“We affirm the trial court’s determination that the Town (of Danville) violated CEQA by failing to adequately investigate bicycle safety and discuss it in the EIR.” Justice Sandra Margulies, California Court of Appeal, September 11, 2015.

Words we have been waiting to hear for a long time. Going forward, when a development project adds significantly more traffic to a street you ride, the project needs to study potential safety impacts to bicycling–that is now the law of the land in the East Bay.

The court case giving us this new law involves Magee Ranch, a residential development project of 69 new homes recently approved in Danville. New homes will add more traffic to Diablo Road, a popular bike route to Mt. Diablo. In its Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the developer did not feel the project would make bicycling any worse on this challenging stretch of rural, windy roadway and this didn’t consider the problem.

In summer 2014, the Honorable Judge Steven Austin of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County ruled that the proposed Magee Ranch Development in Danville failed to comply with CEQA in not studying the development’s potential impacts on bicycle safety on Diablo Road. Such a ruling could be a first of its kind in the State of California.

Read Bike East Bay’s Amicus Brief files in Appellate Court

Background

The project proposes 69 new homes off of Diablo Road, which few contend won’t add traffic to an already crowded, narrow, winding Diablo Road. While the development looked at long-term options to connect the bikeway along Diablo Rd, the project didn’t consider short-term bicycle safety improvements on Diablo Road. At trial on the issue of bicycle safety, it was conceded that since Diablo Road is already dangerous for bicycling making it more dangerous is not a significant impact in need of further study. The court disagreed on this point.

While Bike East Bay is not opposed to the development project and it certainly speaks volumes that Save Mount Diablo is supportive of the project, we are joining CalBike to file an Amicus Brief in the case and defend Judge Austin’s decision, which is now on appeal. The issue of bike safety impacts from new development projects is too important. If the trial court’s ruling is upheld, it sets a precedent for future projects that add traffic to the streets you ride. For these projects, developers and cities will need to take bicycle safety into consideration and mitigate any safety impacts. We are also confident that the short-term bicycle safety impacts of the Magee Ranch Development can be readily addressed by the Town of Danville and the developer.

Bay Area News Group Coverage of Magee Ranch-Danville Case

Why this case is important?

Project developers and cities alike over the years have repeatedly designed new roadways and developments along those roads in ways completely ignoring impacts on your safety riding these streets. They treat bike safety as a gratuity–to be considered only if asked, and then not too seriously.

Bike East Bay submitted written comments on UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan, the Oak to 9th Project along the Bay Trail and the Caldecott 4th Bore Tunnel, to name just a few. Some of the projects we comment on not only ignore bike safety, they also propose additional mitigation improvements for driving convenience that further impact bike safety. It’s kind of like having someone piss down your back and tell you it’s raining. With the Caldecott 4th Bore project, the planning transgressions were so egregious that Bike East Bay joined a lawsuit with many community groups against the project. Our settlement discussions led to $10 million for Oakland and Berkeley bike & ped improvement projects, all of which you will be enjoying in the years to come. In this case we are joining a battle on appeal so that this project and all future projects ensure they contribute to a safe transportation network.

What needs to be studied?

When a development project would generate 949 daily car trips, including 109 AM peak hour trips, 98 school PM peak hour trips, and 80 PM peak hour trips, it creates potential safety issues. Every minute, 3 to 4 more cars will be traveling along Diablo Road, right where you will be riding, and on a road wide enough for you and only one other car. Guess who gets squeezed?

These additional cars are on top of hundreds of cars already using Diablo Road while you bike there. Traffic that is traveling much faster than you are, a differential in speeds that can be deadly if even one driver is not paying attention. On the mile long stretch between Alameda Diablo and Avenida Nueva, how often are you going to get squeezed or sideswiped? And now imagine doing it at night, during an evening commute home, when it’s raining. No 3-feet passing law is going to get you home safely. It’s estimated that over 100,000 people bicycle into Mt. Diablo State Park every year, with Diablo Rd a popular access route.

At trial, several thoughtful people asked for short-term improvements, such as ‘share the road’ signs, sharrow symbols on the road to remind drivers of the presence of people bicycling, and speed limit reductions. Additional considerations should include pullouts for slower moving bicyclists in the uphill direction, better lighting, and additional traffic calming measures. Traffic experts should all know these safety measures and most do. All we need is a statement of public policy from an appellate court that projects have to tap into this existing bicycle safety expertise when adding traffic to streets we ride every day.

A copy of our Amicus Brief will be posted here when filed

File attachment: