Bicycle Plans, Road Diets, and CEQA: An AEP learning Event

November 28, 2011

VTA OIIices

Speakers: Michelle DeRobertis (VTA), Carol Levine (Spokemore Consulting), Leslie Lowe (ESA),
Kristina Daniel Lawson (mannatt , phelps , phillips)

Topic: Challenges posed by CEQA on the approval oI bicycle projects, especially those
involving road diets (vehicle lane reductions), and potential regulatory changes that
would reduce barriers

In recent years, there has been increasing legal action against bicycle projects, despite the Iact that
they are seen as environmentally beneIicial projects that support recent legislation on climate change
and complete streets. One potential reason Ior this trend is that bicycle projects are more diIIicult to
implement because oI the need Ior right-oI-way; all oI the 'easy projects have been completed
already. Litigation is usually a response to resident and business owner concerns over increased
congestion, removal oI parking, and diversion oI traIIic to neighborhood streets.

Road diets have the potential to result in signiIicant level oI service (LOS) impacts, particularly in
dense areas such as San Francisco and Oakland. In less dense areas, the diversion oI traIIic to
neighborhood streets could be an issue. Although 'insuIIicient parking is no longer treated as an
environmental eIIect, it is argued that it can have indirect air quality eIIects by causing drivers to
circulate more in search oI a parking spot. Other possible eIIects oI replacing vehicle lanes with
bicycle lanes are eIIects on: transit service (e.g. travel time, access, etc.), habitat, hydrology, and
sensitive land uses (construction-related noise, traIIic, and air quality).

Projects that involve changing the paint on a road may qualiIy Ior an exemption under CEQA. To
adopt an exemption, however, the lead agency must show that the project would not result in a
signiIicant impact. This and other exceptions to the application oI exemptions complicate the
process and essentially make it so bike projects are either exempt or require an EIR (typically
because oI the potential Ior LOS impacts). The speakers raised the point that the low 'Iair argument
standard oI review Ior exemptions and MNDs makes it easy to challenge projects based on non-
environmental issues or unveriIied concerns. To avoid litigation, some lead agencies go straight to
preparing an EIR. As a result, it is diIIicult Ior lead agencies to implement bicycle projects in a
timely and cost-eIIective manner.

There was a lot oI discussion on how the traditional approach Ior evaluating traIIic impacts (Iocused
on LOS standards Ior intersection operations) poses an obstacle to bicycle projects because it ignores
the net beneIit oI non-vehicular improvements to the transportation system as a whole. It could also
be argued that mitigation oI LOS impacts (i.e., adding lanes) has contributed to the problems Ior
bicyclists and pedestrians by increasing cross times, travel speeds, saIety hazards, etc. The
amendments to the Appendix G checklist in the CEQA Guidelines is an important Iirst step in
changing the way transportation impacts are evaluated, but the overall eIIect is limited since
essentially all lead agencies have retained the traditional LOS standards as their primary threshold oI
signiIicance. The vehicle-oriented LOS standards tend to take precedence over the more generally
written checklist question regarding perIormance oI the circulation system.

Changes at the state level, such as adding a statutory exemption to CEQA, appear unlikely to happen
and the eIIectiveness oI such changes would be questionable due to the complexities associated with
exemptions. The speakers generally Ielt that it will be easier to reduce obstacles Ior bicycle projects
at the local level, through General Plan amendments or other City policy processes.

Some lead agencies have Iound that preparing a bicycle master plan and completing program-level
environmental review provides streamlining Ior individual bicycle projects and is more cost-eIIective
in the long-run. It is important Ior the lead agency to adopt policies that support bicycle Iacilities to
help validate the Statement oI Overriding Considerations Ior program-level or project-level EIRs that
involve signiIicant LOS impacts. In addition, the designation oI bicycle-priority streets helps justiIy
bike projects and allows the use oI diIIerent methods Ior evaluating impacts and selecting mitigation
measures, when compared to streets with transit or vehicular priority. The adoption oI multi-modal
LOS thresholds that equate bicycles with vehicles or establish a hierarchy is expected to have the
largest beneIit.

Examples oI jurisdictions with bike-Iriendly approaches to environmental review include San Jose
(North San Jose Area Development Policy and the Protected Intersections Policy), the City oI
Alameda, and the City oI Santa Rosa. There is no known lead agency that has adopted a new set oI
multi-modal thresholds to replace the HCM/ITE-based LOS standards. This is likely because traIIic
engineers and cities have become comIortable with this approach. We are waiting to Ior a guinea pig
to establish a model that can be replicated or adapted Ior other agencies.

Public outreach prior to and during the environmental review phase or adoption oI an exemption is
essential to easing the concerns oI adjacent property owners and nearby residents. It provides the
opportunity Ior educating the public on the beneIits oI road diets, allows Ior input on potential
adverse eIIects on the community, and reduces the chances oI legal action.