Coming Up: I-680/Treat Blvd. Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Workshop

May 16, 2017 16:00 pm · 45 comments

On Monday, May 22, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development will host a community workshop on the I-680/Treat Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan.

The Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART Area Specific Plan identifies a need for a future bicycle and pedestrian circulation route along this segment of Treat Blvd. The Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART Specific Plan contains policies and recommendations that encourage improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation access to, through, and from the Specific Plan area.

The proposed Plan would support and help implement these policies and recommendations. In addition, the City of Walnut Creek adopted policies in their General Plan 2025 that support this project.

The proposed project would provide a plan that identifies improvements to serve bicyclists and pedestrians using the Treat Boulevard/I-680 corridor between

the Iron Horse Trail, through the I-680 over-crossing near the Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station area, and extending west to Geary Road/North Main Street in the City of Walnut Creek.

The I-680/Treat Boulevard over-crossing is one of the main arteries into the Contra Costa Centre/Pleasant Hill BART station area from areas of Walnut Creek west of the freeway.

For more information contact:

To learn more about this project, please visit: http://www.cccounty.us/680Treat

Public Workshop 

When: Monday, May 22, 2017
Time: 6 p.m.
Where: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Board Room – 2999 Oak Rd., Walnut Creek

Atticus Thraxx May 16, 2017 at 4:19 PM

Damn people and their bicycles. This ain’t Bangkok dammit. The roads are for cars and commerce.

chuckie the troll May 16, 2017 at 4:41 PM

So over $6 million was spent on that bridge over Treat, and now were are going to make Treat even worse by putting in bike lanes? The traffic already backs up to Clayton Road in the morning! Fix Treat so that cars can actually move along at a decent speed before anything else is done. My gas taxes are SUPPOSED to pay for roads for my car. Tax bicyclists or have them make charitable donations if they want special lanes. Yep, I said it.

Jojo Potato May 16, 2017 at 5:00 PM

I ride my bicycle through this area all the time and I think these plans are stupid and dangerous. Riding on Treat across 680 the cyclist is faced with on and off ramps with cars changing lanes in all manner of chaos. There are safe ways for cyclists to cross 680 close by north and south of Treat. A couple blocks north is Oak Park blvd that flys over 680 and connects directly from the Iron Horse Trail to a good bike lane on Oak Park blvd up to Putnam. A short distance south the CCCanal trail goes under 680 and Main Street and then connects up to Geary road and beyond. I don’t see what problem is trying to be solved here.

Dwight S May 16, 2017 at 5:13 PM

Waiting for all of the angry car and truck drivers now…if only they understood that for every person that rides their bike that is one less car on the road…shouldn’t that be the goal?

Curious May 16, 2017 at 5:14 PM

I guess all those cross-walks and pedestrian lights at every intersection is not enough; Nor is the Iron Horse Trail overpass with the cross walk right beneath it enough. Can we spend at least $1 billion to “improve it?” Better yet, make it $5 billion. It’s not like it’s YOUR money.

Jojo Potato May 16, 2017 at 6:10 PM

We could speed up Treat a lot by eliminating those crosswalks. The main traffic is medical clones going to Starbucks. They can use the bridge.

Kendall May 16, 2017 at 6:32 PM

I bike commute daily and vote that this is the wrong place to focus on.  There is a bike trail that runs parallel to Treat and runs under the freeway.  Focus on Willow Pass, where it crosses the 242 and where it crosses the 680.  Now that’s where the REAL danger is and where there is no alternate route.

nytemuvr May 16, 2017 at 7:02 PM

I feel a diatribe on it’s way from Kenji excreting his pro-bike dogma.

anon May 16, 2017 at 7:04 PM

A bikers paradise in the works.

KenInConcord May 16, 2017 at 7:34 PM

How many pedestrians have been killed along Treat recently? 6 or 7?? Cars jumping curbs and hitting people walking or on bikes.

Why are we encouraging more people in harms way. Treat is way to fast for a bike lane. Spend time and money developing the bike paths along the iron horse trail.

WC May 16, 2017 at 7:50 PM

Dear #5. That’s a fallacy. Tweakers generally don’t have licenses or they soon won’t when they get busted.

THE BLACK KNIGHT May 16, 2017 at 8:11 PM

This is more of the “Complete Streets” garbage being pushed on us. In most places they are either removing lanes to add bike lanes or they are narrowing lanes to add bike lanes. Either way, that only slows down vehicle traffic for bike lanes that are rarely used. Bike lanes may work in urban cities, but they don’t work in suburban cities.

Jojo Potato May 16, 2017 at 9:49 PM

@Chuckie – that bridge over Treat actually cost $12.75 million according to CCTA documents. That fancy lighting and design don’t come cheap you know.

Colonel Kurtz May 16, 2017 at 10:58 PM

Everything was better when it used to be exactly the way it used to be before they started changing everything to new fangled ways to do the same old things we used to do.

Captain Obvious May 16, 2017 at 11:22 PM

WC

You don’t need a license to drive. You just need a car. They’re criminals remember?

WC resident May 17, 2017 at 12:39 AM

Very few people ride their bikes on Geary. I suspect it’s one or two people per day. As Jojo notes, you can take the canal trail or or Oak Park Blvd. to bypass the high-hazard area from Sprouts to PH BART. You can also easily go to WC BART without once getting on or near one of main streets.

From the intersection of Geary and Buena Vista/Putnam it’s 1.0 mile to PH BART using Geary/Treat, 1.4 miles using the canal trail, 1.7 miles using Oak Park Blvd, and 1.7 miles to WC BART. The optional routes are all much safer, nicer, and add a fraction of a mile to your ride.

WC resident May 17, 2017 at 12:53 AM

@Kendall #8 – did you know there’s a pedestrian/bike tunnel near Willow Pass and 242? It’s a bit sketchy. If I was a woman by herself I would not do it but the tunnel exists. It’s at 37.967305, -122.048602 or https://www.google.com/maps/?q=loc:37.967305,-122.048602

Zoom in and you’ll see something called the Corridor Trail. It allows you to bypass some of the vehicle traffic in the area.

I agree that it’s dangerous for people on bikes on Willow Pass Rd. trying to get under 680.

No Thanks May 17, 2017 at 6:14 AM

Just we Treat Blvd needs – more slow-moving vehicles.This is a preview of what your new gas tax and VLF fees will go towards. Road improvements for cars? I’ll be surprised if we see much difference…

Affe May 17, 2017 at 6:35 AM

Widen the pedestrian lane on the bridge. That’s about it. Bikes have alternate crossings available as others have pointed out.

TOB May 17, 2017 at 8:54 AM

Rather than vent here, go to the meeting. Otherwise a handful of bike riders will get there way because you wont take a moment to be heard. I agree, too much already has been done that impedes traffic. Treat traffic has never been addressed only making things worse. Unless they find a way to keep traffic flowing and not backing up to Bancroft and some days beyond, simply HELL NO! Go to the meeting!

Doh May 17, 2017 at 11:24 AM

Dwight S #5 -“one less car on the road” Most of those cars are going to Bart. That means a lot of less cars on the road. And sometimes not taking a car is highly impracticable.

Shoulda Coulda May 17, 2017 at 11:33 AM

Years ago the City of Walnut Creek tried
to improve the safety of bicycle riders on
Ygnacio Valley Rd. There are a large number
of big trucks that travel the road making it
dangerous for the bike riders trying to share
the same lane. To avoid this hazard the
city tried to separate the trucks and bike riders
by moving all bicycles onto the sidewalk.
One side of the street was designated for
eastbound riders and the other side for
westbound riders. The sidewalks were wide
enough to safely accommodate pedestrians
and cyclists. The city posted signs saying
Bikes MUST Use Sidewalk. This system
worked well until the local bicycle groups
fought with the city over their right to ride in
the street next to a fully loaded gravel truck.
The city was forced by the groups to backup
on their improved safety plan and allow riders
on the street again. The signs were changed
to Bikes MAY Use Sidewalks. Sometimes it seems
that the bike riders aren’t too concerned with
their own safety. At least Walnut Creek tried.

Aaron M May 17, 2017 at 12:10 PM

Every single time I go by there there’s pedestrian traffic on the Treat overpass over 680. The sight lines for cars going right from Treat onto Buskirk make it look like pedestrians better run or die. There are high density apartments all over the area west of 680 and those people need to get to bart. We know bike lanes provide a buffer between cars and pedestrians that reduces collisions/fatalities. I don’t usually go that route on my bike, but people have a right to use the roads their taxes pay for.

TRUTH May 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM

The big problem is that Treat Blvd will be a congested mess no matter what the cities along it and the county do because of the huge and growing amount of traffic coming in from East County. At least building bike lanes provides a way around the massive traffic jams that are coming, unlike the intersection widening that Concord is doing at Treat and Clayton that will just make traffic worse in a few years.

Treat should have safe, high quality bike lanes along its whole length and we should probably be looking at providing useful bus service.

Jonathan E. May 17, 2017 at 12:13 PM

Nobody likes traffic. Nobody likes pollution. Nobody likes paying lots of their taxes to wasteful infrastructure.

The only feasible solution to all these is to make it safer and more convenient to get around by bike or foot or public transit. Every trip made by bike or foot is one less car on the road, and less traffic, pollution, and infrastructure costs. The easier it is to bike or walk, the more people will do it.

Even if, for some reason, you don’t like cyclists or pedestrians, and think those who do are annoying, and will never take a trip without a car yourself, it’s in your selfish best interests to provide better and more convenient bike and pedestrian accommodations.

It’s fair to debate how to do so, but ridiculous to say we shouldn’t

whatever May 17, 2017 at 12:39 PM

I commute on my bike everyday using the CC Canal Trail and the Iron Horse Trail. Very thankful for these trails. Wonderful way to get to work. I don’t see a need to change anything for the benefit of cyclists in this area. If you need to ride east/west use the Canal Trail. If you need to ride north/south use the Iron Horse. What is the problem? Your nuts if you insist on riding along with traffic or crossing 680 on Treat Blvd.

Kirkwood May 17, 2017 at 12:49 PM

I would disagree that bicycles remove cars from the roads. Most of the riders are out there for hobby or recreational purposes, not traveling to work or the store.

Aaron M May 17, 2017 at 1:29 PM

Canal trail is great, but it’s kind of far for pedestrians.

whatever May 17, 2017 at 2:04 PM

Sorry Kirkwoood
I am living proof of someone who chooses to leave my car at home and ride my bike to and from work 5 days a week. Yes my bike means one less car on the road. Your welcome! No traffic, easy parking, no fuel costs and I get my exercise in. Granted I can ride 90% of my commute on paved regional trails. Thank you EBRPD! If I had to ride on city streets, bike lanes or not, I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t survive.

Aunt Bee May 17, 2017 at 3:01 PM

Roads were made for cars, Not bikes. You won’t solve the problem until you understand this!

Jonathan E. May 17, 2017 at 3:28 PM

My wife and I both bike to work from Concord to Walnut creek most days, leaving two perfectly nice cars sitting in the driveway, and reducing traffic and pollution on Oak Grove Road, Monument Blvd, Main St, and Ygnacio. I know lots of other people who bike to work or to BART daily or nearly daily. I suspect that if it were easier and safer to bike in Contra Costa, that more people would do so, thereby making our little world a little more liveable, and leaving more road for the rest of you.

nono May 17, 2017 at 3:58 PM

I’ve made the drive on Treat between Bancroft and North Main Street morning, noon and night for almost 20 years. It was way less crowded and moved a lot faster before the lights at the Bart Station/Contra Costa Centre were set to allow one direction of traffic at a time. All we do now is sit at lights while huge rows of backed up cars form. I would say our City government has obviously installed “stupid” lights, that have no clue how to move traffic efficiently. This is the same City government that will likely vote to remove a lane of traffic each direction for bike lanes.

Jenn May 17, 2017 at 6:07 PM

I totally support safe lanes for bikes. Bikes support clean air, good health, calmer traffic, and less noise.

People making comments about how their taxes pay for the streets do not seem to realize that those of who pay taxes and do not have cars are paying for these streets too, and dammit, we want them to have bike lanes. Not all taxpayers can afford or want to drive cars. It is utterly selfish to imply that the only rightful users of our public routes are cars.

The only way to get traffic under control is to allow for alternate transportation. The bus systems around the country are atrocious, and many want to bike to BART if the route is safe.

ClaireB May 17, 2017 at 9:37 PM

I find it hilarious that the people who complain about traffic the most are the people that drive and therefore CAUSE the traffic. You are the problem. If I complained that the library restrooms were too dirty and I was peeing on the floor wouldn’t that make me a hypocrite? I also hate traffic and so my solution is to choose not to drive. Luckily I can set up my life to make that possible. It’s nice to see the CCTA increasing this option for more taxpayers who contribute to the general fund where this money comes from.

I also laugh at the comments by people who assume what other people do or don’t do. So happy that gvmt can make decisions like these on data and not speculation. Data shows walkable and bikeable neighborhoods increase the safety and quality of life for everyone. Well, except those who will fight to the grave so they can watch their lives tick away at stoplights.

Jonathan E. May 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM

I notice a lot of recommendations that cyclists should go out of their way to take ‘alternate routes’, but no-one would ever suggest that cars should do so, even though they can go four times as fast.

I suspect that the extra half mile or more of backtracking needed to do the alternate route is another major deterrent for those on the fence about biking vs driving (the biggest one probably being safety). For an experienced cyclist, an extra mile is no big deal, but for someone who is trying to do an efficient and convenient commute, backtracking to an alternate route or not could mean all the difference. I happen to have lucked out that it only takes a bit longer for me to bike to work than drive (thanks Iron Horse Trail!), but we could do a lot better to serve all of those people who would bike to work if only it were safer and more convenient.

Jonathan E. May 18, 2017 at 9:20 AM

Aunt Bee, where should the bikes go? Roads are not made for cars, they are made for transportation. Bikes are a far more ecologically and economically efficient mode of transportation than a car.

Look at it like an engineering project. If you have one 150lb animal that you need to move from point A to point B, does it make more sense to use a 30-lb machine entirely powered by the animal, or a 4000-lb machine that is entirely powered by a very limited supply of half-billion year old rotted plants shipped in from a hole on the other side of the world?

Or another simple math problem: if you have a roadway of a fixed size, is it a better deal to provide a 12×30 ft space per person traveling, or a 4×10 ft space (nearly 10 times the area)?

anon May 18, 2017 at 10:09 AM

If you people from Davis only want to bike, you need to go back to Davis. We drive around here … always have … always will. Get used to it.

anon May 18, 2017 at 10:14 AM

The roads are bought and paid for by cars. This isn’t China or India. In California people bike for recreation, not transportation. Adjust, or move to China if you have to bike. Buhbye.

Jonathan E. May 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM

‘anon’, the Diablo Valley has evidence of human habitation going back thousands of years, and most people have only been regularly getting around by car for less than fifty. You have a very interesting perception of what constitutes ‘always’

ClaireB May 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM

Dear fellow neighbors near the PH Bart station,

If you would like to see automobile traffic reduced so that you can get to your destinations more efficiently in your car, please go to this meeting and encourage the CCTA to build lots of efficient routes for those who want to walk, bike, and use public transit. Getting people out of their cars and using a more efficient mode of transportation is THE ONLY WAY that you will see a reduction in automobile traffic. Asking the CCTA to only build routes for automobiles is a guarantee that you will spend your life snarled in automobile traffic. Many of your neighbors do not want to drive everywhere, but it is their only option. If you can get your neighbors to walk, bike and take public transportation then our roads will be less clogged with automobile traffic. If you only want to drive your car, then fine you have that choice. But try to guess what it would take to get your neighbors out of their cars and ask the CCTA to build that. Then you will have less cars backed up in front of you at stoplights. After all, would you rather have 4 bicyclists next to you in a bike lane or 4 cars in front of you at a stoplight?

Jojo Potato May 19, 2017 at 10:22 AM

Just went by the CCTA offices (2999 Oak Road) and they have a sign in the window that the meeting is cancelled. No explanation given. Maybe when they read anon’s famous quote “We drive around here … always have … always will. Get used to it.”. They just figured the issue was settled and no need to have the meeting. And yes, I was on my bicycle, as usual.

Deb donovan May 19, 2017 at 4:33 PM

I am a 66 year old woman who lives within a mile of this area. We need a bike friendly plan because it is scared to bike here. Biking is healthy for people, the environment, saves parking and needs to be encouraged by bike friendly routing. Thank you

Kenji May 20, 2017 at 12:35 PM

This meeting is NOT cancelled. Jojo Potato, thanks for the notice. However, the cancellation sign you saw in the CCTA window was about a different meeting, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Anyone with an opinion about this project on Treat Blvd should come to the meeting Monday night.

Jojo Potato May 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM

Sorry Kenji. I guess I didn’t read the sign carefully enough. It was really comical when I went into the building and asked the guard if there was bicycle parking. He was like “Sure, uh, yes, uh down the elevator, uh, across the street, uh, I dunno”. Why not, “Yes, there’s a rack right there and it’s monitored”? Sigh.

Eudamonia May 20, 2017 at 8:07 PM

Over a year ago I decided to get out of my car and beat the traffic. I’m not simply a “recreational” rider. I wear a back pack with a change of clothes for work. And I’m one less car on the road. I urge people to rethink the car culture and work towards a healthier lifestyle and community. For those who think the roads are only for cars, please remember that taxes are paid by people who walk and bike and take public transit, as well.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: