There has been increasing legal action against bicycle projects. Road Diets have the potential to result in signiIicant level oI service (LOS) impacts. Projects that involve changing the paint on a road may qualiIy Ior an exemption under CEQA.
There has been increasing legal action against bicycle projects. Road Diets have the potential to result in signiIicant level oI service (LOS) impacts. Projects that involve changing the paint on a road may qualiIy Ior an exemption under CEQA.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
There has been increasing legal action against bicycle projects. Road Diets have the potential to result in signiIicant level oI service (LOS) impacts. Projects that involve changing the paint on a road may qualiIy Ior an exemption under CEQA.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
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.