motorider

When I biked home this afternoon, I saw protester at the intersection of Mission Blvd and Niles Canyon.

From a cyclist point of view, I think the project should be welcomed. No? What do you guys think?

colinmcnamara

What specific project are you mentioning?

bigbossman 

https://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/document..._final_web.pdf

Summary:
This project proposes roadway widening to provide standard shoulder width, and curve correction,
in a rural portion of Alameda County on State Route (SR) 84, between Alameda Creek Bridge
(approximately PM (postmile) 13.6) and the SR-84/I-680 Separation (PM 18.0) in Sunol, Alameda
County, California. Route 84 within the project area is a state Scenic Highway. The Alameda
Countywide Bicycle Plan has identified this segment of Route 84 as a proposed Class III Bikeway.
The current facility is a winding two-lane, undivided, conventional State highway consisting of
multiple horizontal and vertical curves.

The purpose of the project is to incrementally improve safety on Route 84 within the project limits
by improving sight distances, providing refuge for errant vehicles that might otherwise cross the
centerline, providing means of warning drivers who may approach curves at unsafe speeds or
whose vehicles may stray over the center or fog lines, and providing a safer traveled way for
bicyclists. Although the accident rate within the project area is below the state average, the number
of fatalities has been higher than the statewide average.

The project will widen the existing highway by up to 18’ to accommodate a 2’ soft median barrier,
one standard 12’ lane in each direction, and standard 8-foot shoulders. To make room for widening,
the project will construct five retaining walls upslope from the highway where hillsides are cut
away, a total of 5,300 linear feet of wall, and nine retaining walls downslope from the highway
toward Alameda Creek, a total of 3,400’. At the creek locations, 10-foot wide shoulders with
metal-beam guard rail will be constructed on the side of the highway adjacent to the walls. A
preferred project alternative has been identified that does not include widening at several sites in
the project area, generally at sites where historic structures are present.

motorider

Thanks Bigbossman. I actually supports the project. I bike Niles Canyon Rd regularly; the section between Palomares Rd and Mission Blvd is actually on my bike commute route. There are a number of stretches with no shoulder at all, especially in the west bound side. In the commute hours, the traffic is pretty heavy. Occassional big rigs and semis made the thing worse. I understand the natural beauty part from the protestors; but I think the road can be made safer for both motorists and cyclists, while keeping the historial looks of the Niles Canyon.

Beaker

I've done that a bunch of times, most recently in a bayareawheeler/lactate induced haze. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Dchiefransom

We'll have to see what this project does. The projected "straightening" of the road will likely raise the speed of vehicles traveling it. The area under bridges cannot be widened without replacing the bridges. I don't think we'll see all the spots without a shoulder widened, just some of them.

Actually, some of the spots they are working on already have shoulders. They are lengthening the spot with the left turn lane by the gravel pit entrance.

colinmcnamara

Awesome. I support this 1000% percent. If they widen 84 then I finally have a safe bike commute down to sunnyvale.

bikingshearer 

There are at least two and maybe three phases to the Niles Canyon project. The first phase, the one closest to Fremont/Mission Blvd., is under way. It went through the environmental review process five or six years ago. It will be tough to kill the first phase, although it sounds like some people will try. They have succeeded in gettng the area legislators interested enough to hold public hearings with the CalTrans District 4 kingpin.

The environmental and other such stuff is currently under way for Phase II and Phase III (assuming I am remembering correctly that there will be a Phase III). That means there is a much better chance that Phases II & III will end up not happening. (As a practical matter, the protests over Phase I are far more likely to derail Phases II and III than they are to have a meaningful effect on Phase I, although I wouldn't make book on any of the Phases.) It also means that the earliest you are likely to see shovels hit dirt on Phase II is three to five years from now - Phase III might be even later. These projects do not happen quickly.

Environmental issues cover far more than just endangered species-type stuff. It also covers things like sight and noise impacts, impacts on historical and archetectural resources, and a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting now. The problem is that Niles Canyon is very narrow for all the stuff that is already there. I'll bet you did not know that there is a historical aqueduct that is protected by some law or other, but there is. There are also railroad rigjht-of-ways, both in current use and of historical import. Naturally, there is the creek, and affecting that carries its own set of legal issues. The reality is that widening Niles Canyon, especially in the middle of canyon (the big "S" part that goes for a mile or so) simply cannot be done without affecting one or more other things. For example, under any realistic plan, a bunch of hillside excavation would have to be done to accommodate a road with wider shoulders than are currently there (or not there, in some areas of the road). That, in turn, means installing some sort of retaining wall, and that carries its own can o' worms.

This is not meant to be advocating for any particular outcome (although I confess I'd love to see at least some paved shoulder along the entire length of Niles Canyon), but rather to give you all a better idea of where things stand now and what the variables are in this project. Consider this an ongoing civic lesson on how things really work. Watching this project go forward will give you a better appreciation of why it took so long to replace the Cypress Structure and why it will be well over 20 years after Loma Prieto before the new eastern part of the Bay Bridge will open.

bigbossman 

This is what I don't understand - I'm well aware of the difficulties and delays regarding rebuilding the Cypress Structure. It took forever to get it sorted out. While we were squabbling for years about how best to proceed, L.A. had the Northridge earthquake which collapsed several main artery flyovers. They were able to get them rebuilt in about a year's time.

prathmann

I don't really see advantages for cyclists in the proposed project in Niles Canyon. The road widening and straightening of some of the turns will certainly result in faster traffic and is likely to also see a substantial increase in volume as more motorists choose this route instead of routes involving I-680. That would be fine for the sections that will gain wider shoulders, but my main concern when cycling in Niles Canyon has always been on the bridges and underpasses and, AFAIK, these will not modified. In addition, the current center rumble strip is planned to be replaced by rumble strips between the travel lanes and shoulders. Fine as long as the shoulder is rideable, but could be a problem when there's debris on the shoulder and also when approaching one of the bridges where the shoulder disappears.

So my view is that the project will make sections of this road that are already ok for cycling a little better but will make the hazardous bridges and underpasses even more of a problem.

FrenchFit 

More meat for the white witch.