Yesterday's loooong blog post about Otis Drive took a technical tour through a report that Caltrans did commission for its project along State Route 61.
Today's blog post about Otis Drive is shorter, since this post is about a form that Caltrans did not file. This form goes by the acronym of CSDD:
The Complete Streets Decision Document (CSDD) has been implemented to
record key decisions to incorporate complete streets facilities in projects on the State highway system. The intent of the CSDD is to ensure accountability in Caltrans ongoing efforts to maximize the integration of complete streets elements within projects.
— Chief of the Caltrans Division of Design memo on February 10, 2021
The keyword of "accountability" is particularly meaningful. The director of Caltrans echoed this when announcing the entire department's complete-streets policy later that same year:
in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved
— Caltrans Director's Policy 37 on December 7, 2021
That text is bolded in the memo.
"what would be the preferred complete streets elements to address those needs (e.g. road diet"
The template for the CSDD is a Microsoft Word document that is only 5 pages in length. Of those 5 pages, only 2 list questions that Caltrans district staff are asked to complete:
The template suggests its particular relevancy to Otis Drive with question 6:
6) Based on the needs identified in Question 5, what would be the preferred complete streets elements to address those needs (e.g. road diet
More broadly, these seem like very relevant and very reasonable questions for Caltrans project leaders to be asking, discussing with stakeholders, and then committing in writing regarding the entire length of this proposed project along State Route 61 (which features many pedestrian crossings, as well as bike lanes):
To put this into context: After construction, this project is estimated to last until 2037. So 13 years in the future is the soonest that Caltrans staff currently plan to follow the department's current policy on this portion of SR-61, including Otis Drive.
Accountability
After the 2 pages of questions are 3 pages for signatures. This signifies how the CSDD is partially about the actual specifics of designing for safety and comfort of all users of Caltrans's roads — and how the CSDD is even more so about accountability:
Note the final signature required on each of these pages: the district director.
For the SR-61 project, the relevant district is Caltrans District 4 — which spans all 9 counties of the Bay Area.
Caltrans District 4 is massive: a "$2 Billion budget of inhouse and oversight investments and [...] nearly 3,500 staff" (according to the bio of the current director of Caltrans District 4, Dina El-Tawansy).
While this is just a $20mm project out of that massive budget and Alameda is just one of 101 municipalities in Caltrans District 4 territory, we still deserve thoughtful and thorough attention from Caltrans.
Will Caltrans District 4 follow its own current policies to document how it's planning for Otis Drive to be a complete street that is "comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail"?
Or will Caltrans District 4 at least do us the courtesy of an "exception [that is] is documented and approved"?