Can there be light for people without cars at the end of the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore?

As we spend hundreds of millions, if not billions eventually, of dollars to build a fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, what are we getting - and what could we still hope to get - for our money?

The stated goal of the project is to reduce delays and improve mobility. Most of the congestion, however, occurs in the peak hour in peak directions - westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening. With the existing reversible lane configuration, during peak hours the tunnel has four lanes in the peak direction and two going the other way. A fourth bore would give four lanes in each direction at all times. In other words, there would be no change in peak-hour capacity or congestion.

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the fourth-bore project is supposed to consider alternatives and mitigations, but a large number of effective ways to give transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access are not even mentioned in the draft.

An obvious way to get more people across the hills would be improved transit frequency and capacity. These are not in the proposal. In fact, BART will suffer if a new tunnel entices more off-peak travelers to forsake transit. Passengers waiting on the BART platforms will also be subject to even more discomfort from noise and pollution. The fourth-bore study does not address transportation needs of minority and low-income wage earners who are stranded if they miss the hourly All-Nighter bus to or from janitorial, restaurant, and other odd-houred jobs.

The popular regionwide Bikes-on-BART program has offered indirect bicycle access across the hills since 1974, but the Draft EIR doesn't consider the problem that bicycles are prohibited during peak hours when thousands of riders might otherwise take advantage of it. Nor does the study consider augmenting bicycle parking at BART, or any of the other measures included in the Safe Routes to Transit program adopted in 2004 as part of Regional Measure 2.

As for direct bicycle access, the Skyline Regional Bikeway leads from Rockridge BART via Chabot and Tunnel Roads to Skyline Boulevard, through the project area. The project goal of increasing mobility should at least assess project impacts on this existing regional bikeway, initially developed as a collaborative effort among BART, Oakland, and the East Bay Regional Park District. Ideally, the project sponsors should acknowledge that Tunnel Road and its bicycling approaches are already degraded by unyielding traffic and propose solutions to the serious hazards posed to bicyclists near the Highway 13 onramp at Caldecott Lane, and at the Highway 24 onramp near the Oakland Sports Field.

Nor does the Draft EIR propose safety improvements or alternatives to the existing freeway-shoulder bicycle access from Fish Ranch Road to Orinda. A direct-access bike route through the hill would cut almost six miles of travel between Oakland and Orinda. A multiuse bicycle/pedestrian path in the tunnel would reduce the strenuous climb by 500 feet and need not be outrageously costly. The path could be routed through the existing 15-foot-wide fresh-air duct above the third bore, or perhaps in the emergency walkways proposed to be built between the new fourth bore and existing third bore. These cost-effective proposals are not an option, alternative, mitigation, or consideration in the study.

Perhaps the saddest omission is consideration of connections across Highway 24. From the '30s to the '60s, the old Landvale Bridge linked Montclair and the neighborhoods above Tunnel Road. The bridge was torn down during construction of the third bore, but the forlorn abutment still stands above Oakland's Lake Temescal, and could form the basis of a new connection for bicycles and pedestrians. Such a connection is called for in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan and Oakland's Bicycle Master Plan.

A chorus of comments on the Draft EIR has exposed the study's faulty traffic analysis; inadequate assessment of options to enhance mobility for transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians; and failure to consider impacts of the project on all users and the environment, including local and global impacts of increased tailpipe emissions. The city of Oakland concluded, "The current inadequate level of analysis makes it impossible to identify appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures."

WhatYouCanDo

Support efforts to have the inadequate Caldecott Fourth Bore study withdrawn and revised.

Write to:
John Cunliffe
Public Information Officer
California Department of Transportation
District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
John_cunliffe@dot.ca.gov
caldecott-tunnel@circlepoint.com

Robert Raburn, Ph.D., executive director, East Bay Bicycle Coalition