County staff and provided comments on preliminary plans.

6.      (Option B, C) What are the construction limitations for BART?

BART employs design criteria for new facilities proposed for BART property or adjacent parcels. BART design criteria are intended to protect BART facilities. This study is in an early phase and it is too early to begin applying BART design criteria prior to the selection of an alternative. BART engineering staff has provided some initial input on the design that would address some of their concerns.

However, when an alternative is selected, BART staff will work closely with path designers to ensure that BART design criteria are incorporated into the design of any new facility.

7.      Once this process is complete what will happen?

At the end of this process, assuming the sort of access improvement represented by the various options are likely to be beneficial, a preferred alternative will be developed. This preferred alterative will include additional direction regarding consultation with affected jurisdictions, possible funding streams, maintenance options, and next steps. This information will be developed after the preferred alternative is chosen as each alternative would require a different course of action.

Depending on the outcome, a final version of this report, including the recommendations will be brought to the Board of Supervisors, the Walnut Creek City Council, the City of Concord, the Pleasant Hill BART Municipal Advisory Committee, BART and other related commissions and advisory bodies to be considered for review, comment, additional direction and/or adoption. The report will be made available to the general public as well.

8.      Where did options A, B, and C come from?

Can we add other options?

A summary of how Options A, B and C came to be:

·        The area that we are trying to improve access to is “built out” for the most part. Given this, there aren’t many options for improving access to the station. Aside from the existing easement (described below) using private property to improve access to the station was not considered. That leaves public property.

·        The only public property in the area is along the BART right-of-way, the flood control district property and the street/sidewalks found in the various options.

·        This public property provided a few opportunities to improve access to the BART station. Staff, acting on the direction found in the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan, developed options "B" and "C" over the past few years using the available public property.

·        In 2000 a developer approached the County with a proposal to construct some homes at the end of Briarwood. The County, acting on the direction found in the Traffic Study, retained a bicycle/pedestrian path easement when it sold this property to the developer of the homes. The developer in turn had the owners of the new homes sign a deed disclosure acknowledging the presence of the easement. This is currently option "A".

Yes, other options can be added. At the walking tour and the workshop two other ideas were suggested, improving the existing route along Bancroft, Mayhew and the Iron Horse Trail and transit service to the BART station. These alternatives have been added as "D" (Described on Page 14) and "E" (Described on Page 15.) respectively.

9.      The notification for this process should be improved.

Staff acknowledged that the notification process was lacking with the first workshop and responded by adding to the mailing list residents immediately adjacent to the project and those residents to the northeast of Bancroft. An additional workshop was added to include input by those who may have not had the opportunity to provided input at the first workshop.


Project Area Map & Descriptions of Options

Graphics below are illustrative ONLY; they do not represent a precise alignment.

Descriptions

Option A:  Page 11

Option D:  Page 14

Option B:  Page 12

Option E:  Page 15

Option C:  Page 13

 

Option A: Briarwood Path

 

This option makes use of an existing 20 ft. easement across two private, residential parcels. The County retained a bicycle/pedestrian path easement when it sold this property to the developer of the homes. The developer in turn had the owners of the new homes sign a deed disclosure acknowledging the presence of the easement.



Option B: BART Property Path

 

DRAFT

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

 

This option makes use of the BART Right-of-Way immediately to the north west of the track.

 

After additional review an optional route has been recently added to avoid the BART gap breaker structure located at the end of Clemson Court in the BART right-of-way.

 

Given the fencing requirements related to this piece of equipment, the path would have to be moved towards the BART track (into the toe of the slope) requiring a retaining wall. BART staff suggested the optional alignment bringing the path on the other side of the structure to eliminate the need for a retaining wall.



Option C: Clemson Court/BART Path

 

This option makes use of an existing sidewalk along Clemson Court and the BART right-of-way immediately to the north west of the track.


Option D: Existing Route (Bancroft Road, Mayhew Way, Iron Horse Trail)

 

 

This is the existing route that is being reviewed based on some requests at the November 18th workshop. This route makes use of Bancroft Road, Mayhew Way and the Iron Horse trail.

 

 


 

 

 

 Option E: Transit Service

This option is being included and reviewed based on some requests at the November 18th workshop. The specific suggestion was for shuttle service. However, the route from the Bancroft/David/Minert area to the BART station is well served by existing transit service via County Connection routes 111 and 114.

Peak hour service (6:30am - 9:30am and 3:30pm to 6:30pm) has buses arriving and departing every 7 to 13 minutes from the David/Minert/Bancroft area. During off peak hours this time averages 40 - 90 minutes.

There is an on board time of approximately 6 minutes to get from the Bancroft/David/Minert area to the BART station. This time is longer in the am peak due to traffic congestion.

Figure 1: County Connection Route 111

Figure 2: County Connection Route 114


 

 

Options Discussion

 

10.  The path will result in a loss of privacy, property crime, and a general decline in quality of life.

There have been substantial numbers of studies done that look at these types of concerns. Specific references to those studies are below. Some studies do acknowledge that there will be some loss of privacy given the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic that is likely to be present. However, the conclusions of these studies are that there is little evidence to support the fear that paths will produce significant disturbance to private landowners. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary (see bullet points below).

·        The Rails to Trails Conservancy (RTC) issued results from their 1998 survey Rail-Trails and Safe Communities, that out of 372 nationwide trails, including 7,000 total miles and 45 million estimated users, only 3% of trails had experienced “major crime” [7]. According to this study the highest incidence rate of “major crime” and the majority of these crimes occurs on urban trails. The Pleasant Hill BART station area, for the purposes of this study and the Uniform Crime Reporting system that it references, is suburban which has a much lower incidence rate of crime. The study goes on to state that as far as public spaces go trails & parks are typically some of the safest areas to be in.

·        Former opponent of Burke-Gilman trail in Seattle (whose home is on the trail) stated that the “trail is much more positive than I expected. I was involved in citizens groups opposed to the trail. I now feel that the trail is very positive; [there are] fewer problems than before the trail was built; [there was] more litter and beer cans and vagrants [before it was built].” Not a single resident surveyed said that present conditions were worse than those prior to construction of the trail.

·        “Vandalism, robbery and safety concerns I originally had were unfounded.” - Landowner on California’s Lafayette/Moraga[8]

·        Frequent trail usage minimizes crime and can revitalize abandoned corridors. The Chief of Police in Buena Vista, PA stated, “the trail brings in so many people that it has actually led to a decrease in problems we formerly encountered such as underage drinking along the river banks. The increased presence of people on the trail has contributed to this problem being reduced”[9].

·        A 1988 survey of greenways in several states has found that such facilities typically have not experienced serious problems regarding vandalism, crime, trespass, or invasion of privacy. Prior to developing these facilities, concerns were strongly voiced in opposition to proposed trails. After development, however, it was found that fears did not materialize, and concerns originally expressed by opposing neighbors have not proven to be post-development problems in any of the facilities surveyed.[10]

·        In a 2002 survey of recent home buyers sponsored by the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders, trails ranked as the second most important community amenity out of a list of 18 choices.[11] & [12]

Locally, Walnut Creek Police corroborated some of the above information regarding crime. The officer present at an earlier meeting stated that trails don’t make it any easier to rob homes; if people were going to rob your house they would be doing it already. The officer went on to state that if anything, the path would help prevent crime, criminals don't want to be in places where people are. Paths increase foot/bike traffic and would likely be a deterrent to crime.

Trails are not crime-free; no place is, public or private. However, studies and statistics show that trails are typically as safe as the communities through which they pass and have incidence rates of crime that are typically lower than other public spaces.9 Compared to the abandoned space they replace, trails are a positive, active community space enabling walking, running, bicycling and provide a proven crime prevention strategy.

Although studies and statistics show that crime on trails is rare, it is nonetheless a legitimate concern and will be treated accordingly. At the time the implementation plan and final design for the preferred path option is developed, designs and management strategies will be considered to address these concerns.

11.  (Option B/C) Before the fence was put in at the end of Clemson Court (See Photo 1 & Photo 2 below) there were problems with loitering, vandalism, etc. along the BART property.

Residents indicated at the public meetings that crime had been a problem along the BART property in the past. Staff acknowledges this situation. At the time residents reported undesirable activities & persons on the BART property the area was an unmanaged, quasi-public “dead” space. At this time there was no possibility for through traffic given that there was no way to cross Walnut Creek (which was channelized in 1965) and thus no reason for people to be back on that property other than for illegitimate or otherwise suspect activity.

Any facility installed as a result of this process and any future efforts would be properly designed and managed. There would be an engineered path surface, blind or “dead” areas would be eliminated and the space would be maintained and policed. With this project a bridge would be installed enabling through traffic. The wayfinding component of this project would include installation of signage to encourage the use of the path.

Regular users of this public space would also create a “policing effect”. An officer from the Walnut Creek Police Department mentioned this at the December 18th community meeting; indicating that the installation of a trail would likely reduce crime. This view is consistent with other published study results (See Question 10- Page 16).

 

Photo 1: Looking north along Clemson Court at the access gate to the BART parcel.

Photo 2: Airphoto showing the location of the BART access gate.

 


 

12.  (Options A, B, C) If either options A, B or C is chosen it would require a bridge over Walnut Creek Channel ruining the aesthetic quality of the area.

A bridge would be required to cross Walnut Creek Channel (See photographs below) for Options A, B, and C. Aesthetic issues and comments will be discussed and logged at the 3rd workshop and examined in more detail if and when a project moves forward.

It should be noted that the Walnut Creek in this area is a concrete channel and has no public access or aesthetic improvements. Some residents indicated that currently there is a problem with transients, trash and graffiti in the area of the proposed bridge (see photographs below). Having foot traffic in this area should help to eliminate this blight. As Walnut Creek Police staff communicated at the December 18, 2003 meeting, these types of people like to be where people aren’t.

Photo 3, 4, 5 & 6: Walnut Creek Channel in the Area of the Proposed Bridge

 

 

 

13.  Is there a dedicated Sheriff’s patrol in the area?

The proposed project areas are in both unincorporated County and City of Walnut Creek and have existing police services.

In the City of Walnut Creek police service is provided by the Walnut Creek Police Department. BART police patrols BART facilities.

In the County this area patrolled by the Sheriff’s office. The Contra Costa Centre Association also pays for a dedicated sheriff patrol in the area. The Centre Association is a non-profit association comprised of commercial property owners in the area that works to improve the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan area through coordinated planning and services of mutual interest including child care, transportation, landscaping, signage, security, etc.

14.  Whose jurisdiction will the trail be under?

The various options have different jurisdictional implications which are summarized on page 44 and a map showing ownership and jurisdictional boundaries relevant to this project is shown on page 51.  The subject of jurisdiction has been identified as an issue that needs to be resolved before construction would be considered. These issues are discussed on Page 40.

15.  The response time of emergency services is slow now. What would response time be if there were problems on the path?

Response time for any problems would be similar to any other emergency on any of the urban trails found in Contra Costa or for any other emergency in the project vicinity. The proposed paths are in an existing, built-up urban area that has existing emergency services. 

16.  What about the loss of the temporary BART parking lot along Coggins Drive?

This project is neither timed nor intended to offset the loss of the temporary parking lot. However, in the event this planning process is successful in selecting an alternative and construction funding is secured, the improvement of pedestrian and bicycle access for BART patrons should provide some parking relief.

17.  Who will provide maintenance?

This project will require maintenance like all public improvements do. The identification of a maintenance entity and funding stream is a critical issue. A maintenance funding stream is not yet defined for this project given the early planning stages that this project is in. However, it is staff’s intention to not begin construction until such a time that a maintenance entity and funding stream is identified. In the event a path project moves forward, there is a potential for it to be annexed into the existing lighting and landscaping district at the time the BART property develops. This possibility still needs to be examined. This process will identify a number of issues to be resolved before construction could move ahead.

This issue is discussed in the Recommendations section of this report (Page 35).

18.  Do the noise levels along the BART right-of-way limit what activities can be allowed in and around the BART right-of-way?

BART does not place limitations on adjacent land uses or transportation facilities as a result of BART train noise. Cities may regulate land uses and apply their own environmental criteria when reviewing facilities such as paths or residential subdivisions.

There are other examples in the BART system where trains run in close proximity to trails or sidewalks. The Ohlone Greenway bike path runs within the right-of-way of the elevated BART line through El Cerrito and Albany. The Concord Line along Port Chicago Highway is adjacent to a Class I bike path[13]. An example closer to this project is along David Avenue where the train runs close to the sidewalk at almost the same grade.

19.  What is the typical distance that people will walk or bike?

A one-day BART access survey (See Figure 3 Page 22) found that people walk from as far away as Treat Boulevard and Oak Grove with a significant cluster of people walking from the Treat Boulevard/Bancroft Road area. Thirty-eight individuals walk from around the Treat Boulevard/ Bancroft Road intersection. This intersection is just under one mile away from the BART station.

This is significant in that from the neighborhood the shortcut path would serve (measured from Mohr Lane & David Avenue) to the BART station the distance is 1.3 miles using the existing route (Bancroft Road/Mayhew Way/Iron Horse Trail). That distance is reduced to just under 1 mile (Option B) or to 1 mile (Option A) with a shortcut path.

Summarized, path options A, B or C would make the walking distance from the David/Minert/Bancroft (where no walking trips are currently shown) area similar to the distance from the Treat/Bancroft area (where thirty-eight walking trips are currently shown).

Figure 3: 1998 BART Access Survey: Pleasant Hill BART Walk Trips

20.  What is the distance saved by putting in a shortcut path?

A number of questions were raised regarding the exact distance/time that would be saved by the various options discussed at the November 18th workshop. Table 1 (below) documents the distance and approximate time it would take a pedestrian to travel each route. The distance measured was from The Mohr Lane/David Avenue intersection to the entrance to the paid area at the BART station.

The significance of these distances & times are discussed in Question 19 - Page 21.

Table 1: Relative Time/Distance Savings of Various Path Options

Option

Feet

Miles

Distance Saved[14]

Average Walking Time (Minutes)[15]

Approx. Time Saved (Minutes)

A: Briarwood

5,300

1.0

0.3

29

9

B: BART

4,920

0.9

0.4

27

11

C: Clemson/BART

5,050

1.0

0.4

27

10

D: Bancroft/Mayhew/Iron Horse Trail (Existing Route)

6,950

1.3

0.00

38

0

For Comparison: BART Station to Treat/Bancroft Intersection

4,920

.9

NA

NA

NA

 

21.  Will there be lighting? Will there be a fence? Will the path be paved? Will the path close at night?

Specific construction and operational level details such as this will be worked out at the time a preferred alternative is selected. Comments on general preferences or issues with each alternative are welcomed and are being logged.

22.  (Options A, B, C) Was there a trail or a park originally planned for the BART right-of-way?

The specific original intended use for the right-of-way, if one ever existed, is probably lost to history. Varying staff members have recalled that it was set aside for a road or that the goal was to offset the rail in parcels (such as it is) so that one side of the remainder parcels could possibly retain some utility.

Current BART policy is to “Utilize Right-of-Way for Bike/Ped Connections”. See detail below from BART’s “Station Access Guidelines”.

Figure 4: Graphic From BART Station Access Guidelines entitled, “Station Area Access Priorities”.

23.  This path is supposed to facilitate the movement of pedestrians & bicyclists from the neighborhood around David Avenue & Minert Road but I’ve never seen anyone walking in this area.

Conflicting information was provided at the December 18, 2003 community workshop. Some stated that they walked this area, would use the path and they saw others walking in the area. Others stated that they never see people walking in this area.

Both the City of Concord’s Trails Master Plan and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (See Page 53) show trail facilities in this area. Both of these plans had substantial input during their development indicating some consensus that there is demand for paths in the area.

In addition, there are examples where the installation of a path resulted in an increase in walking and a decrease in traffic, the bridge near Fair Oaks elementary school is just one example.

The argument that “no pedestrians are present therefore no pedestrian facilities warranted” is weakened in that it may be because of the lack of facilities that pedestrians are not present.

24.  (Option D) The existing route works fine, I use it, my kids used it. We shouldn’t waste any time and money on a new route.

Comments made at the November 18th workshop indicate that the existing route works for some people. However, the current BART Access Study (Page 22) indicates that BART patrons north of Bancroft Road do not currently use this route. The idea of the shortcut path is to encourage more people to walk by making the distance to the BART station shorter and to make it safer. That people use the existing route does not somehow invalidate the idea of improving access and safety along a route to a major destination and transportation hub and inducing more people to walk and bike.

Given the lack of a separate facility (sidewalk) along most of the current route, it is likely that the “barrier effect”[16] is influencing people who would normally bike or walk to drive their cars.

However, after the November 18th workshop this was added as Option D and will be reviewed with the other options. The Project Description can be found on Page 14.

25.  People can currently walk or ride to the station along Bancroft Road and Treat Boulevard either on the road or the sidewalk.

Similar to the previous question, that this route is currently used or is acceptable to people does not invalidate the idea of improving access and safety along a route to a major destination and transportation hub and inducing more people to walk and bike. Again, the BART Access study suggests that the current route is not a viable option for people.

It is widely acknowledged that riding bicycles on the sidewalk is more dangerous than riding on the road. Additionally, state law prohibits bicycles from being ridden on the sidewalk unless a local jurisdiction passes a resolution or ordinance specifically allowing it.

26.  (Option A, D) If you put in sidewalks you will have to take property from the owners.

The lot configuration of typical residential homes has enough public right-of-way set aside along the street for the construction of sidewalks. This public property is often landscaped in a continuous manner with the adjoining private property. Installing a sidewalk in this area would require the removal of this landscaping and the relocation of mailboxes, utility poles, etc.

Another option is to simply add the sidewalk next to the existing curb (effectively narrowing the street).

Further study, discussion and property owner consultation would be needed to install any sidewalks on currently developed property.

 


 

27.  (Option D) The existing route (Bancroft Road, Mayhew Way, Iron Horse Trail) could use some improvements to improve its utility for pedestrians, sidewalks, line of sight issues, etc.

(See photographs below) This route has few sidewalks. The cost of adding sidewalks, curbs, curb cuts, etc. is going to be provided in the Options Summary. However, the installation of sidewalks is typically subject to relevant policies in either the County or the City of Walnut Creek.

There was a specific comment sent in via email that stated the bridge along Bancroft Road crossing the Walnut Creek Channel is too narrow. That path is 4’ wide. This is considered to be a minimum width for ADA compliance purposes. However, comments were made that the “comfort level” for using this sidewalk is diminished by the fact that there is a drop-off to the roadway and no fence or other barrier.

 


Photo 7: On Mayhew Way looking north towards Las Juntas Way.

 

Photo 8: On Mayhew Way looking south down the Iron Horse Trail towards Coggins Drive.

Photo 9:On Bancroft Road looking in the direction of Mayhew Way (west) and the crossing of Walnut Creek channel.

Photo 10: On Bancroft Road looking east towards the BART line with the Walnut Creek channel crossing in the foreground.

 



28.  (Options A, B, C, D) Do these alternatives make use of either any privately owned land or an easement across any privately owned land? (For a detailed ownership diagram see Page 51)

Option A uses an existing 20’ wide path easement across private property between two residences (Photo 11) to access Flood Control property and eventually cross Walnut Creek Channel. Sidewalks would need to be installed along Briarwood Way (Photo 12) to accommodate the additional anticipated pedestrian traffic. For a discussion on the issues with the installation of sidewalks see the Option D discussion below.

Photo 11: The path easement is located between these two homes (at the end of Briarwood Way).

Photo 12: Looking northeast on Briarwood Way.

Option B has the path on the BART property from Las Juntas Way to the Walnut Creek Channel.

Photo 13: On the BART property looking north towards Walnut Creek Channel.

Photo 14: On the BART property looking south towards Las Juntas Way.

 


 

Option C has the path on the BART property from Walnut Creek Channel to Clemson Court (as in Option B). When the path reaches Clemson Court it would be directed off the BART property via an existing gate onto the (public) sidewalk. A resident in the area has an easement agreement with BART that places some conditions on the removal of the gate at the end of Clemson Court. The implications of this easement relative to this project are currently being investigated.

Photo 15: Looking northeast along Clemson Court. The BART property is fenced on the right side of the photo.

Photo 16: The end of Clemson Court looking at the gate and the BART property.

Option D is the existing route that has been identified as having some deficiencies but nonetheless functions currently as a path to the BART station. Suggestions have been made to install sidewalks along the portion of the route that is currently without to improve the safety and attractiveness of the route. There are potentially two options for installing sidewalks, neither of which use private property. For additional photographs and discussion on issues related to sidewalk installation see Questions 26 and 27 starting on Page 25.

Photo 17: Looking southeast along Bancroft Road towards the BART line.

Photo 18: Looking east along Mayhew Road towards Las Juntas Way.

 

29.  This project portrays the shortcut path as being used to improve access to BART but people will use it to get around from neighborhood to neighborhood.

That is correct. The primary goal of this process is to improve access to the Pleasant Hill BART station. However, if either option A, B, or C is ultimately constructed, an ancillary benefit would be to improve general non-motorized mobility in the surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition, there is a plan to redevelop the Pleasant Hill BART station itself. The station now serves as a transit and transportation hub. The plan would add retail, housing and commercial uses as well as a bike station to the area further increasing the need to improve access to the site. For more information on the redevelopment of the station area please see the “Pleasant Hill BART” information at: www.cocoplans.org

Figure 5: Artist’s Rendition of What a Redeveloped Pleasant Hill BART Station May Look Like.

30.  In improving pedestrian and bicycle access to the Pleasant Hill BART station a priority should be to improve access from Treat Boulevard so pedestrians don’t have to wind through the parking lot.

The pedestrian and bicycle circulation system of the Pleasant Hill BART station is being redesigned as a part of the redevelopment effort in the station area. For more information on the this please see the “Pleasant Hill BART” information at: www.cocoplans.org

31.  This project should also include planning for a path along the Flood Control access road adjacent to the Walnut Creek Channel.

That facility is a planned project in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (See Page 53 or look at www.ccta.net). That particular project, although it has merit, is outside the scope of this effort.

32.  Part of the path will go across Flood Control District property. Will they allow this?

Can the vacant Flood Control District parcel along Bancroft Road be used as a pocket park or staging area for the proposed path or the Iron Horse Trail?

The Flood Control District has been cooperating with this effort. They have agreed to allow a path along the channel and grant a floating bicycle/pedestrian path easement on the vacant parcel fronting on Bancroft Road (see Photo 20 below) to allow for a connection to be made.

The path along the channel would have to be fenced. The vacant parcel (see Photo 19 below) is currently being used as a maintenance staging area. However, the District does not currently have long-term plans for the parcel and they intend on selling it. Any easement granted in support of a path will transfer with the property at the time it is sold.

The vacant parcel is in the City of Walnut Creek and is zoned R10, residential with minimum lot sizes of 10,000/GSF. The General Plan designates the area for public use; park and playground uses would be permitted.

That said, the parcel could be developed as a pocket park or staging area but would have to be done as an effort separate from this project. The cost for this is discussed on page 49.

 

Photo 19: Picture taken from Bancroft Road of the vacant flood control parcel with the BART line In the background.

Photo 20: Location of the vacant flood control parcel.

 

33.  (Option B, C) BART has power equipment in the possible trail right-of-way that may inhibit the use of a trail facility. (See Photo 28, Page 33)

According to BART staff the presence of this equipment is not a barrier to the installation of a path. There is enough space for the path and the equipment can be secured with fencing or other design treatment. Power substations like this share public streets and sidewalks throughout the BART District.

It is possible, although not necessary, to bury the power substation in order to make a clear path. This would be very expensive to do.

34.  (Option A) There aren’t any sidewalks here; we (the residents) don’t want any.

According to comments at the workshops the residents in the Briarwood Court area currently use the area without sidewalks and according to this question/comment it is adequate for their needs. Given this, it could be said that sidewalks are not absolutely necessary.

In considering Option A, the question is whether or not the increment of additional traffic (that would be present as a result of the path installation) warrants the installation of sidewalks. The Risk Manager for Contra Costa County advised staff that the installation of sidewalks should be considered a necessary component of Option A. This cost has been included in the Cost Summary (Page 44).

 


 

35.  (Option A) The trail would be awkward if put between the two homes at the end of Briarwood Way.

These types of shortcut paths are actually common in older communities and are making a resurgence[17]. Some examples of these sorts of paths are below:

Photo 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25: Examples of Neighborhood Paths[18] are below.

 

 


 

36.  (Options B, C) Is there enough room for a trail in the entire BART right-of-way?

Did anyone look at this before this project was started? 

Yes, there is enough room in the BART right-of-way for a trail. The consultant, County and BART staff walked and measured the right-of-way on December 4, 2003. It was confirmed that there was, for the purposes of this planning study, adequate room for a multi-use path.

Yes, when the potential for this path was first raised a cursory examination of the space was made verifying that there was potential for a path and that the idea warranted further study.

Photo 26: Looking north from the intersection of Las Juntas Way & Clemson Court along the BART right-of-way.

Photo 27: In the BART right-of-way looking south from about mid-block Clemson Court towards Las Juntas way.

 

Photo 28: At the Power Structure

Photo 29: Looking Towards Walnut Creek Channel

 

 

37.  (Options B, C) What are the construction limitations for BART?

BART’s initial assessment of the right-of-way indicates that there are no fundamental issues with the path concept. Construction details will be worked out after a preferred option is chosen and subject to additional review if and when construction is planned.

 

38.  The path under the BART tracks terminating at the corner or Las Juntas Way and Cherry Lane needs improvement.

The sidewalks and path found at this intersection are currently being used. However, the general consensus from the walking tour and the workshop was that this intersection needed to be improved. This need would be reinforced if a shortcut path were put in. Project staff has recommended that these issues should be resolved concurrently with the implementation of any path project. Details on what can be done to improve this intersection are discussed on page 46.

Photo 30, 31 & 32: Photographs of the existing path underneath the BART overhead along Las Juntas Way. The first two photos are in the area of the curve at Las Juntas Way & Cherry Lane. The bottom photo is further south along Las Juntas Way towards Roble Road.

 


Recommendations

 

Background

The premise set forth at the beginning of this process was to make the Pleasant Hill BART station and the Contra Costa Centre area more bicycle and pedestrian accessible thus improving overall access to the station area. Specifically, the goal was to address and build on the direction found in the Traffic Report supporting the 1998 amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan. The specific direction this process addresses is the “Future Extension (of the Pedestrian Promenade) to David/Minert” in Figure 4-3 (page 51).

This process looked at that extension in greater detail as described in the body of this report and sought comment and guidance from both residents and staff from various affected agencies on how best to do this. This section of the report provides staff recommendations developed during the process and summarizes the 10 major points that support these recommendations.

Recommendations

Staff members from the following agencies are in agreement on the recommendations that follow (BART currently supports the project but have not developed a preference for an alternative):

·        Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency

·        Contra Costa County Community Development Department

·        City of Concord

·        City of Walnut Creek

Staff recommends that Option B be adopted as the “Preferred Alternative”. During discussions staff highlighted the following factors to support this recommendation:

·          Option B is the “greenest” route that is likely to generate substantial use.

·          Option B is the shortest, most direct route.

·          All of the options have some affect on nearby property owners. Of the options that achieve the goal of reducing the walking/biking distance to the BART station[19], Option B appears to be the furthest away from occupied structures:

§          Option A opens an otherwise closed street (Briarwood Way) in an area with 12 homes[20]. This option makes use of an existing easement across private property between two existing homes (see Figure 8 – Page 51).

§          Option C opens an otherwise closed court (Clemson Court) in an area with 6 homes[21] and directs traffic out on to the sidewalk along Clemson Court outside and adjacent to the fenced in BART right-of-way.

§          Option B opens an otherwise closed court (Clemson Court) in an area with 6 homes[22] similar to C. However, this option keeps trail users off of the sidewalk and street along Clemson Court and entirely in the BART right-of-way out to Las Juntas Way. The affect on nearby property owners would be less than Option C given this use of the BART property.

Option A is a longer, more complex route as well as the most expensive. Option B is more expensive than Option C but it provides more privacy to the Clemson Court residents by keeping the trail users within the BART right-of-way.

Staff further recommends that the issues with the existing path under the BART tracks (near Las Juntas Way/Cherry Lane - See pages 34 & 46) be addressed concurrently with the recommended option.


Support for Recommendations

This section summarizes the points made in the body of this report. References back to the full discussion and detail relevant to the point being made are provided where appropriate:

1. A shortcut path would provide safe and more convenient access to BART for the neighborhoods northeast of the station area. Pedestrian access to the BART station from these neighborhoods is effectively eliminated by the barrier created by Bancroft Road and the Walnut Creek flood control channel. The current route around this barrier adds about 11 minutes travel time for a pedestrian, with much of it spent along either Bancroft Road, Treat Boulevard or both. Both of these streets are busy and can be congested during commute times. The shortcut path avoids exposure to this traffic and out-of-direction travel, and offers shade & landscaping and will likely lead to increased pedestrian activity,
The decrease in the distance to the station is meaningful (as documented in this report - Page 21) and the improvement of the aesthetics of the route will likely lead to increased pedestrian activity. A shortcut path would improve the walkability of the station area. A walkable community has convenient connections to destinations through streets, trails and other linkages limiting the "you can't get there from here" situations for pedestrians & other non-motorized transportation.
[23]

Figure 6: Project Area

2. A shortcut path would expand and improve on local transportation alternatives and improve access to expanding community amenities. The context of this project is critical; the Pleasant Hill BART Station defines the context. This station is a major, regional transportation hub for trains, busses, vanpools, carpools and taxis and serves as a gateway to the entire Bay Area region. It is a place that thousands of transit riders rush to and from each weekday. In addition, the BART station property is being transformed from a parking lot and a place to catch the train or bus to a complete community that offers places to live, work, shop, eat and play. This major redevelopment effort was the result of a collaborative, 6-day charrette in which over 500 people participated.
More details on the Pleasant Hill BART station redevelopment can be found here:
www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/charrette/outcome/outcome.htm
3. The path would improve travel to and from a regional gateway. Given the significance of the BART station relative to regional mobility, movement to and from the station area must be as fast, efficient and inclusive as possible, accommodating a broad spectrum of users. BART knows and understands the critical nature of these issues. This is reflected in their policies and goals as described in the response to Question 5 on Page 4 which show clear policy support for this type of project.
4. Current access patterns indicate the path would be used. BART's 1998 access study suggests that the current urban configuration is a barrier to pedestrians while indicating that a shortcut route (the extension of the "Pedestrian Promenade") would result in functional, meaningful improved pedestrian access. (Detail on Page 21)
5. Policy support at BART. This project is supported either directly or conceptually in the BART Station Access Guidelines (Graphic on Page 53), BART Strategic Plan , BART Pleasant Hill Station Comprehensive Plan, Pleasant Hill BART Station Access Plan and in the BART Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines .
6. This project is a component of other, county and citywide bicycle and pedestrian plans. In addition to this specific path project being listed in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CCCBP), complementary facilities are listed in both the CCCBP and in the Concord Trails Master Plan. Both of these documents were developed as a part of a public process. These complimentary facilities represent a documented need to encourage and accommodate non-motorized travel in the area as well as serving the functional purpose of increasing the catchment area of the path proposed in this document. (Detail on Page 24 and Page 53)
7. Supportive comments, both verbal and in writing, from residents who would use a path and see the value of the connection. (See the Workshop Summaries beginning on Page 58 and the Comment Log beginning on Page 70)
8. The project is a good example of implementing the "fix-it-first" concept. This is a term used to describe a wide range of investment strategies that better leverage limited funds. The explicit goal of these strategies is to build upon and maintain previous asset investments before constructing entirely new infrastructure. These approaches focus on efficiency, economic and community development potential and quality of life. This is notable with this project in that the BART system is a multi-billion dollar investment of public money.
9. Various studies and planning concepts support the need for the connection. These include studies demonstrating that more people would walk if conditions were improved, concepts and studies related to "active living by design" and studies related to increasing the efficiency of transit. (Detail on this can be found on starting on Page 4).
10. A shortcut path implements policies adopted by the Board of Supervisors. During the Board's review of policies guiding future development around the BART station in 1997, the public requested the Board to adopt new policies that encouraged access to BART by walking and cycling. The County's Specific Plan for the area now includes development of new routes for pedestrians and cyclists from the north, east and west of the station area. The recommended shortcut path is supported by this Board policy and is compatible with related policies in Walnut Creek and Concord as well as with policies adopted by BART and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

 

To summarize the policy support, the project is recommended either specifically or conceptually in 7 policy documents[28].

 

Neighborhood Comments

The major concerns communicated to the project manager are listed below with the location in the report where the concerns were addressed:

1.      The path will result in a loss of privacy, property crime, and a general decline in quality of life. (Page 16)

2.      The project is a “waste of money, another study should be done to determine its cost-effectiveness.” (Page 5)

3.      Who is going to pay for and ensure that the path and bridge are maintained? (Page 21)

 

Residents identified a number of other areas for improvement during the conduct of this study. One of these issues was the need to improve the existing path under the BART line. As a result of this input staff has decided that the issues with the existing path under the BART tracks (near Las Juntas Way/Cherry Lane - See pages 34 & 46) will be resolved with any project moving ahead.

 

At the request of the residents in the project area, staff also added to the review Options D and E. These Options are described on Pages 14 and 15, respectively, and included in the Options Summary on Page 41.

 

Briefly, Option D had merit (specifically the installation of sidewalks in the project area) but was not recommended. The improvement in bicycle and pedestrian access to the station area represented by the proposal was negligible when compared to Options A, B and C.

 

Option E looked at the feasibility and practicality of operating a shuttle to the station. However, there is already a fairly high level of transit service feeding the BART station from the project area. In addition to this, Option E was flawed similar to Option D.

 

 

Outstanding Tasks

The following issues need to be resolved prior to the project moving forward:

1.      Consultation with Affected Jurisdictions & Property Owners

This location of this project (see Figure 8, page 51) results in a number of different jurisdictions and landowners being involved. Prior to proceeding with the project further staff will consult with the affected jurisdictions and property owners in order to obtain additional input.

With the recommended Option B the landowners are:

1)      BART

2)      Contra Costa County Flood Control District

Agencies with planning responsibility or interest in the area include:

1)      Contra Costa County

2)      Walnut Creek

3)      BART

4)      Concord

The project manager will initiate the following outreach/consultation sequence as previously defined in the outreach process (1) and as recommended by staff from the affected jurisdictions (2-8):

1)      Concord City Council in consultation with the Concord Parks & Recreation Commission

2)      Walnut Creek Bicycle Advisory Committee

3)      Walnut Creek Transportation Commission and the Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Commission

4)      Walnut Creek City Council

5)      BART

6)      Contra Costa Centre MAC

7)      Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

2.      Identification & Establishment of Maintenance Funding Stream: Given the early planning stages this project is currently in, a maintenance funding stream has not yet been identified. Staff is examining a variety of alternatives to provide the funding required for maintenance. One option is the current lighting and landscaping district (L&L).  If the L&L is to be the mechanism, an increment increase in the funding will be identified to cover the increase in costs associated with the project. It is staff’s intention to not begin construction until such a time that a maintenance entity and funding stream is identified.

3.      Obtain Construction Funds: Given the characteristics of this project it is likely to score well in a number of different grant programs. Local match funds would likely be required. The location and function of the project are such that Redevelopment Agency funds could be used to finance construction.

 


Options Summary

Table 2: Options Summary Table (Cost Summary Table on Page 44)

Option and Approx. Time & Distance Saved [29]

Advantages

Disadvantages

Other Relevant Issues

Issues to Be Resolved if the Option is Forwarded

Option A
Bancroft - Briarwood – Las Juntas

 

·         .3 Mile

·        9 Minutes

 

·         Shortest length of path to be constructed

·         Least expensive maintenance costs

·         Decreases the privacy of Briarwood Way

·         Informal input from Briarwood residents indicate the installation of sidewalks are not desired.

·         Would require a secure, fenced “tunnel” along Walnut Creek Channel.

·         Most expensive option

·         Sidewalk installation would be required along Briarwood Court to Cherry Lane out to Las Juntas[30]

·         Would require addressing issues related to the existing BART path under the tracks.

·         Identification of Maintenance entity/funds

·         Jurisdictional Issues

·         Sidewalk Installation Issues

·         Construction Funds

Option B
Bancroft - BART Right-of-Way – Las Juntas

 

·         .4 Mile

·         11 Minutes

·         Shortest, most direct connection

·         Opportunity for linear park, a pleasant environment, further encouraging its use.

·         Of Options A, B and C this option has the least imposition on residents.[31]

·         Decreases the privacy of Clemson Court

·         Decreases privacy of abutting properties on LeJean Way.

·         Would require addressing issues related to the existing BART path under the tracks.

·         Identification of Maintenance entity/funds

·         Jurisdictional Issues

·         Construction Funds

Option C
Bancroft – BART Right-of-Way -
Clemson Court – Las Juntas

 

·         .4 Mile

·         10 Minutes

 

·         Second most direct route, effectively the same distance as the shortest (Option B) option

·         Least expensive option fulfilling goals of the project

·         Decreases the privacy of Clemson Court

·         Decreases privacy of abutting properties on LeJean Way.

·         Unknown/undefined ownership/easement issues at the driveway at the end of Clemson

·         Would require addressing issues related to the existing BART path under the tracks.

·         Identification of Maintenance entity/funds

·         Jurisdictional Issues

·         Construction Funds

Option D
Existing Route: Bancroft/Mayhew/
Iron Horse Trail

 

N/A

 

·         Least expensive option

·         Would improve existing conditions along the route

·         No improvement on travel time/distance.

·         Potential for short-term disturbance of the residents w/the installation of sidewalks.

·         BART Access Study demonstrates that people do not consider this an option.

·         Policies regarding the installation of sidewalks need to be considered.

·         Construction Funds

·         Sidewalk Installation Issues

Option E
Transit Service

 

N/A - Travel time is 10 to 23 minutes (peak period) from Bancroft near David/Minert to the BART station.

·         (Base) Service exists

·         Doesn’t solve the primary problem of reducing the walking/biking distance to the BART station area.

·         Regular adult fare is $1.50 (currently).

·         Travel time at peak period impacted by roadway congestion

·         Weekend/off-peak service is minimal.

·         Provision of service is subject to funding availability (a path is more likely to be consistently available).

 

·         Ongoing Funds for enhanced service

 

8/10/05-These costs are being updated and will be available prior to the August 16th meeting.

Table 3: Path Options: Cost Summary – Jurisdiction Ownership Defined

Alternative

Project Cost

Jurisdiction/

Ownership

Involved

A: Briarwood

 

 

Project Cost: $515,000/546,000 (First figure is for the “short” option {path on the south side of the tracks north of the channel}, the second for the “long” option {path on the south side of the tracks north of the channel})

Maintenance: $2,844/3,424

Engineering, bridge over Walnut Creek, sidewalks along Briarwood Way[32], path over Flood Control District Property and along easement between two homes at the end of Briarwood Way.

·         Contra Costa County

·         Contra Costa County Flood Control District

·         City of Walnut Creek

·         BART

B: BART Property

 

 

$419,000

Maintenance: $6,736

Engineering, bridge over Walnut Creek, path over Flood Control District Property and along BART owned right-of-way on the north side of the BART tracks.

·         Contra Costa County

·         Contra Costa County Flood Control District

·         City of Walnut Creek

·         BART

C: Clemson Court and BART Right-of-Way

 

$359,000

Maintenance: $4,600

Engineering, bridge over Walnut Creek, path over Flood Control District Property and along BART owned right-of-way on the north side of the BART tracks.

·         Contra Costa County

·         Contra Costa County Flood Control District

·         City of Walnut Creek

·         BART

D: Bancroft/ Mayhew/Iron Horse Trail

 

 

$331,000

Maintenance: N/A[33]

Engineering and construction of sidewalk along Bancroft Road and Mayhew Way.

·         City of Walnut Creek

E: Transit Service

 

Existing fare is $1.50 one-way

 

Opportunities to improve this option include creating a “Free Fare Zone”  (Peak Hour: $###,000/annual) and increase the off-peak frequency of busses ($###,000/annual)[34].

 

Increased Headway at off-peak hours

·         Central Costa Costa Transit Authority (County Connection)

 


Appendix

 

 

Other Project Details/Costs

Las Juntas Way & Cherry Lane Intersection: Existing Path & Traffic Issues

The area around the Las Juntas Way & Cherry Lane intersection (at the curve near Cherry Lane and the BART overhead – see graphic Page 48) was the subject of some discussion during this process. Although these issues were initially not a part of this project, they  are being discussed in this document given the concerns of the residents of the neighborhood and to provide a functional connection to the BART station for Options A, B and C.

This existing path would provide a connection to the station area that would make the shortcut path functional. Although the existing path operates currently, the shortcut path would encourage and increase non-motorized travel in the area and warrants some attention.

Some informal observations include:

·        Higher than automobile speeds on Las Juntas.

·        The path has an ambiguous terminus at Las Juntas just north of Cherry Lane. There is no curb cut or any indication of a formal crossing of Las Juntas.

·        Along the path south of Cherry Lane the path splits off and terminates at the curb on Las Juntas with no curb cut or other indication of pedestrian accommodation, similar to the issue above.

·        Poor line of sight for people using the path under the BART tracks due to the curve in the roadway and the support structure for the BART tracks.

·        Currently, the path surface in some sections has pooling and sinkholes.

·        With the preferred option (B), pedestrians traveling along the BART path either to or from Clemson Court would have a tendency to continue straight and cross Las Juntas under the BART tracks. There is nothing at this location to facilitate this crossing, curb cut, crosswalk, etc.

It is important to note that collision data provided by the County & Walnut Creek shows little if any reported safety problems in this area.

Recommendations: These issues need to be addressed during the advancement of any shortcut path project. There are a number of options for addressing the issues above. These options will be more defined at such a time that the project moves ahead. Some potential solutions that have been discussed are:

·        A narrowing of the street at this location would serve to slow traffic, increase sight distance, shorten the crossing for pedestrians and reduce the need for a stop sign or signal at this location.

·        The sidewalk on the north/east side of Las Juntas from Clemson Court to Cherry Lane could be widened so as to function as a multi-use path. This would accommodate bicycle traffic from the shortcut path to the existing path under the BART tracks.

·        Curb cuts along the path and at appropriate locations to facilitate the crossing of Las Juntas Way would improve pedestrian mobility this area and serve to support the proposed shortcut path.

·        A crosswalk across Las Juntas Way at Santos Lane (immediately south of the area shown in the figure below) would also accommodate and encourage crossing in an area with superior sight lines.

·        Some type of low barrier (fence or vegetation) at the north end of the path at Las Juntas Way under the BART tracks could help to prevent people crossing at this location and help to direct them to an defined, established crossing.

·        Improvement of maintenance of the existing path underneath the BART line to address pooling and sinkholes.

Given the lack of definition of the improvements, developing a precise cost is problematic. A rough cost estimate is $##,###. (TBD) Any improvements will need to be maintained. However, given the improvements would merely be modifications to existing infrastructure there should be little, if any, increase in maintenance costs.

Figure 7: Curve on Las Juntas Way at Cherry Lane & BART Overhead

 


Pocket Park on the Flood Control Parcel

A number of individuals commented that the vacant Flood Control parcel on Bancroft Road at the BART tracks would be ideal for a pocket park or staging area. This is possible but is not being discussed or considered in detail for this project. Approximate cost to purchase the parcel (1.4 acres) for this would be $600,000-700,000. Construction of a park would be approximately $800,000. A maintenance entity would need to be identified as well as a funding stream. For additional discussion/location detail, see page 30.

 

    

 


“Northern Connection” of Path

Several options exist at the northern end of the project boundary to enable a connection to Bancroft Road:

Option 1: The east side of the BART tracks on BART property next to the Countrywood parking/RV storage lot. The right-of-way available with this option is somewhat limited as seen in the photograph below. The Countrywood Homeowners Association has registered their concerns with this alignment. At the sidewalk on Bancroft Road there is an above ground utility box which may present some design problems.

Option 2: The west side of the BART tracks on Flood Control property. Flood Control is cooperating with the project and is willing to grant an easement to allow access for the path. They have however registered that if possible they would not like to encumber their property in this manner.

Option 3: The west side of the BART tracks on BART property. This area is not flat and would require some grading and a retaining wall to use as a path connection.

 

Staff at this time has no recommendations on which option is preferred. At the time the project moves forward these options will be looked at in greater detail to determine which option should be used.

 

Photo 33: The BART property immediately to the east of the BART line adjacent to the Countrywood property

Photo 34: The Flood Control and BART property on the west side of the BART tracks with Bancroft Road in the background. The BART property is fenced in.

 


Figure 8: Ownership/Jurisdiction Diagram


Figure 9: Bicycle Pedestrian Promenade (Figure 4-3) from the 1998 Traffic Report Supporting the 1998 Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan

 

 

Miscellaneous Resources/Information/Definitions

 

Figure 10: Excerpt From Concord Trails Master Plan.

Figure 11: Excerpt From Draft Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan.

Figure 12: Graphic From BART Station Access Guidelines (Figure 4-1) entitled, “Station Area Access Priorities”.


Caltrans Bikeway Classifications

Class I: Typically called a “bike path,” a Class I bikeway provides bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from nearby streets or highways. They are intended to provide opportunities not available streets and roads, including recreation or high speed bicycle commuting.

Class II: Often referred to as a “bike lane,” a Class II bikeway provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway. Bike lanes delineate separate rights-of way for bicycles and vehicles to provide more predictable movement for both.

Class III: Usually referred to as “bike routes,” Class III bikeways are facilities shared with motor vehicles but which provide, through signage, design, and connection to other facilities, advantages to bicyclists not available on other streets or roadways.

Miscellaneous Information

Final Traffic Report from the 1998 Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan Amendment
www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/transportation/phb_path/files/phb_specific_plan_traffic.pdf

Americans Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating Better Walking Communities, April 2003, Belden Russonello & Stewart, Research and Communications for the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

Concord Trails Master Plan, September 2002
Entire plan is available from the City of Concord or the map from the plan that is referenced in this study can be viewed here:
www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/transportation/phb_path/files/concord_tmp.pdf

Caltrans Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm

BART’s Strategic Plan
www.bart.gov/about/reports/strategicPlan.asp

BART Access Guidelines
www.nelsonnygaard.com/articles/article_bartaccess.htm

BART Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines
www.bart.gov/about/planning/tod.asp


Contact Information

Project Lead: Contra Costa County Community Development Department

John Cunningham, Senior Transportation Planner

Ph: 925-335-1243 Fax: 925-335-1300 Email: jcunn@cd.cccounty.us

 

Staff Participating in the Project:

BART

Deidre Heitman

City of Walnut Creek

John Hall, Michael Vecchio

East Bay Regional Park District

Jim Townsend, Steve Fiala

Contra Costa Flood Control District

Paul Detjens

City of Concord

John Templeton, John Rego

 


Photo/Figure/Table Index

 

Photographs

Photo 1: Looking north along Clemson Court at the access gate to the BART parcel. 18

Photo 2: Airphoto showing the location of the BART access gate. 18

Photo 3, 4, 5 & 6: Walnut Creek Channel in the Area of the Proposed Bridge. 19

Photo 7: On Mayhew Way looking north towards Las Juntas Way. 26

Photo 8: On Mayhew Way looking south down the Iron Horse Trail towards Coggins Drive. 26

Photo 9:On Bancroft Road looking in the direction of Mayhew Way (west) and the crossing of Walnut Creek channel. 26

Photo 10: On Bancroft Road looking east towards the BART line with the Walnut Creek channel crossing in the foreground. 26

Photo 11: Homes at the end of Briarwood Way where the path easement is located. 27

Photo 12: Looking northeast on Briarwood Way. 27

Photo 13: On the BART property looking north towards Walnut Creek Channel. 27

Photo 14: On the BART property looking south towards Las Juntas Way. 27

Photo 15: Looking northeast along Clemson Court. The BART property is fenced on the right side of the photo. 28

Photo 16: The end of Clemson Court looking at the gate and the BART property. 28

Photo 17: Looking southeast along Bancroft Road towards the BART line. 28

Photo 18: Looking east along Mayhew Road towards Las Juntas Way. 28

Photo 19: Picture taken from Bancroft Road of the vacant flood control parcel with the BART line In the background. 30

Photo 20: Location of the vacant flood control parcel. 30

Photo 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25: Examples of Neighborhood Paths are below. 32

Photo 26: Looking north from the intersection of Las Juntas Way & Clemson Court along the BART right-of-way. 33

Photo 27: In the BART right-of-way looking south from about mid-block Clemson Court towards Las Juntas way. 33

Photo 28: At the Power Structure. 33

Photo 29: Looking Towards Walnut Creek Channel 33

Photo 30, 31 & 32: Photographs of the existing path underneath the BART overhead along Las Juntas Way. The first two photos are in the area of the curve at Las Juntas Way & Cherry Lane. The bottom photo is further south along Las Juntas Way towards Roble Road. 34

Photo 33: The BART property immediately to the east of the BART line adjacent to the Countrywood property. 50

Photo 34: The Flood Control and BART property on the west side of the BART tracks with Bancroft Road in the background. The BART property is fenced in. 50

 

Figures

Figure 1: County Connection Route 111. 15

Figure 2: County Connection Route 114. 15

Figure 3: 1998 BART Access Survey: Pleasant Hill BART Walk Trips. 22

Figure 4: Graphic From BART Station Access Guidelines entitled, “Station Area Access Priorities”. 23

Figure 5: Artist’s Rendition of What a Redeveloped Pleasant Hill BART Station May Look Like. 29

Figure 6: Project Area. 37

Figure 7: Curve on Las Juntas Way at Cherry Lane & BART Overhead. 48

Figure 8: Ownership/Jurisdiction Diagram.. 51

Figure 9: Bicycle Pedestrian Promenade (Figure 4-3) from the 1998 Traffic Report Supporting the 1998 Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan. 52

Figure 10: Excerpt From Concord Trails Master Plan. 53

Figure 11: Excerpt From Draft Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan. 53

Figure 12: Graphic From BART Station Access Guidelines (Figure 4-1) entitled, “Station Area Access Priorities”. 53

 

Tables

Table 1: Relative Time/Distance Savings of Various Path Options. 22

Table 2: Options Summary Table (Cost Summary Table on Page 44) 41

Table 3: Path Options: Cost Summary – Jurisdiction Ownership Defined. 44

 


Workshop Summaries

 

 

First Workshop (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)

Second Workshop (Thursday, December 18, 2003)

 

 

 


Pleasant Hill BART Shortcut Path and Wayfinding System Project

 

Community Workshop #1

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

 

Wallgraphic Summary

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On November 18, 2003, about 35 people participated in the Pleasant Hill BART Shortcut Path and Wayfinding System 1st Community Workshop.  The purpose of this workshop was to identify the community’s issues, concerns, questions and feelings about the proposed project.

 

John Cunningham, Transportation Planner for Contra Costa County, made welcoming remarks and gave a brief history outline of this project; that this project is a planning feasibility study only. Funds have not been allocated for construction of any shortcut path. John then turned the meeting over to the facilitator, Tim Gilbert of Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), who provided an overview of the evening’s agenda.  Cheryl Sullivan reported on the walking tour, held Saturday, November 15th.

 

Tim opened the floor to public input.  As members of the community shared their ideas, Cheryl Sullivan recorded their comments on a large wallgraphic. Those comments are summarized below. They are arranged by general topics, and when needed additional wording is added [….] to clarify the comment. (Photoreduction of the wallgraphics produced at the workshop are provided at the end of this document.)

 

The workshop adjourned at 9 p.m.  The 2nd workshop will be held on December 18th, Wednesday, from 7-9 p.m., at the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 

 

 

Neighborhood issues

 

·        Loss of parking

·        Crime

·        BART agreement [with resident] regarding gate and access limits – good barrier

·        Trash from travelers

·        Homeless, strangers

·        Transients under canal

·        Look at other alternative routes.

·        Quiet neighborhood [will be affected]

·        No sidewalks keep neighborhood quiet; no one goes up cul-de-sac now

·        Fears of residents

o       Diminishes [property] value

o       No users after 7 p.m.

o       Response time in an emergency [it is slow now]

·        Lighting

·        Don’t count on BART for maintenance

·        Retirees and disabled live on Clemson [feel threatened by plan]

·        At Briarwood:

o       No sidewalks wanted

o       Young families

o       Plan A destroys quality of life

o       Very safe now

o       Plan A exposes young families

·        Get crime stats – compare with other situations

o       Police come to meeting

 

General comments

 

·        Expand and improve notification to surrounding neighborhood

·        Walking comfort [distance people will choose to walk]: 1-2 miles

·        Bike comfort [distance people will choose to ride]: 5 miles

·        Contra Costa Canal Trail experience

o       Fears didn’t materialize

o       Transients left

·        East Bay Regional Parks Trails closed/curfew

o       10pm – Dawn

·        Add a trail (A, B, or C options)

·        [BART right of way originally] supposed to be a park

·        Kids go to school via L J [Las Juntas]-M [Mayhew]-B [Bancroft]

·        Societal goal to reduce dependence on car – the “B” path promotes this

·        BART supports this study and was an applicant for this project

·        BART also a plus for selling property

·        Others have increased property values [when trail goes in]

·        Lots of people walk to / from BART

·        Lots of support outside of immediate neighborhood

·        Path for pedestrians and bikes only

·        Extra eyes on path

·        If best for community, then do it

·        Construction costs – enhance the existing conditions [instead of building new path]

·        Existing [pedestrian and bike] routes too long – won’t be used

·        “B” is least intrusive

·        Isolated route

·        If [path is] walled [then it creates a] dangerous “alley” / “tunnel”

·        People turn backs to crime – can’t guarantee help

·        Police won’t be there [in time]

·        Improve sidewalks no matter what!

·        Evaluate landscape quality on both sides at Bancroft and BART tracks [within BART right of way]

·        “B” has least objectionable impact

 

TRAFFIC ISSUES

 

·        Traffic danger at Bancroft and Mayhew, Bancroft and David and Minert

·        No public access past Clemson – gate to stay [entry to BART property]

·        Pedestrian improvements needed at David and Minert

·        Now: dangerous [bike and pedestrian] route from David – Bancroft – Mayhew… hedges and ADA problems, the lack of sidewalks is “unnerving”.

·        Dangerous curve at Cherry and Las Juntas needs improvements:

o       Light [needed at] pedestrian crossing

o       Sidewalks and crosswalk

·        Other options [offered]:

o       Option D – add sidewalks and bike lanes along Las Juntas, Mayhew, etc.

o       Option E – shuttle bus [between Bancroft and BART station]

 

Questions

 

·        Survey done for BART users?

o       Yes, basis for grant dedicated sheriff patrol

·        Who has jurisdiction of BART and maintenance?

·        Noise levels okay?

·        Has BART Power & Way Dept. been notified?

·        [There is a] dedicated sheriff patrol?

o       How many hours?

o       40 hours a week

·        [What is the] distance saved?

·        What are the construction limitations for BART?

·        When was this process started?

o       Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan, 1998

·        Is this a sure thing?

o       No – issues have to be addressed

·        Who does this report go?

o       Will bring info to next meeting

·        [When was there a] study of ridership?

·        [What are the] current needs for ridership?

·        There needs to be a new study to see how many people will use the trail

·        BART R.O.W. originally had trail planned?

·        Enough room for fence & BART the whole length?

·        Fence on street side of trail?

 

 

Written Comments

 

·        The bridge on Bancroft that crosses the Walnut Creek Channel is too narrow, it should be widened.

·        BART needs to do something about theft and vandalism of bicycles at the station. BART needs more bicycle lockers!

·        The existing route works fine, I use it, my kids used it. We shouldn’t waste any time and money on a new route.

·        An improved, more direct sidewalk/path from Jones to the BART station would improve pedestrian access.

·        The Briarwood Option (A) is the best alternative given the ease of the movements in the area of Cherry/Las Juntas/BART tracks. Options B or C has more difficult movements to make.

·        Any path should somehow be landscaped and somehow integrated with the Iron Horse Trail.

·        The existing trail under the BART tracks under Las Juntas floods and gets muddy, bikes get bogged down.

·        Options A, B or C would diminish the safety of our neighborhood, increase fire hazard, result in vandalism, theft, loitering, and garbage dumping and reduce the aesthetic of the area.

·        Improving the existing route is the most fiscally responsible.

·        A bridge would reduce the aesthetic of the channel area.

·        All of the proposed options come to a substantial expense to the taxpayers in the community. In a time of shortages and deficits we believe there are more fiscally appropriate alternatives to these proposed short cuts.

·        The safety profile of the existing routes can be improved easily and this would not create new safety problems for residents of our neighborhood.

·        The sidewalks along Bancroft and Treat allow bicyclists to ride, and there are crosswalks at all intersections. This appears to be quite a safe route with good lighting all along.

·        We suggest the addition of a sidewalk to Iron Horse Trail and a bike path along Mayhew will address this problem.

·        Lastly, we think the use of these proposed short cuts will be quite small, and the additional problems created for residents of our neighborhood far outweigh the supposed benefits for residents beyond Bancroft and David/Minert.

·        Although none of the options are attractive, relatively speaking, Alternative B is superior as it impedes the least on homes.

·        Option A results in the loss of property.

·        The proposed crossing at Las Juntas is extremely dangerous and is at a turn or bend in the road. The risk to users of the short cut is substantial.

·        There are no sidewalks for about three-quarters of the way on Briarwood Way and for all of the Cherry Lane section forcing the supposed users of this short cut into the street along with the automotive traffic. 

·        There is a significant slope at the edge of the Contra Costa Canal, which will require a great deal of construction work in the form of tie-backs and retainer walls to level the area for the supposed users of the short cut. This construction will be at great expense to the taxpayer community.

·        The benefits of Options A, B or C do not outweigh the impacts.

·        The courts (Clemson and Briarwood) are now safe and quiet, A, B, and C would change that by making it a major thoroughfare

·        Homeless people will take up residence in unmanaged areas.

·        Lack of upkeep of the paths is likely.

·        Un-patrolled, unsafe trails will be a result of this of any new path

·        Strangers in the area late into the night


Pleasant Hill BART Shortcut ~ Community Workshop #1 ~ Tuesday, November 18, 2003


Pleasant Hill BART Shortcut Path and Wayfinding System Project

 

Community Workshop #2

Thursday, December 18, 2003

 

Wallgraphic Summary

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On December 18, 2003, about 34 people participated in the Pleasant Hill BART Shortcut Path and Wayfinding System 2nd Community Workshop.  The purpose of this workshop was to introduce newcomers to the proposed project, continue the discussion of the community’s concerns, and to provide answers to the first workshop’s questions. People were invited to look at the exhibits arranged around the room.

 

Tim Gilbert opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda. John Cunningham, Transportation Planner for Contra Costa County, reviewed the project history and report, and answered several questions posed at the last workshop. The report is posted on the County’s web site:

www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/transportation/phb_path

.

John then turned the meeting over to Tim Gilbert.

 

Tim opened the floor to the public, asking that comments be limited to those not already expressed. Cheryl Sullivan reviewed trailing planning criteria and design issues. The group was then asked to discuss the positive and negative aspects of the four alternatives.  Comments were recorded on a large wallgraphic, and summarized below. They are arranged by general topics.  Additional wording is added [….] to clarify the comment. (Photoreductions of the wallgraphics produced at the workshop are provided at the end of this document.)

 

The workshop adjourned at 9 p.m.  The 3rd workshop will be held in January, 2004.  Date and place of the 3rd workshop will be announced when decided upon. 

 

 

New comments and Questions

·        [Staff/agency names here tonight: Joelle Fockler, Contra Costa Center; Michael Vecchio, City of Walnut Creek; Kevin Connolly, BART Planning; Jamie Perkins, East Bay Regional Parks Department; Mark Covington, Walnut Creek Police Department; Mary Bustamante, Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office; Steve Goetz, Contra Costa County Community Development Department]

·        [East Bay Parks] trail experience: initially not wanted, later its an asset

·        Crime is active where there’s no visibility

·        Is the concept (not the location) of the trail ok? 

o        Pros and cons for the trail.

·        Any count of users of the trail if it is built?

·        Are there [immediate] neighbors in favor [of the path] here? – No

·        Q#16 – count is anecdotal [see John Cunningham’s Q&A sheet]

·        5,000 = household population

·        If only 38 users, then access is poor?

·        No observed pedestrian/bike traffic along David & Minert

·        How to determine [pedestrian and bike] demand?

·        Comment: Concord Trail Master Plan in BART R.O.W. (David and Minert) will complement/add to this projects catchment area

·        Will path here encourage walkers were there aren’t any sidewalks?

·        Bikes and pedestrians use David and Minert [now]

·        Trails should connect parks and schools

o       This [shortcut path] does improve the connection

·        Very unsafe for pedestrians – limited # of sidewalks

·        Bancroft/Mayhew – no sidewalk, narrow, and very unsafe [now]

o       Pedestrians have to walk in the street

·        Las Juntas – limited sidewalks

·        Bently Street used [by pedestrians] instead of David/Minert

·        [Minert/David]/Bancroft/Mayhew/Las Juntas have [safety] problems [now] – is this [shortcut] path going to make these safer?

o       Existing route is deficient [Minert/David – Bancroft/Mayhew – Las Juntas]

o       The [shortcut] path is not meant to take place of other needs [and improvements]

·        [Shortcut] Path is affecting neighbors – while providing access to others

·        Real estate values – [reports and opinions vary: values go up/values go down]

·        If open trail, then need fence on both sides

·        All options affect property owners

·        Safety [Mark Covington from the Walnut Creek Police Department spoke to this]

o       Police experience very few incidents

o       No homeless living on trails

o       Very few incidents

o       More public – usually less crime

·        East Bay trails [Jamie Perkins from the East Bay Regional Parks Department spoke to this]

o       Have rangers to patrol [trails]

o       Little/few incidents

o       Maintenance and operations manual [addresses trail specifics]

·        Past experience on Clemson when R.O.W. was open [but undeveloped]

o       Fires

o       Drugs

o       Trash

o       Sense of security will be destroyed

·        Lighting

o       At night?

§         Encourages use

§         Provides safety

o       Spill-over light [is a problem]

·        Fencing

o       Who pays for it ? – not the homeowner

 

 

Alternatives map

 

·        Option D [improve sidewalk conditions along Las Juntas, Mayhew, and Bancroft]

o       Positive improvements for all

o       Pictures [of existing conditions presented]

o       Graffiti, homeless are problems

o       Costs are less

o       Longer distance

·        [Option] C

o       Costs lower [than B]

o       Neighbors keep edges clean [now]

§         Have to make sure landscape is kept up [A, B & C]

o       Fence needs to be high enough

o       Fencing is negative

o       Lighting needed

o       Dedicate [public owned] triangular parcels to landowners?

·        [Option] B

o       Fencing – varies depending on situations

o       Visibility is good (length) + [+ = positive]

o       No traffic interaction +

o       Doesn’t impact cul-de-sac – owner disagrees

o       Mature trees +

o       Don’t travel through [private] property +

o       No auto exhaust +

o       Wayfinding is easy +

o       Trees are a buffer +

o       Residents prefer fence along road [Clemson]

o       Lighting needed

·        [Option] A

o       Driveways are problems for bikes and pedestrians

o       Wall at easement

o       Two [sharp] turns [in path]

o       Bridge needed

o       Least amount of construction (2nd least costly)

o       Is Cherry/Las Juntas [intersection] better than Bancroft/Mayhew?

o       Is traffic load enough for [new] sidewalk?

o       Lighting needed

 


Pleasant Hill BART Shortcut ~ Community Workshop #2 ~ Thursday, December 18, 2003


Comment Log

To be included w/final document…

 



[1] Americans Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating Better Walking Communities, April 2003, Belden Russonello & Stewart, Research and Communications for the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

[2] Physical Activity and Good Nutrition: Essential Elements to Prevent Chronic Diseases and Obesity 2004

[3] Improving Conditions for Bicycling and Walking, January 1998, by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

[4]       · We will encourage and facilitate improved access to, and from, our stations by all modes.

        · In partnership with the communities BART serves, we will promote transit ridership and enhance the quality of life by encouraging and supporting transit-oriented development within walking distance of BART stations.

[5]       · Connect to Surrounding Streets to Shorten Pedestrian Routes

        · Utilize Right-of-Way for Bike/Ped Connections

[6]       ·BART stations should be served by streets, bus and bicycle routes that extend beyond the immediate station area.”

[7] “major crime” in this study9 refers to crime against a person, mugging, assault, rape, murder, etc.

[8] Impact of Rail-Trails, National Park Service, 1992

[9] Rail-Trails and Safe Communities, RTC, 1998

[10] A Feasibility Study for Proposed Linear Park, Oregon Department of Transportation, Parks and Recreation Division, May 1988

[11] Consumer’s Survey on Smart Choices for Home Buyers, National Assoc. of Realtors and National Assoc. of Home Builders, April 2002.

[12] A real estate agent at the December 18, 2003 meeting indicated that studies have shown that these types of facilities lower property values. The project manager requested a copy of those studies, none was forwarded.

[13] See Page 53 for a description of Caltrans bikeway classifications.

[14] As measured by the difference between the subject alternatives and alternative D, the longest of the four alternatives.

[15] Average walking time (3.1 fps) calculated from Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1988 and ITE Committee 4A-6, Pedestrians. Traffic Control Devices for Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., undated.

[16] “The Barrier Effect (also called severance) refers to delays and discomfort that vehicle traffic imposes on non-motorized modes (pedestrians and cyclists).” Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis – Barrier Effect, January 2003, Victoria Transport Policy Institute

[17] These types of designs are now being seen in transit oriented developments (TOD) and in traditional neighborhood designs (TND).

[18] Courtesy of www.pedbikeimages.org  Photographer: Dan Burden

[19] Options A, B and C

[20] There are 12 homes on Briarwood Way. However, a letter from residents in the area opposing the project and making their concerns known had signatures from residents of Briarwood Way as well as Briarwood Court and Foss Court.

[21] There are 6 homes on Clemson Court. On Le Jean Way there are also two residents whose property would either adjoin or nearly adjoin a path along the BART right-of-way.

[22] There are 6 homes on Clemson Court. On Le Jean Way there are also two residents whose property would either adjoin or nearly adjoin a path along the BART right-of-way.

[23] Ewing, R, and Cervero, R, Transportation and Built Environment: A Synthesis. 2001.

[24]     · Connect to Surrounding Streets to Shorten Pedestrian Routes

        · Utilize Right-of-Way for Bike/Ped Connections

[25]     · We will encourage and facilitate improved access to, and from, our stations by all modes.

        · In partnership with the communities BART serves, we will promote transit ridership and enhance the quality of life by encouraging and supporting transit-oriented development within walking distance of BART stations.

        · Promote sustainable, transit-oriented development in the communities BART serves to maximize the use of BART as the primary mode of transportation.”

        ·Enhance the use of resource-efficient and environmentally-friendly access modes (e.g. bikes, walking, etc.), and other sustainable features at BART’s new and existing stations.”

        ·Integrate sustainability principles and practices including multimodal access into the planning, design, and construction of new BART stations and related facilities.”

[26] BART stations should be served by streets, bus and bicycle routes that extend beyond the immediate station area.”

[27] National Governor’s Association for Best Practices, Fixing It First: Targeting Infrastructure Investments to Improve State Economies and Invigorate Existing Communities, August 2004

[28] Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan, Pleasant Hill BART Station Access Plan, BART Strategic Plan, BART Station Access Guidelines, BART Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines, Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Concord Trails Master Plan, BART Pleasant Hill Station Comprehensive Plan

[29] As measured by the difference between the subject alternatives and alternative D (the existing route and the longest of the four alternatives). (See Page 22 for additional detail)

[30] 02/04/2004 Email Communication from Ron Harvey, Risk Manager, Contra Costa County, County Administrators Office, Risk Management Division

[31] Option D is likely to have a short-term imposition on residents with the installation of sidewalks. Long-term, the change in character of the immediate area is probably less significant than with Options A, B or C. This has not been discussed with the residents however; their view regarding the impact of sidewalks may be different.

[32] Required per Contra Costa County Risk Manager

[33] Maintenance of sidewalks is typically the responsibility of the property owner.

[34] Transit service to this area is already considered fairly good, the opportunities for improvement listed above are the most reasonable improvements available.