Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Bicycle, Pedestrian & Trails Committee Minutes January 24, 2022 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />Member Piekarski asked if there were plans to ease bike crossing. Associate Traffic <br />Engineer Nelson stated the improvements offered additional protection. He discussed <br />right of ways and use for future bike paths. <br /> <br />Member Maciel asked how two lanes were added. Associate Traffic Engineer Nelson <br />stated the right away from the west side was utilized. Member Maciel restated the <br />concrete island was unnecessary. <br /> <br />Stephen Dunbar suggested the sidewalk near Denny’s be used as a bikeway. He <br />discussed difficulties with wide sidewalks and provided ideas for the conceptual design. <br /> <br />6. West Las Positas Corridor Plan Update <br /> <br />Associate Traffic Engineer Nelson provided an update on the West Las Positas Corridor. <br /> <br />Member Piekarski stated she was confused, disappointed, frustrated and angry with the <br />proposed plan. She expressed concern about safety with riding bicycles opposite of <br />traffic. She asked if there were still protected bike lanes on the street. Associate Traffic <br />Engineer Nelson stated the intent was shared use paths, with directional travel on each <br />side. He discussed the desire of avid bikers to ride away from pedestrians. Member <br />Piekarski stated protected bike lanes on the street were needed. Associate Traffic <br />Engineer Nelson explained the proposed conceptual plan to allow bi ke lanes. Member <br />Piekarski expressed concern about the cost of the project and suggested protected bike <br />lanes and a shared path. <br /> <br />In response to Member Nigro, Associated Traffic Engineer Nelson stated bike and <br />pedestrian improvements would occur in conjunction with reconstruction of the roadway <br />and the planned construction was 2023-2024. Member Nigro recommended moving on <br />and considering some of the lower priority items. <br /> <br />Member Nelson expressed disappointment that the protected intersections were <br />removed. Associate Traffic Engineer Nelson stated the protected intersections would <br />remain. Member Nelson stated the shared use plans were confusing and suggested <br />signage or paint. He questioned the means of accessing the shared use path and <br />suggested a physical barrier from street parking to protect the bike lane. He encouraged <br />the best plan to get kids to school safely. <br /> <br />Member Houston asked about the Iron Horse Trail. Associate Traffic Engineer Nelson <br />stated the project would include up to the Iron Horse Trail. Member Houston suggested <br />elevated paths where it crossed over the road and concurred with Member Nigro <br />regarding completion of projects. <br /> <br />Member Maciel stated he preferred the proposed option better than the previous option. <br />He suggested adding space to the bike lane. He expressed concern regarding pick up <br />and drop off in front of the school and floating parking stalls creating more blind spots.