Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09182001 - C.54 TO: BOARD OF-SUPERVISORS _ Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE Costa COMMITTEE County. DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 �� / SUBJECT: STATUS OF COUNTYWIDE BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNING AND RELATED MATTERS; APPROVAL OF THE EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BIKEWAY PLAN. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Receive report on the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan effort under way by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and related matters. Approve the East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan as requested by TRANSPLAN, and authorize staff to include the bikeway network described therein in a future amendment of the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element. FISCAL IMPACT None directly. If the East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan is approved by all necessary parties, the County will be eligible to apply for bikeway grants from the State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) program, a $40 million annual statewide grant program. Such grants would help leverage County transportation funds for use in delivering bikeway projects in unincorporated East County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Supervi Donna Gerber, 'Ci-mmittee Chair pervisor John Gioia ACTION OF BOARD ON Z0n1APPROVED AS KECOMMENDED x2L_ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE xxUNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE ! SHOWN. Contact: John Greitzer (925/335-1201) cc: CommunityjDevelopment Department (CDD) ATTESTED September 18 , 2001 Public Works Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF CBAC (°/o Joe Yee, PWD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Nancy Baer, Health Services - CWPP AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY Slransportationlwi bikeways.doc IJ Status of Countywide Bikeway&Pedestrian Planning&related matters;approval of the East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan. September 18, 2001 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Bicycle/pedestrian planning is occurring both at the countywide and regional levels in Contra Costa County. At the countywide level, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) has begun to develop a Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. CCTA in August conducted workshops in each region of the county to seek input into issues of concern to bicyclists and pedestrians. In March, CCTA issued a Request for Proposals to prepare a Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and after a selection process chose Alta Consulting with Dowling Associates as a sub-consultant. Work on the plan began in May of 2001 and an oversight Committee was formed with assistance from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs). The following work is underway on the plan: • An information gathering effort consisting of questionnaires on individual bike usage, available at libraries, health clubs, schools, and other public activity centers. • Requests to local jurisdictions for detailed bicycle and pedestrian related information, Collision analysis at intersections. CCTA's Bicycle Pedestrian Plan Advisory Committee is comprised of: • One staff member and one alternate, appointed by each RTPC • One public member familiar with bicycle or pedestrian issues, appointed by each RTPC • One staff member from the East Bay Regional Park District • One staff member from the East Bay Bicycle Coalition • One staff member and one alternate from Contra Costa County • One representative of the Community Wellness and Prevention Program • One member appointed by the City-County Engineers, from a jurisdiction not otherwise represented Members of the advisory committee are shown in Exhibit A. The Community Development Department has a significant role in the plan by providing the planned and existing facilities inventory being developed for the General Plan. In addition, information developed as a part of the Community Development's involvement in the Health Services Department's Safe Communities Project will be included in the plan. The CCTA anticipates releasing the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in May of 2002 and the Final Proposed Plan in July 2002. Staff will return to the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee at the time is released to review the document and consult with the Committee. One issue for the Board of Supervisors that has remained unresolved for a number of years is the need to integrate the County's Bicycle/Pedestrian Program, established by the State Transportation Development Act (TDA), with the countywide transportation planning and programming process administered by the CCTA. The Board of Supervisors and the Conference of Mayor's jointly administer the TDA program without involving the CCTA. The Board established the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee to advise the Board and the mayors on priorities for allocating the TDA revenue. Since the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will develop criteria to select projects for funding and will establish priorities for allocating revenue for bicycle/pedestrian facilities, there may be an opportunity to improve coordination between the process followed by the TDA Bicycle/Pedestrian Program and the process to be established for the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. County staff, which sits on the group advising the CCTA on preparation of the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, will request that they address this coordination issue. County staff will report back to the Committee on any follow-up that may be necessary. I/ • 1 ' Status of Countywide Bikeway&Pedestrian Planning&related matters;approval of the East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan. September 18, 2001 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) In addition to the countywide planning efforts referenced above, bikeway planning also has occurred on the regional level in East County. TRANSPLAN, the regional transportation planning committee for East County, has developed and adopted the East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan. The purposes of the plan are as follows: 1) to serve as a blueprint for development of on-street and off-street bikeway connections throughout East County; 2)to provide eligibility for East County jurisdictions (including the County itself)to apply for BTA grants; and 3) to serve as East County's input into the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan being developed by CCTA. Understate guidelines, BTA grants are given only to bikeway projects that are in an adopted bikeway plan. Following local approvals, the plan must be reviewed and certified by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and by Caltrans. County staff participated in development of the plan, which is based on the local bikeway plans of each of the five TRANSPLAN member jurisdictions. Policy oversight for the plan was provided by the TRANSPLAN Committee, which is chaired by Supervisor Glover. In addition to reflecting local bikeway plans of each jurisdiction, the plan also includes material contributed by bikeway and trail advocates, who took an active role in development of the plan. The plan will be provided as East County's input to the larger countywide bicycle and pedestrian plan being developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The plan will be updated every two years as required by Caltrans to maintain East County eligibility to apply for BTA grants. Exhibit B is a letter from TRANSPLAN requesting County approval. Exhibit C is the East Contra Costa County Bikeway plan. Staff also seeks Board authorization to include the East County bikeway network, as described in the East Contra Costa Bikeway Plan, in a future amendment to the Transportation and Circulation Element of the County General Plan. This will ensure compatibility between local and regional bikeway networks. TRANSPLAN has also asked its four other member jurisdictions to consider integrating the bikeway network into their general plans as well. EXHIBIT A Bicycle Advisory Committee to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Name Position Jurisdiction/Agency Ms. Lisa Hammon WCCTAC Staff WCCTAC Ms. Summer Brenner WCCTAC Staff(Alt) WCCTAC Mr. Jerry Rasmussen WCCTAC Citizen Mr. Michael Vecchio TRANSPAC Staff Walnut Creek Mr. John Hall TRANSPAC Staff(Alt) Walnut Creek Mr. David Favello TRANSPAC Citizen Mr. Jeff Rogers TRANSPLAN Staff Antioch Mr. Paul Reinders TRANSPLAN Staff(Alt) :Pittsburg Mr. Dann Meyers TRANSPLAN Citizen Ms. Tai Williams SWAT Staff Danville Ms. Leah Greenblat SWAT Staff(Alt) Lafayette Mr. Bart Carr SWAT Citizen Mr. John Cunningham Contra Costa County Contra Costa County (CDD) Mr. Joe Yee Contra Costa County (Alt) Contra Costa County (.PWD) Ms. Nancy Baer Community Wellness Community Wellness and Prevention Program Mr. Steve Fiala .East Bay Regional Park East Bay Regional Park District District Staff Mr. Michael Boyce EBBC East Bay Bicycle Coalition Mr. Andrew Gaber CCEAC Orinda Ms. Rosie Ehlert CCEAC (Alt) Danville EXHIBIT B TRANSPLAN COMMITTEE EAST COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Antioch - Brentwood - Oakley— Pittsburg - Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-0095 August 27, 2001 Steven L. Goetz Principal Planner,Transportation Planning Division Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street—N. Wing,4"'Floor Martinez CA 94553 Dear Steve: Enclosed is a final copy of the Bast Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan, which was adopted by TRANSPLAN on August 9, 2001. As you know,the plan is now being forwarded to the five member jurisdictions of TRANSPLAN, including the Board of Supervisors, for their local approval. The plan provides a long-range blueprint for a bikeway network that will provide both on-street and off- street connections throughout East County. Once all necessary approvals are obtained,the plan will provide eligibility for TRANSPLAN member jurisdictions to apply for bikeway grants from Caltrans' annual State Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA)program. Grants from this program are given only to bikeway projects that are included in an adopted bikeway plan. Caltrans may issue another round of BTA grants this December. To provide grant eligibility for East County jurisdictions by December, we are asking all five TRANSPLAN iurisdictions to approve this bikeway plan by the end of October. Following local approvals,review and approval also will be needed by two additional entities—the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Caltrans. TRANSPLAN appreciates County staff's contribution to the bikeway plan. The plan is based on the local bikeway plans of the five jurisdictions(Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley,Pittsburg and unincorporated East County). The plan also has additional material contributed by bikeway and trail advocates who took an active role in development of the plan. If you have questions about this request for approval by the Board of Supervisors,please let me know. Sincerely, John Greitzer TRANSPLAN staff Cc: TRANSPLAN Committee(without attachment) Phone: (925) 335-1201 Fax: (925) 335-1300 E-mail:jgrei@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us I East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan Adopted by TRANSPLAN on August 9, 2001 Developed by TRANSPLAN for-Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pittsburg, and the uninco7 porated areas of eastern Contra Costa County t. 4 n The TRANSPLAN Committee Federal Glover, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, District L' Brad Nix, Vice Chair Oakley City Council Donald P. Freitas Antioch City Council Wade Gomes Brentwood City Council Frank Quesada Pittsburg City Cornrcil Joe Weber Antioch Planning Commission Michael Kerchner Br•errtwood Planning Commission Walter MacVittie East Contra Costa Regional Planning Commission Gina Rozenski (until August 2001) Kevin Romick (starting August 2001) Oakley Planning Conmrissiorr William Glynn Pittsburg Planning Commission Carmen Gaddis Contra Costa Coway Summary • This plan recommends a network for bicycle facilities throughout eastern Contra Costa County, including on-road and off-road bikeways. • Implementation of this bikeway plan will provide bikeway connections serving major activity centers in East County, including schools, government buildings, and major shopping and recreational areas such as parks, waterfronts and trails. • The plan also provides an on-street continuous bike network linking all jurisdictions in East County, including the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley and Pittsburg and the unincorporated areas under County jurisdiction. These areas include Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Knightsen and Discovery Bay. • The plan reflects the existing bikeway plans of the five local jurisdictions and the East Bay Regional Park District, along with additional recommendations for bikeways developed through meetings of local agency staff, planning advisory councils, bicycle advocacy groups and trail users groups. • The plan is designed to meet Caltrans requirements for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) guidelines and is intended to provide eligibility for East County bikeway projects in applying for BTA grants. Contents Part Page 1. Goals of the East County Bikeway Plan 1 2. Definition of terms 1 3. Needs and opportunities for East County bikeways 5 4. Development of East County bikeway network 7 5. Bicycle parking and related facilities 16 6. Bicycle education, outreach and safety prograrns 17 7. Estimated number of bicycle commuters 18 8. Public involvement in the East County Bikeway Plan 19 9. Coordination and consistency with other planning efforts 20 10.Cost estimates 20 I I.Local policies towards bikeway provision 21 1.2.Implementation of the East County Bikeway Plan 21 13.Becoming a "Bicycle Friendly Community" 24 Appendix A: East County Bikeways 26 Appendix B: Summary of input from public outreach program 35 Appendix C: How this plan meets state bicycle plan requirements 38 Appendix D: Errata 40 Acknowledgements 41 1. Goals of the East County Bikeway Plan The East County Bikeway Plan was developed to address the following goals. These goals were developed through discussions with local agency staff and members of bicycle advocacy groups. • Provide safe and convenient bicycle routes serving all major activity centers in eastern Contra Costa County • Provide safe and convenient bicycle routes that link the communities of eastern Contra Costa County • Provide on-street bicycle facilities to connect with major off-road bike paths • Encourage the use of bicycles in eastern Contra Costa County as a means of transportation for all purposes, including commutes to work • Provide input to larger countywide and Bay Area bikeway planning efforts • Provide a basis for future applications for bikeway funding from regional, state and federal funding programs 2. Definition of terms Bikeway terminology is sometimes used in different ways by different organizations. For this plan, terms are used in the following ways. • Class I bikeway— a path or trail that is separate from the street system, for use by bicyclists and pedestrians. Other users such as equestrians also use some trails. • Class II bikeway—a bike lane that is marked with a white line on the street. The words `BIKE LANE" also are painted on the street every so often in these bike lanes. • Class III bikeway — a street that is designated as a bike route-but without any painted line or stripe marking a lane. In most cases these streets are designated by an occasional sign alongside the route, indicating the street is a"bike route". The following three pages show illustrations for each type of bikeway facility taken from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design. The illustrations show the basic design and/or markings for each type of facility. 1 KDM - FIGURE 1003-1A Figure 1003.IA Two-way Bike Path on Separate Right of Way e •�.("mix ..::d +O'., `� f Giaed: • ... _ :width Paved. CLASS I FACILITY Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design 2 HDM- FIGURE 1004-3 .Figure 1004-3 Bike Lane Signs and Markings WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PROHIBITED Optional Dashed Stripe Centerline or Lane Line (See Note 4) 150 mm 12 in Minimum 30 -60 m White Stripe gure 1003.2A) 7::! ........... ........ O C= O_7ti Curb or f pavement R26,R81 Optional Markings (No Parking) (See Note 1) (Bike Lane) (See Note 6) WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PERMITTED Optional Dashed Stripe (See Note 4) Mandatory Markings 3,3 m or 3.6 m Minimum. 30 m-60 m 1.5 m Minimum (See Note 1) (SOA Figure 10l)3.2l� m m m m PARKING -STALLS .. Sebe Note.5) 4,150 mm White Stripe Optional Markings F- 100 mm White (See Note 1.) R0 (See Note 6) NO STALLS STALLS CLASS II FACILITY Source: Caltrans. Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design 3 HDM - FIGURE 1004-4 Figure 1004-5 Bike Route Signing .� ft` G93 S.ejial.O tio.nal Destination Signing G33 �•rt j. '� G93 Special Optional Destination Si.griing.- CLASS III FACILITY Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design 4 3. Needs and opportunities for East County bikeways Two of East County's most notable characteristics are its rapid residential growth and its extensive regional trail system. Both characteristics lend themselves to bicycle use. Residential growth fiteh17g the need Table 1 below shows the growth rates of East County communities between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census, along with the growth of Contra Costa County as a whole. As shown, the East County population grew by over 40 percent over the ten-year period, far exceeding the 18 percent growth rate for the County as a whole. In particular the City of Brentwood has had one of the highest gro",th rates among all California cities for the past several years. This rapid growth in East County has generated a need for expansion of all forms of transportation capacity, including the highway and street network, public transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian systems. Table 1. Population growth of East County, 1990-2000 Place 1990 Census 2000 Census Percent gain City of Antioch 62,195 90,532 46 % f :>Cit o Bre.n..tw,00d.. 7 5..6..3. .. . 23. 3.02: City of Oakley 18,374 25,619 39 % ...... ..........:....:: :: .......:....:.:.. ....:.:. ..:...:.,:.;:::.:.::..:,�:....:::...:. ,:0 .:....:...;.:..:.;:. Cit ::oP,ittsbur 47 5.64... :.::.: 56 76.9:: ::::: ::<::::::::::::::::, 1:9.::10,:::::::,:::::,:::;: ..,....... .................... .....................,................................................................................:...... Bay Point unincorporated area 17,453 21,534 23 % . ....: : :: : ... :: .... .. . ... :::.....:• :: ...::: ::: :.::::: Bethel Island unincor orated:area:,::: 115:::: ............................... , .. . ..... .. . .............. ..., . .... Byron unincorporated area N/A 916 . .. ,..::....:..:.:...:..: . ...a. Disco v B »:::: . sco: e a .untncor orated:area : : .:,.: 5 351 ::: :, 8 : 6$ /o............:.:.;.;. ry y p ,... > .... ... ................................. ...... ....................... Knightsen unincorporated area N/A 861 East County total 160,615 229,049 43 % County total (inc. all cities) 803,732 948,816 18 % Notes: (1) 1990 population was for the unincorporated Oakley Census Defined Place(CDP). 2000 population is for the City of Oakley. Differences may exist in the boundaries used for the two Census counts. (2)N/A means population data were not available for these communities. (3)East County totals exclude Byron and Kniglitsen,for which 1990 Census data were unavailable. Sources: 2000 Census data obtained from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. 1990 Census data obtained from the Oregon State University Government Ir formation Sharing Project. A comprehensive bikeway network will assist in serving all types of trips. To varying degrees, the bikeway network will serve the commute-to-work trip, recreational and social trips, and school trips. The region's burgeoning school-age population makes use of bikeways to get from home to school each day, and these school routes will become 5 increasingly critical as enrollment—and traffic congestion at the schools— continues to grow. The City of Antioch has received a grant through the state's Safe Routes to Schools program to improve routes used by students to reach their schools. The extent to which commuters will use bikeways will depend upon the degree to which East County can attract job development. ,One of the region's most well-chronicled problems is its jobs-housing imbalance—tremendous population growth but little or no job growth over the past two decades. With relatively few jobs in the region, it is likely that relatively few commuters will use bicycles. Many East County workers must commute long distances out of the region to get to work, which decreases the likelihood they will use bicycles unless they use bicycles to get to public transit. A bicyclist can ride to a bus stop or the PittsburgBay Point BART Station and continue their commute by bus or BART. As East County attracts job growth in the future, the degree of commuting on bicycles will increase accordingly. The supply of more bicycle facilities also will lead to increased bicycle commuting. For example, all of the buses in Tri Delta Transit's bus fleet now are equipped with bicycle racks. As more provisions such as bicycle racks, lockers, and changing facilities are developed, bicycle commuting will become convenient for more East County residents. Bicycle access to BART also is an important consideration. Bicycle racks and lockers are installed at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station (see Chapter 5, "Bicycle Parking and Related Facilities"). Regional trail system JmoWding QL)R0 trinity Along with its growing street and highway network, East County has an extensive trail system that provides east-west and north-south connections through the region. Major regional trails are operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District. • The Delta DeAnza Regional Trail is a 25-mile east-west trail between Bay Point and Oakley, with 15 of its miles currently paved. Bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians use the trail. It generally follows the East Bay Municipal Utility District right of way and the Contra Costa Canal, and provides direct access to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station. • The Marsh Creek Regional Trail is a 7-mile paved north-south trail between Oakley and Brentwood (with southerly extensions of 7 more miles proposed). It follows alongside Marsh Creek. • The Big Break Trail Regional Trail is a 1.6-mile paved east-west trail along the San Joaquin River Delta in Oakley. Extensions will result in a 6.2-mile paved trail. In addition to these regional trails, some local jurisdictions in East County also have their own trail plans and participate in improvements to their portions of the regional trails as well. Such trails offer opportunities for bicycle travel throughout East County. Since 6 most of these trails are multi-use trails, they also are used by pedestrians and in some cases equestrians. 4. Development of the recommended East Countv bikeway network The recommended East County bikeway network has been developed through collaboration among the staffs of local and regional agencies, representatives of bicycle advocacy groups, trail users groups, local planning councils and interested individuals from East County (see Chapter 8, "Public Involvement," for more information). The existing and planned bikeway networks are shown on a series of six maps at the end of this chapter. The recommended ultimate network, when completed, will link all the communities of East County, and serve major activity centers such as city halls, libraries, schools, transit stations, park-and-ride lots and major shopping centers. Bikeway links between East County and other regions will be dealt with in the countywide bikeway plan of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. For mapping purposes, East County has been broken into two areas —Area I (including Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Knightsen and Bethel Island) and Area 2 (including Brentwood, Byron and Discovery Bay). The maps are as follows: • Figure 1. Existing bicycle facilities for Area 1 • Figure 2. Existing bicycle facilities for Area 2 • Figure 3. Ultimate bicycle network for Area 1 (including existing and planned facilities) • Figure 4. Ultimate bicycle network for Area 2 (including existing and planned facilities) • Figure 5. Proposed trunkline bicycle network for Area 1 • Figure 6. Proposed trunkline bicycle network for Area 2 Following is a description of how the planned bikeway network meets the goals of the plan. Goal. Proi,irle safe and convenient routes seri,ing all major aclirity centers in eastern Contra Costa County. Figures 1 through 4 indicate there are existing or planned Class II and Class III (on- street) bike lanes that access the region's BART station and park-and-ride lots, public libraries, city halls, major shopping centers, most parks, and most schools. There is a cluster of several schools shown in Central Antioch that don't have designated Class II or III bikeways. These schools are located in residential areas where traffic moves reatively slowly. Future updates of this plan will examine whether additional bike routes are needed in these particular areas. In addition to existing activity centers, the ultimate bikeway network also will provide access to some future activity centers. As an example, suggestions have been made for a 7 possible public access viewing area at the Delta, located at the northern end of Bethel Island Road on Bethel Island. This location is served by the planned Bethel Island Road route and could be developed in coordination with bike routes on the island as shown on the map in Figure 3. Goal: Provide safe and coniyenient routes that link the communities of eastern Contra Costa County. This goal is addressed in the form of a proposed continuous on-street"trunkline" route which will provide connectivity between communities. This planned trunkline route is shown in Figures 5 and 6. The trunkline was conceived by bicycle advocates familiar with the region and its challenges for its bicyclists. Input from local agency staff also was brought into the discussion, which resulted in the trunkline routes shown on the maps. The Delta De Anza Trail provides a continuous east-west route through much of East County, but this off road facility is not convenient to all bicyclists, particularly those who are bicycling to particular activity centers rather than recreational bicycling. Figure 5 indicates two trunkline routes in Area 1 —a northern parallel route to State Route 4, and a southern parallel route. Both are part of the network. This makes the trunkline system accessible and convenient for as many bicyclists as possible by eliminating the need for crossing under or over State Route 4. Crossings typically have limited space, making it difficult for bicyclists. In Oakley, the two routes join and follow.the State Route 4 Corridor further east to Brentwood, Byron and Discovery Bay. Some parts of the proposed trunkline route already exist. Table 2, following the maps, indicates which segments of the trunkline route exist and which are planned for the future. Corel: Provide on-street bicycle facilities to connect initlz major of bike paths. The ultimate network maps in Figures 3 and 4 indicate that numerous on-street bike routes, either Class II or Class III, access the three major regional trails (Delta De Anza, Marsh Creek and Big Break) throughout East County. In Brentwood, the city's own bikeway planning efforts call for numerous street/trail bikeway interfaces. The Brentwood bikeway plans are reflected in this plan, both on the maps and in the list of bikeway projects at the end of the document. If a need for additional on-street access routes to trails is revealed -- perhaps through a survey of which streets are most frequently used to access these trails -- then bike routes may be added to those streets in future updates of this plan. s - Figure ExistingE _ Class 1 11 and III Bi , r, T: r ..... .. .. .... _ ...... ,:........ .. ... ........ .. 7 : ... ........... . ... ......... . - . .......... . .. .... . ...... i: .......... M,,,�.: ...... .. l......:...... .......... f' ....:...::: : ¢... :. .. Point n a " 7- ...::.::.:.:. .. .. .g�_::����. Bethel '��,..,.. Island .,... :..wk J':. '� 4,." Ff�t �!i' I` -y 1 J_14 Y.- - -7 � tt lrr'"P�� I•-+.._....__-.3�l��l .. .Q , LL 0. - a _ 4" - 1 , Y +✓. "(>.�'„ .-, ...' :11. �S 3 0� -- -: y,. , 1� " y �t : _ t. Legend I Bicycle Facilities Street Network Major Act i ared for Transplan N Class l �'� (�J . s°h°le Contra Costa County 111munity Development Department Class II .4 Park Class III Water Railrc ' 1 2 Miles ?Ar laps" 1:99478 f Shop Ares � .� city Fes°_ rmation.Reproducing all or any Areat N Map Crated on 7/30/01 nt of copyright law.Users of Contra Costa Count Communis p ounty of Contra Costa disclaimer 651 Pine Street 4th Floor N keno mens ! herewith.This map was created g t ;partmcnt with the assistance of Martinez,CA 94553-0095 37:59:45.455N 122:06:35.384W a � p G o u3w, o�Zo`"• U y� •3 .N r � o#�o C C O ivy a% .. ` 'O O L Q t } a #� L /� a Cp�•�00 y� G C V/ y 1r t H Q p U -win iTt rx � p O O O o 04 U }+ ..1am V O r v cn r-9 qcL t c w i.l� .._..... + AMH NOVAS v s I o us O ■�� ... ....'t— a uz 3 y �G O p i a. (o i N _ co F t h C v F O r,w T•C cif ....._. ,. :•-#tt g, �� ! � �I 2 CL u x a o W �J rte■ 'M31A2tI ,,,,y,.�l"' !,y' „i` ?!w:� ! +R . R ui i �aJy � # T n '^ - i _ is � e ... ice.." a •� +3 U (} r i �• ................... ...................._. Figure 3: Ultimate . �:. Class l I I and IIIB t I� .... ...... ..................... - tr': Bay Polnt fz , y, .......... ...i... Y• ....,::::: � m <.I _ 1. - , Bethel - •f— • Island P. f fry 1 ` , , 5.: L j . •` 'ti I r� ! •a !F. f t i .. n. �• r , H _s y , 1...' j Jry ghtsen �v •'f c ::...day.,...,;r:.i�; '?: �.. !a',.:;'- •f.,.--,�-`.r• i�� —• --. - t, ,,3..,,S,.tr.: < t 1 u i , gwL-v.:�cros.zw:acaaasieaau-_.axe uaRa,-s.arx.—_._9.:ae-�v..c.a,c,.�.a..�.,nrs_axww..mmc-+_axar,.ml Legend [ Bicycle Facilities Street Network Major Act' hed for Transplan E f class I ' `�; /-\,IShoo Contra Costa County fibra' unity Development Department t Class II \ r .� Park 1 :�; class Ill Water Railro 2 Miles 1:99478 I i:� Rapider Area 7 Shop;--- city H oration.Reproducing all or any N Map Created on 7/30/01 Area 'it of copyright law.Users of runty of Contra Costa disclaimer Contra Costa County Community Development crtmenth.This map was created 651 Pine ineStret,4th Floor-09N.Wing I partment with the assistance of �. Martinez,CA 94553-0095 I __ 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W E p u : > o�z.o�„ @ 'C :E' c vhi moo. R ° EIL° ^ LO II 3 Q, U7eev o _ °•U ° 00 �J •, 71•.� � }i Liz U— r i �' 00 U t U E Q o _ � ri Z _.._.._._._ 0 2-0 -- 3 � ° ia) fVt - j E N ot� r_ O < C /1 E U ILmV 5 �Q O ■ "02i SNIVId N303........._." ..:' •-.' W. m v F• � � d O O Cn=V�° Elsa .. = > vi 75 cl • q O Y O :2 aCL 0 S CD ca cu M W. le cu c 3 N n w� NOISNUX3 AV S380111H r� N fy0 M cuU U U —C LL C) i u re 5: Pro pub gIII'�..:::::::.....::. ::: 04—z'�eFi ��� . Bikeway Network— , nPl ...... ........ .. .. ..... ...::...— ..t_: is Bay P - _..,. m. :.r...: .oint .. s, .... t....p .....::. .........::. _ E . ...�, Northern•. � Beth Routed. -...a..,:.. �.. 3 E< i t l vi pp ki Island �' �' I �.:4; 1jw lFuy�oao� ��,i.:3`� _ .j �:�:>;- •E f , 1 _ 4� • 11 ' L , ti s t S "I ff ir.i NL r, r_ j f i:. w� 8. a t, J cc i y� r ¢ ) : _ N STw.. , , Legend Bicycle Facilities Street Network Major Act�l ! NProposed repared for Transplan Trunkline �` ��- �I Scho the Contra Costa Count f Libra Y Park&ommunity Development Department Water Rauroa ft' Rapid; Miies 1:99478 AreA 1 Shoppil City Ha I' Area nation.Reproducing all or any N t of copyright law.Users of Map Created on 7/30/01 it of Contra Costa disclaimer Contra Costa County CommunityDcvclopmcnt ! crcwith.This map was created 651 Pine Street,4th Floor-N.Wing ':artmcntwith the assistanceof Martinez CA 94553-0095 I 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W .� f I o � op�o� a�,o , N,�� �/ i u Nzi CL 0.a Cor. 14 U RUEQ c� 3 x. .............'.„...w......._.__ pmt} 1 Q -E � CJ Vf .yy. WO _..... '. :..... .. a_.. Q aim C O.L a E� m f ! :�nro o H Qam `o.0 F � I` E 3 ECH.S41VId N3 sao f _ a ra 5 r ,.fimm,......:- -,....:,... _...AV SH311:3S CO C � @ N V '"7 a-Q l'-f- ` > o Z, ad o o n = -8L CL a � N U E3J , 1.x.1. 5... I � Q C�1 Z _ f til✓ � ._ . ... ; W Nas43ix3nvis3a3i-HN ;,.... e , W x . �'�y. w .✓ £ to OjC u .... ...... 0.C W .........,._.... a`H LLU V iL LM m Table 2. Proposed trunkline route by segment Trunkline southern parallel route to State Route 4 (segments listed from west to east) Segment Current status Kirker Pass Road to Buchanan Road Future bike route Buchanan Road continuing onto West Existing bike route (part Class II,part Class III) Tregallas Road North on Lone Tree Way Existing bike route (Class 11) East.on East Tregallas Road to Hillcrest Future bike route Avenue Hillcrest Avenue south to Laurel Road Existing bike route (Class I.I) East on future Laurel Road overpass of SR 4 Future bike route (overpass and SR 4 Bypass Bypass, connecting to Laurel Road in Oakley not yet built) Laurel Road east to State Route 4 Future bike route Trunkline northern parallel route to State Route 4 (segments listed from west to east) Segment Current status of bikeway segment Willow Pass Road through Bay Point Existing bike route (part Class 11,part Class 111) North Parkside Drive Future bike route North on Railroad Avenue Future bike route East on Central Avenue Future bike route South on Columbia Street Future bike route East on Pittsburg-Antioch Highway Existing Class I1 between Somersville Road and Contra Loma Blvd. Continue onto West l O` Street in Antioch Future bike route North on L Street Future bike route East on 91Street Future bike route Continue onto Wilbur Avenue Future bike route South on Viera Avenue Future bike route East on Oaklev Road to Main Street/SR 4 Future bike route Continue on Main Street/SR 4/13rentwood Future bike route Blvd. eastbound to Discovery Bay Cypress Road, from State Route 4 east to Future bike route Bethel Island Road Bethel Island Road, to its northern terminus on Future bike route Bethel Island Byron Highway, south from SR 4 to Byron Future bike route 15 5. Bicycle parking and related facilities Provision of bikeways is important but there must also be adequate facilities at the"trip ends" of the bikeways— bicycle racks or parking at major activity centers, for example. Bike storage racks on buses is another example, along with rooms provided by,some major employers for their workers to shower and change after bicycling to work. These kinds of facilities provide the link between the bikeway and the destination. The following locations in East County have been identified as having bicycle racks, lockers or shower facilities. • City of Brentwood -- BART Park&Ride Lot (Walnut Avenue and Dainty Avenue) 3 lockers; Delta Cinerna, 5-loop rack; Brentwood Family Pet Care (4421 Balfour Rd., 2-loop rack; Aladino's Pizza (4411 Balfour Rd.), 2-loop rack; Panama Bay Coffee Co. (4431 Balfour Rd.) 2-loop rack; Hollywood Video (4441 Balfour Rd.) 2- loop; Brentwood Family Aquatic Center(195 Griffith Lane) eleven 3-loop racks; Applehill Park (Rosebrook and Central Avenue) one 6-loop; Bunker's Grill at Brentwood Country Club (1740 Balfour Rd.)two 5-loops, Willy's Bagels &Blends (1155 Second Street, Safeway shopping center) one 3-slot bike "fence"; McDonald's (7455 Brentwood Blvd., old Lucky's shopping center) two traditional bike racks, 2-bike capacity each; Teriyaki 91 (7856 Brentwood Blvd., CentroMart shopping center) one 6-bike double-ring bike rack; Sunset Park(Sunset Road) one bench type bike rack for about 12 bikes; U.S. Post Office (Oak Street) one 2-loop rack; City Community Development Dept. (Third Street) one 2-loop rack; Creekside Park (Claremont Drive and Crescent) 4 single loop racks; Marsh Creek Staging Area. (Central and Marsh Creek) one 3-loop rack; County Library (751 Third Street) one 3-loop rack; Safeway (1125 Second Street) one 5-lop rack; Municipal parking lot (First St. and Chestnut St.) one 2-oop rack; Rich's Drive In (35 Oak Street) one standing slot type rack, for about 10 bicycles; McClarren Park (McClarren Road), planned bike racks; City Park (Second and Oak Streets), planned bike racks; schools (various locations) provide bike racks for students and staff. • Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station (Bailey Road and Leland Road) 24 bicycle racks, 20 bicycle lockers. • Tri Delta Transit (all of its buses are equipped with front-mounted bicycle racks) • Ambrose Park Community Center in Bay Point (3105 Willow Pass Road) 5 bicycle racks. • City of Pittsburg (various locations) bicycle racks and employee shower facilities at City Hall; bicycle racks at city parks, all public schools including Los Medanos College and most private schools, and the Century Plaza and North Park Plaza shopping centers. 16 • City of Antioch schools: Black Diamond Middle School (5 bike racks); Jack London Elementary School (5 racks); Marsh Elementary (5 racks); Mission Elementary(2 racks); Turner Elementary (6 racks); Antioch High School (3 racks); Antioch Middle School (6 racks); Fremont Elementary (3 racks); Park Middle School (5 racks); Belshaw Elementary (4 racks); Deer Valley High School (7 racks); Bidwell Elementary (2 racks); Kimball Elementary (4 racks); additional racks to be purchased in 2002; and 6 bike lockers at the Hillcrest Park & Ride Lot at Hillcrest Road and State Route 4) 6. Bicycle education, outreach and safety programs Contra Costa Commute Alternative 1Vetwork The East County jurisdictions provide bicycle programs and outreach through the Contra Costa Commute Alternative Network (CCCAN). CCCAN provides numerous bicycle services and outreach efforts to residents and employees. A countywide employee transportation survey is conducted annually to determine the number of commuters currently bicycling to work. In addition, a list of attitudinal questions is asked, to identify obstacles that preclude employees from biking to work. Bicycle trail maps and information about Bikes on Transit and bicycle events are distributed in New Resident packets which are available to all new residents moving to East County, and to all interested members of the public. CCCAN also includes this information in New Employee packets, which are available through employers and property managers. Bicycle information and maps are available on the CCCAN website, with access via www.cccan.org as well as www.traks.ora. There are also links to bicycle organizations and other bicycle-related sites. A Bicycle Incentive Program is being developed to provide incentives to bicyclists who will bike to work instead of driving alone in a car. A bicyclist who pledges to bike a minimum of twice a week for 15 weeks (or 30 times in 6 months), would be eligible to receive a $40 gift certificate at a local bike shop, or other rewards. CCCAN also conducts bicycle promotions such as Bike to Work Week, and California Rideshare Week, as well as transportation fairs at colleges and worksites, to promote bicycling as well as other commute alternatives. For Bike to Work Day, CCCAN sponsors, advertises, and organizes energizer stations for bicyclists at locations in East County. Bicyclists who sign up at one of these stations receive free canvas bike bags, water bottles, reflectors, energy bars, and other gifts provided by CCCAN, RIDES, and other sponsors. Over 380 bicyclists in Contra Costa participated in Bike to Work Week in FY 2000. Over the last five years, CCCAN has solicited permission to install bicycle racks and lockers throughout East County. Lockers and racks have been placed at numerous locations, with additional placements included in the CCCAN workplan over the next few years. See the chapter on locker/rack locations for more information. 17 County Health Services Community Wellness& Prevention Program Contra Costa Health Services, through its Community Wellness & Prevention Program, operates a Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Project aimed at increasing the use of helmets and other safe cycling activities. The program now seeks to add a new element to promote, pedestrian safety through school-sponsored events. The program includes the Contra Costa Helmet Bank, providing over 1,200 helmets each year to children of low-income families in Contra Costa County. The helmets are individually fitted to each child by trained personnel and are supplemented by one-on-one education and take-home materials on correct helmet use. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Project also provides resources for police department bicycle training programs, community groups that promote bicycle safety, and the Contra Costa Fire District's Bikes for Tykes program. In 2000 the program published an information booklet, the Contra Costa Bicvclitig Guide, which provides instructions and information to promote safe bicycling. These efforts are partially funded by annual contributions from the Article 3 Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds available to Contra Costa County. East Bay Bicycle Coalition The East Bay Bicycle Coalition provides a map of recommended routes for bicyclists in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including eastern Contra Costa County. The coalition's recommended routes are based on their assessments of safe and convenient routes for bicyclists. The coalition's maps indicate which routes are suitable for all bicyclists and which routes are recommended only for experienced bicyclists due to difficult bicycling conditions. 7. Estimated number of bicycle commuters Data will be available on the number of bicycle commuters in eastern Contra Costa County when the 2000 Census Journey-to-Work information is published. These data are expected to be available by June 2002 at the earliest, according to the Census Bureau. A countywide survey taken in 2000 by the Contra Costa Commute Alternatives Network (CCCAN) found that 1.5 percent of employees use bicycles for getting to work. Although the survey is open to any willing employer, nearly all of the responding employers are larger businesses with at least 100 employees. A survey taken in 1998 of trail users on the Delta De Anza Regional Trail indicated that 64 percent used the trail for transportation purposes (to reach work, school, friends, shopping or public-transit stations) as opposed to recreational purposes. About 25 percent used the trail specifically to access school, work or BART. Isolating just the mail-back survey participants— 90 households representing 287 people—five percent 18 reported they use the trail to commute to work. The survey was part of the Trail Use Study undertaken by the East Bay Regional Park District in the summer of 1998. A BART survey of its riders in 1998 found that one percent of passengers at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station used bicycles to get to the station. Three percent walked to the station, while 75 percent drove to the station and 20 percent used the bus. Taking East County as a whole, the amount of bicycle commuting to work likely is low since most jobs are located outside of the region. In many of California's suburban metropolitan areas, only 1 to 2 percent of all work trips are made by bicycle. This is consistent with the 1.5-percent share indicated by the countywide employer survey taken in 2000. In East County in particular, the few large employers tend to be chemical, refining,or utility operations, where employees are on shifts. Shift work tends to reduce bicycle commuting since it is difficult to commute on bicycles at night. Given these factors, it is reasonable to assume bicycles account for no more than 1 to 2 percent, and possibly less, of all commute-to-work trips in East County. In the short-to-medium term (the next five to ten years), bicycle use can be increased by development of a comprehensive, convenient, direct bikeway network as outlined in this plan. In the longer term,job growth in East County is needed to promote more bicycle commuting, as it will shorten the commute distances for some East County residents. Future bikeway planning efforts should attempt to obtain or develop information on the extent of bicycle commuting in East County, whether from the Census or local surveys. S. Public involvement in the East County Bikeway Plan The initial input in the development of this plan came from staff of local East County jurisdictions, transit operators, transportation demand management programs, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and State Route 4 Bypass Authority, and bikeway advocates representing the.Delta Pedalers, East Bay Bicycle Coalition, and Bethel Island. This staff-level input was augmented by a public outreach program, both before preparation of the preliminary draft and after its publication. After publication, the preliminary draft went through a two-month review and comment period. TRANSPLAN staff advertised its availability for presentations and discussion of the draft bikeway plan. The public outreach program included the following events and discussions. • May 3, 2001 — discussion with the City of Oakley Trails Master Plan Working Group • July 9, 2001 — discussion with the Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council • July 18, 2001 — discussion with the East Bay Area Trails Council • August 6, 2001 —joint bikeway planning workshop sponsored by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and TRANSPLAN 19 Appendix B summarizes the input received at these events and how the input was accommodated or reflected in this East County Bikeway Plan. 9. Coordination and consistencv with other planning efforts This bikeway plan has been coordinated with other local and regional planning efforts, including the updating of the City ofAfftioch General Plan, the development of the C& I of Oakley Trails Master Plan, the update of the City of Pittsbffrg General Plan, the update of the City of Bretft►vood General Plan, the 01Y of Brentwood Trails Master Plan, CCTA's STIP biketivay/pedestrian fifndit1g pi•ogf•am (2002 STIP), Contra Costa County's Counom,ide Rail Review St7fdy, and the update of the Regional Traff ortation Plan by j the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. I The plan also is consistent with the Contra Costa Count-yGeffef•al Plan Transportation and Circulation Element (1996). A Contra Costa Countywide Bikeway And Pedestrian Plan is to be developed in 2001- 2003 by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). Since TRANSPLAN provides East County's input to CCTA, the East County Bikeway Plan will be delivered as input to the countywide plan being developed by CCTA. i The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is expected to develop a i regionivide bikeway plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. We don't yet j have information on the process that MTC will use, but the East County Bikeway Plan will be offered as potential input to that process at the appropriate time. I 10. Cost estimates I j The cost estimates for this bikeway plan were developed with "rule of thumb" unit cost factors taken from other recent bikeway planning efforts. The cost factors are as follows. Capital costs Class I: $119,000 per mile Class II: $3,000 per mile without construction; $56,000 per mile with construction Class I1I: $600 per mile without construction; $53,600 per mile with construction j Maintenance costs jClass I: $8,300 per mile per year Class II/III: $2,000 per mile per year I These cost factors were adapted from ones used in the Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (June 2000), the Draft Alameda County Bikeway Plan (June 2000), and a 1998 plan developed in Virginia. I The cost factors were applied to each of the bikeway projects to determine the cost of ! each project and the total estimated cost of the plan. The capital costs are only reported 20 for future bikeway projects, not existing bikeways. Annual maintenance costs were applied to both existing and planned bikeways, as shown in Appendix A. These cost estimates should be taken as general estimates only. Precise estimates will be developed as each bikeway project is designed. Using the above cost factors, the total capital cost for implementing the ultimate East County Bikeway Plan is estimated at $1.5 million across the five jurisdictions. This should be considered an "order of magnitude" estimate only. The precise cost of each bikeway project will be developed in detail as the projects are fully scoped and designed. The annual maintenance cost of the ultimate network is estimated at $1.3 million per year, across all five jurisdictions. These cost figures are estimated in year 2000 dollars. 11. Local policies or requirements for developers regarding bikeway provisions There are several ways in which the provision of bicycle facilities can be tied to new development in East County. On a countywide basis, Measure C requires every local jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance or pass a resolution concerning the provision of commute alternatives by developers. Measure C was passed by the voters in 1988, creating a transportation planning and growth managernent structure. The required ordinances or resolutions don't have to focus specifically on bicycles but must include some provisions for alternative methods of commuting (meaning alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle). The City of Brentwood, in its Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial and Industrial Projects, requires that on-site secured bicycle facilities be provided prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Contra Costa County doesn't have any requirements in its development code specifically regarding bicycles. However, bicycle facilities have been conditioned on development in some cases through administrative action. The County's General Plan includes a recommended bikeway network as part of its Transportation and Circulation Element. The newly updated City of Pittsburg General Plan has an extensive section of goals and policies on bicycle and pedestrian transportation, along with recommendations for specific bicycle improvements in specific corridors. Other local general plans have similar goals and policies. 12. Implementation The East County Bikeway Plan is an ambitious plan that will depend on funding from the private sector and local, regional, state and federal funding programs. Implementation for much of the plan is believed to be achievable within a ten-year timeframe, provided adequate funding can be obtained. Some bikeway projects included in this plan will be 21 i i' � implemented as new development occurs, since they are part of planned street extensions to accommodate growth in East County. Other bikeway projects are planned along existing roadways. These will depend on the availability of funding, either from local sources or from regional, state or federal grant programs. j Still other facilities (Class I) will be along portions of trails yet to be developed by the East Bay Regional Park District. Gap closures are planned for the Delta De Anza, Marsh Creek and Big Break Regional Trails. These will be implemented as the Park District's I resources permit. Whether funding is sought from grant programs or existing funding sources, it is the intent of this plan that bikeway funds be directed towards projects included in this plan. Priority project categories I The following types of bikeway projects are high-priority projects for East County: • projects that help complete the trunkline bike network shown in Figures 5 and 6 and I _ listed by segment in Table 2; and •� projects that provide access to major activity centers (city halls libraries schools, transit stations, park-and-ride lots and major shopping centers as shown in Figures 1 I through 4). Capital funrling for hikoi,ay projects jFollowing is an inventory of some of the primary funding programs that have been used for bikeway projects in recent years. • Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants are offered annually by Caltrans. The program offers about $40 million in grants each year on a statewide competitive basis. Eligibility is limited to projects in a bikeway plan that is adopted by the I sponsoring jurisdiction and certified by the regional transportation commission (CCTA) and Caltrans. • The Contra Costa Transportation Authority STIP Bicycle Program was created in 2000 on a five-year basis,.drawing from State Transportation Improvement Program I (STIP) funds that were available for this purpose. The program offers about $3.6 I million in bikeway funds in total over the five years. The first allocation of$1.8 million was completed in 2001, with $311,000 going to an East County gap closure project on the Delta De Anza Regional Trail in Bay Point. The funding program was created as an interim program until CCTA has completed its countywide bicycle plan, after which a new bikeway funding program may be developed. The countywide bicycle plan is expected to be completed in 2002. 22 • Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, generated through a portion of state sales tax revenue, have traditionally been used to fund bikeway projects in Contra Costa County. TDA funds are allocated to such projects on an annual basis on recommendations from the City/County Engineers Advisory Committee, a multi- agency staff group with representatives from all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. This funding source typically provides about $6 million for bicycle and pedestrian prograrns in the Bay Area each year. • Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) funds are generated through $4 of the vehicle registration fees for motor vehicles in the Bay Area. The funds are allocated to counties by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and are allocated within this county under the aegis of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The program typically generates about $20 million for the entire Bay Area each year. • Federal funding has been used for bikeway projects, from a variety of federal funding programs including the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, the Surface Transportation Program (STP), and the Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) program. The Transportation for Livable Communities Program, a grant program offered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission with federal funds, also has been used for bikeway projects in the Bay Area. Nearly all of these federal funds have been accounted for, in the current federal transportation act that expires in 2003. Continuation of these programs, or something similar to them, is expected in the next federal transportation reauthorization. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission administer these federal programs for Contra Costa County jurisdictions. The above list is not intended to represent all possible bikeway funding programs. Rather, it reflects the programs that have been used most frequently to fund bikeway projects in the Bay Area in recent years. There are many other competitive grant programs offered by private non-profit foundations around the country. Local funding for bikeways also can be generated through impact fees on new development. Also, developers may be asked to provide bikeways as part of their conditions of approval for new development projects. Maintenance of hikovays The maintenance of bikeways is a critical factor for successful implementation of this bikeway plan. Even the most direct and well-designed bikeway won't be used much if it isn't properly maintained. Bicycle use is diminished if bike trails are littered with trash, and on-street bike lanes are full of broken glass, tree trimmings or other debris. Generally the jurisdiction that builds a bikeway is responsible for maintaining it. In eastern Contra Costa County, this means the four cities, the county, and the East Bay 23 Regional Park District will be responsible for maintenance of all bikeways they build in the region. Maintenance of on-street bike lanes would be funded from the same local funding sources as road maintenance, such as Measure C return-to-source funds. The funding for maintenance of off-street Class I facilities will also come from local funding sources or from the East Bay Regional Park District for maintenance of its own regional trails. i I I Local implementation acid updates of the East County Bikeivay Plan The member jurisdictions of TRANSPLAN will be asked to include this plan, or recommendations from it, in their General Plans. Tile cities of East County currently are I updating their general plans and the opportunity exists for compatibility with the East County Bikeway Plan. Many of the recommendations in this plan were developed by the local jurisdictions themselves, based on their own local planning efforts. I As jurisdictions implement the bikeways recommended in this plan over time, the plan will need to be updated periodically. This plan will be updated at least every two years, or more frequently if circumstances warrant. In this way the plan will stay current and remain effective as a guide for funding strategies and decisions. i - 13. Becoming a Bicycle-Friendly Communitv The League of American Bicyclists is an organization that promotes bicycling for recreation, fitness and transportation. The League's current membership includes i 300,000 affiliated cyclists representing 40,000 individuals and 600 organizations nationwide. i I As part of its advocacy and outreach program, the League designates `Bicycle-Friendly Communities" in cases where local bicycle provisions meet certain criteria. To date, 54 communities in the United States have met the criteria and are designated as Bicycle j Friendly Communities. The closest communities to East County that have attained this I designation are Calistoga, Davis, and Rohnert Park. Tile two other California cities that have attained the designation are Claremont and Coronado in southern California. i jIn eastern Contra Costa County, the City of Brentwood is actively pursuing the designation as part of its local bikeway planning efforts. The East County Bikeway Plan encourages all East County jurisdictions to strive to meet the criteria and become bicycle- friendly communities. The criteria for attaining this designation are shown on the following page. I i I I I I I 24 Primary Criteria — applicants must meet all four criteria 1. Governing body establishes a written policy designed to develop and maintain "bicycle safe" streets and pathways. 2. Community budgets and spends one dollar per capita per year on bicycle facilities and events. 3. Governing body passes an annual proclamation recognizing May as National Bicycle Month and encouraging citizens to observe Bike to Work Day. 4. Community establishes Bicycle Advisory Committee, and designates bicycle issues contact person on government staff. Secondary Criteria — applicants must meet two of the following four: 1. Community police teach bicycle safety in schools, stressing the wearing of helmets. 2. Community sponsors annual cycling event. 3. Community publishes bicycling information, identifying suggested routes and stressing safety. 4. Community provides public bicycle parking facilities and encourages private bicycle parking facilities. For more information on the Bicycle-Friendly Community Program, contact the League of American Bicyclists, 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 401, Washington DC 20006-2082; phone (202) 822-1333; www.bikeleacue.org. 25 APPENDIX A EAST COUNTY BIKEWAYS The following tables list the existing and planned bicycle facilities that are part of the East County Bikeway Plan, as shown on the maps earlier in the document. The bike facilities are listed by jurisdiction, including Class I, II and III facilities. The tables also indicate the estimated length of each facility, the estimated capital cost (for future facilities), and the estimated annual maintenance costs (for all facilities). The tables are arranged in alphabetical order by jurisdiction, as follows: Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pittsburg, and Unincorporated County areas. The cost estimates for each project shown in this appendix were developed with uniform cost-per-mile figures adapted from other recent bikeway plans. Precise cost estimates will be developed as each project is designed. 26 o < gr� gxoGGGGGnnnnnnnrzaro y y w O Q c o O O a c c 3 ° O = 0 nn < °= °c °c c° °c 5_ w7 .w7 r c o -� a a ti a w E xWX- m- o o -no , ° o o o - c G ° e o 0 o io o w n a a a a w w a g' < 9 Er m fD H oo c ° o � 0 c c c H - - G M o �• C G y ; °� w w ° ^ r+ x a w w ttio 77 ° 3 9 x x o c o o — r x O P- . m c < aye a a 6 a o aaa > r � a � y o ° b o �G 0 C a o �n o < coo ° Q x G ~3 G w m a w d 7d t<n a y y F H w e 0 o < a o o x < �. CC < pc ° 7y o w w o x x a v' E wa o [ ° o w• a n io t<o t<o t<o Fl a a ox G W a G O °c CL d — — G < 0 o c0 cxErC, Go CCS W r 0 n " ry -• N x ? rrrQ _ Gm` < rnC "� o 3 = 0 � 0 "r v - CD 3 - w 0 = 5 3 - ' a 5 - y °a a . ^ _ 9 H' c C o N ^ CD a' to ._. N C] -Di H W S A N O w n to t7 O (7 C� o O to n a W `< a < a < o pG c° io 0o to in io o ^ '— G x ? < a H a s o a y o o d y n Y o o to R x r 7 °m o n x p < G to nr n C C < < o < a a E < q � aw ro o oC ° to GAG < n o � � � ° w o x 0 Q < a a < w w o < w w ° a c e c < ° o o cco o y. w Si ro w c a 3 G c. a a y 00 � C W tR c. oor _xo w �w (A > C4r G r enc W rotnrnU y C z -- 00 [ < r -a �,to ... a a 7 w y w ur to - : .� O - n (^', b C fi .. O R - O - p Co O C� O y• O O C CD (9 ri ti (D d O (D '^i Q. O C1 '„Z "" n a E (n w E O C: ('i T. .Ni C < < ton o .= n x �° x T o tin w n io ° x = cl- o :: W n c io o ct in o R d o 0 v- R ' G 8 - < E ° o o w w o c c < n - y x x rro O (D O to -. C x < " B_ C x O ° N S a s :C: �. 7. A A r "' 0 y 4. fD U Q C?C - v °• G > a N x (D R t<D C ° to X, N a 0 n A a 0 ° f� O < (D K C°.1 A G taD CD G a °� vac " a < nx ° 0 ro � Gc�?x '°^na o O d O n < �, < P- P7 a N .' N N y. < E Wn n C 0 w a ro N N N N N N N - N N N N N N N - N N N N N W N N N l.w y � ro i N N N W W N N N N N N N N • L OOO -- O — .-• .- N OOOOOON OOtnOO -+ OWN W OO � OWN -- - O - O --• --• OO -• =I tA J J U W J 00 tJ W A A U .- �p ip Ips U �-+ W N U 01 A N �D 00 O\ W U o U 0 00 J J lD W O U W 00 - N A W O J N W O U N 01 W W W 'T B In N N W W W 6s N r b9 69 ro w G1 N J W 00 J In toN .O CO -VJi. + WA JJ W 00 A ONU 'p 4 O ?00 OO 00 N 10 m W 0 0 CL v 69 b9 69 69 b9 69 A 69 69 69 69 69 U b9 69 69 f.9 6'f G/i 69 69 [f7 A U N W U �] U A N N N N - W N )t fA�.'_ 69 69. fA. �'6'f to 69 L C U 0 A 0 tD W -O A W 1, �d 00 00 �D U O (T U V' A 00 00 N 7a O .D O U t° J U O a w N W D\ W A 00 - \O O W to C0 U w N --• A T A 01 J N 0110 O 00 W O O 00 .-• OC A U 00 10 \O N a - n � (7 a n 6e 69 69 v!v9 69 69 69 fA 69 fA n �D00 O CN \0 O tJ -In O G1 J O� 10 A W p O G1 W O N W W J U (T .+ N U O 0 N �D W N J W O 01 `-• N 00 CD a QER. 7 2 COD . \& 4 R ; e . 7 } $ . . \ . . ( / 0 ¥ >5 ° < ` 2 ( � 2 � ! 2 ) ! 4R � (± / ! - � . ` � I I L � . . . ,. .. - . . � � ~ / � R I , I / i ! . ! . i i � . , . . . . . .. I . ° 7 � \ 00 co ! . I 1 � 2 � EI $ E I co I m» ƒ . § /) \ I . � � . � -ri r) n () w w w - - - °o.�= 1, pGoc«r�0w'* a 0 In C) C) 0 C, C, 0 0 W. 9 .0 ct 0 0 > iri - :e * r 9 22 'g. 0 0 0 0. m > > > > > a 0 d a pql — 5, 1 5� lc�t lot 0. 0. < co 'rooa tC tr 5- CL > > > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 co r. CL CL 0 CD 0 0 co C CL co 43 0 0 M n Owz 3, LZ W ;t;wpK wz Co Sn 0 0 Cav D 0 w 0 2. 0 ocacw C: :3 :1 0 CL C=, U) w 1E C, 5 C, " �;. 0 0 0 CO o < WK 0 0 z < 0 CL CD n (V CL CL ti CD CD CL ro tl- in cnra0a7 -cl m CD co M n 0 m l< 0 CD 1=1 -jj c: C. 0 0 0 0 0 2. :a 6 5 F M- = " , co C, 5 , - = co ct :E CL CD -C, o > > co >c �E > < > 0- CD ap- p 0 CD > > < w tz < tz OW. 9 CD =2 < m 0 > C, r CD < C) n < E CD 0 ct CD C 9 >( R CP CL 0 CD V3 O CD > < co CD CD C tj N N N tj N O tl> tj N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N N N N N N 0 tQ 10 C>N La Ih %0 w 0 o 00 'D W w tas .-j 'A 'D 0, LA -j w 4 w w W M W 10 01 N 10 w 4• 01, 0 O C) N) W N 00 6m be b4 bos t09 tA bn" be Iq b9 bs b4 fA CL 61 t� " a �09 .e 6e 6q !N "' p 60) "41"�j "— a 0 to 00 "%A V, D.- I-ID NON C) 0. CD LA a, 0. �4 b4 ny 4A W 69 69 603 69 69 tri k Li -c) L, t.A 00C) 00 lin w 00 ON 00 01 W ro 69 64 69 G'1 en 69 65 b9 b9 69 Fn 69 LA bm G7 WOO -I CD to co N -j CD 00 CD 0 0 C) a" --1 C, 0', to m r-"j w V,til t7i 0 vl�C4,(40 tn � m �0 0 0 w w 'o C14, I I o acs t, CD n fop � a X* M, ;.;* .E. S.a n n > C, 8 - ;� R " 9 n C) 0 a ll OR S 9 1 w w w ;,- Ev P- E;- @ > � a a 8 8 E. 8 ;a ;2 '01 ;; -1 . . . W . :g �g (-)n 5.0 .0 (71 DO CO C z z Ia. < 0 n CnL COL m M aq DO co 0 rA 0 0 0 0 r- a DQ 70 Do cn rr 00 tra CSAR > > F or,' 0 m 0,1 0 n n .a n a 0 :3 no D- > > > > ;11 0 > > > — X, o C6 ri a 'I n n n W CD 0 CD CD lwn 0 np, :E > > CL �c PO CL o o. ro CA Im co ° tj 1 N nP — — — — — — — — — — — — N — — — — — — — — — — — — — — N NW Na 0 00 -A w C:> C, 0 tQ to C, uj J�l N, 4 C\ bs rs fs iA 6e'.9 .q fA iA tA EA"q iA 6e43 N 't,) j VA f+4 tJ W j U, W N NW kA w m w w tA00 IC to W Nj tl� co -.4 Z., tj oo w w �O 00 Q� 10 00 Vi 6e (Aas 00 00 4bM 6e (A (A "L4 "0 P 6,9 6e 00 0 LA 0. CD -1 w Z, tj Ic, 00 CN w 0 a Z, �j 1� 00 w w G) 02zZZz0CD nHmHrcfH mn v co a co CD co m o o o o D E < A a G o O O G a n n w o rn Zco W H [r1 L7 H f :7 Ia. ° y B °o o_ (� CD H� z �. d v '^ c CD CD CDx� CD n Wm r R ` " n O O r pr 0 0 a C 0 a s d o D R FD 0. (D n A R C :5 z D a ct 0 <0 CD 0 cv C r = c H " . 0 w m q w a y e 7 d 0 o (� o O o. � o 0a a CD �' a Da ostia DCD o 7c- cn - G x k H va 7 C v a o a w B CD a O a C, x tro% — N �o • N • L O A a, G --7 U .— A W N 00 W r C, a, O U U OG OC Q\ N rJ' a v. 69 69 W fn OO OSA bq N L aw0 �. (A Vii O O\ N N V' U OW v O n O O 0. ti G. fA � U K � ra• w 00 �' CD a w a co co G9 En 0 C7 fag(!!q H — N 6) 0 O a9 �.. O W Ny Va JN O N W O v .W-• co co c 0 g -C� w ;,v to > < < a < CW) 'o, c < < < CD (D C, FL ow n CD CD cl rn rzmO ' td t3 _ cn ri w rA E4 3: 3: > CD M.W W co CD UQ CL vr0, 0 CD o 0 0 ro > X, > ro Pe z b r co CD CD ca. C<, CD 0. M a 12 wo 0 w C, cr w jw �i Ei. 0 rA o c: C) cr CD 0 �l co CD 0 p 0 0 CD. w RCD w 72. tD i; lo E; 70 > 0 x Y' > , . -W, ;'c So. > 0= F6 iD a o w w. < W < CDro ;co x, co a y n ccD M. rt; tJ K) N N ICL t4 0 — -C� C, w 0 C> c tj 0 'o tj –1 0, t� a L� N, 10 (71 00 00 w 0 0 W tQ m p. J�. W — VC w �c y. 64 61 Gls tA 64 ibe bs w w &%fq D. 00 -.3 00 00 00 �o 'o �c 00 'a LA 00 w N1-0 00 --1 Aw cv .4 00 w UC, w U CL 6e P 60 64 'PO w 2 to., 12 OWO t 'I A00 w ro 69 61 EA 69-BM 6.9 fA N N fag 69 W C7,A0 00 N L, W 00 00 o 00 C, g'D d 10 C, �o w p - ON - L 'R 1 - N - I • � _ nnxdxx � g °° �J � g � " roz � rxxmmGnnnm �mwr -� R y o 7c' o o � .. y � 0 cove 0 7• °' =• 0 : o wy^ w E � S fns ° c G o cGJ " O E Lo 20 x o w ° row ° cro c G c c > c<o < cGe w m y < ° fe S c fn E E C, c 0 ° o C < tam ❑ ^Zy aaa < a ` E ° co � GGG 7d �7J do Q, ° o 0 0 o < n o ma ° <' a' < c o c U: to 'n w w .0 ° G w ^3 ° ° w F o a a a ° = ° a ° n <' O m a y a R o `° 'b 7J w A a 7d �. =r nzron� � � nz � zam � � zxroxm � nzxno � nzx< z � � ° m ° ❑ + m a w w w m rb c o d o w _ n y a" � 'p m ^� f) C �+ C � R n <' w O 4 O ° a r, o m y c`o n c i fT a o a n -m co O �+ O O 3 0 7 C '$ x w yam rn � a V] /Ta � :: ° CL CL nam � w' c � aw o S<c < n O < a a c e < nCC S `° < G m y i d '� CD O a C C t9 A O C G n .. C "O <' a w = CD 0- G A n o n ° �e c C �• O y c+ << �' O O in O C 7 ; nraMn xgaG � � wr.. z -� � � a � a B w a00° < ° cn r° q n n CD w _. O o o 3 s c a' o a S w n E n a c, 0 ` S w aEn � n w n w E ZJ En F - aro o m c r, a c<c a G a � a � �. �' ��' 0 � _ <. c = <' _ .'� ° r < C" a o 0 7. EL " c ° y ro E o G H y .. a W W W N W W N N W N ^ W N W N W N W x a' ..fl W W W ^ N N N N W N W W N N N N N N N N O O N a 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O ^ N A 0 0 -- O — 0 0 0 0 J to N t/i A WN �; 00 W O O 00 A J -] N N10 A In 00 00 N A --• C, W W 0 W to N 00 A C1 O C1 w A to 00 .- W A 00 O b N b b CT N W to W J ry� N Hf d 69 N fag f/!EA fA fa9 69 69 fA f!9 Fli 69 fA H EA b fag d � A A N A C1 W� � w ... N W � — ,-•'G -' O V' to O to N W O W In N C� OC N \0 00 C% �1 V �1 J O W A W A O N W 00 O� In v U A C w N O A N �- O ^ A N In to D\ O �l 10 v n O CL N r 6r9 ^f!f H9 ? ^ A N W W NK O O � to J O 11 N uj 10 ^�]J W N W � --j 6j, r7 X O� W to N 00 LA 00 b JV W In O O\ A w O to C, O� A 00 A W O 00 "0 ^ 'O ao T O b to s. N W a f) N 6e lbe � n ° w ,. 69 69 69'C7 N to tr 00 A J C�O O J ao W to w 0o J Ln oo W v p �+ V to ao A r O� Oo �1 N w — to t0 A �I 00 w O A w �l to \D 00 10 O V 00 to to O W O 00 O to d. N bbybz x nhr� GbCJGnGmrTlnnn^ nnna aaaaa ' aaab 7C o 0 0 = o C. C. -i w a a c O CD O n O O O h Np� w w �< 0 a 0 rn CD w C A .tel :l �I �• �j 7 �_ n n 7 5 O a 7 0 `+ G co n W W O n X o S S ? C, a T w m e 7 x - < m C C 7y 7d x < o d 5' o X :° cu = = ° < 0 �. < n ^ 5 o < CJ d o 0 o n p ° �° n n n o o ° ^` SO w w w o w o 0 o w w G w w w D > = O m n � 9 x 7y D c Doo a w ce n w y , m w m O ao 00 < < ° n 0 0 0 �e x o. a w' S o 0 o 0 0 0 O 7r a O.0 m w v w w .ti o x= y o 0 °w o a z x m 0. o a n n n � ° 7 O = o o CL c o c a D ».� � n� �o aox as CL G. 0. 0. CL 0 rrr = ° CD M. 000 0 G aw op� e � � � D � � boro - -� dna � r, zz N 7. w n G O �. y A �' N O•.• y �' ° O w..0 w (➢ w w 7 w e ° Ci Cr o c ci p 6 � �e ° n nCD n io ° 5 o ° c Q = e .ty o ° �e $ x o n 5 g D v E :` 3 0 w o , o .d c w - cn o ° a G 7y 7 G o , w F 0 o no ' n oa y o n G. •e x > n ]. 7y 7y7ynp o a a < n °c 5 ° a v C1 b � °w °w rl C, a n s 5 y 7y y n 0 G < G m m o G o or < rL aa � o H 7a o y c < < a. r c 7y < r ca. r- C Coo c a x �r CD o CD a °w o 5 w w a 5 _3 ° ° a a °w Lf 8 a G a £ H D G a n m < p CDF CD ]. 0 I � I , I a wC', ? w � a — aaaaD z , � h � nnnG � al~�r > aamm � nz oar , 7 a � 'C ° � ='. v w CLd v 7 ^. O O w w N (? w w O ° c w n cD f F ° y ° �-� s ° c 3 °n ° = ° = ° ° CD ° < F w w 3 c 5 II w `' ry °o °o C C o o f = c n w 7.p n F �' C y y m <. n o l< l w C- p �c < = n n an no y m crCD v d= _nr°D a5 v cf°o z ° ao O n c. a^ ac o N c > 0. 6. ° iso 5 A c w `D r < o .. ^ ^ <, a w 7y a < c S. o c w a m C, a' x 5 FL _ a m o a e r 0 < y o o o o n <CL > w � R C. — O In. � d � I o 0 I I x I N N W N N II �. II I I � I • W N N .- W N N N N N N — N N O II z I. N O N O O U A N O W �•' - .• W — O -- - U N O — O O W U N Q� .- - W N N G1 A W N C, N U A U U W O, U N V^ W W O C, A 00 00 W 00 10 O N J A .~-• 1.0 N C\ A W A C\ J I.. CD 64 I y I I I 69 69 O\ 6A 69 69 69 A N b9 69 N 69 t 69 69 65 N fn W Je9�v9 N 69 69 kw O\ 69 A J O J A N N W A U 00 U O\ W J ,O �• W O\ V W W L0' 00 A N p I U O ,O 0o J N A ,° C, J -- J W W ,p A"LA O W O O W C\ W J.- 10 01 U b w 00 O U No J ,p O\ ,D N J W J O ,D Q, A DD N C1 G1 •- O W a 0 n U O N O O A J 00 00 00 00 U N J .- N O A Q, U U J U N J O O J CD O I rn II I I I 613 Wb Ci9 W W N N O N 7. CFO O P C, I ° I 69 69 N fn 6N 65 64 69 6s 65 6v 6n 69 6n b ('] U A U U \1 fA N 6'9 69 69 69 65 69 N In 69 N 69 69 p ON W ,° U .+ N O O ,O W .- N A OA\ A O cn N ,DO p C, O O O O\ N J 900�-W J G A U p O J ,o A A ,° N C, N N in N U O -- O J O �' 0o A W O O U W O 7o b a -- A 00 00 U m A A A J 00 .- W A J U oo .2 rn W O U A O A ,D U O U N O �-' 00 00 00 W U W ,p W �] �- A 00 00 J J P. I I CD f £ E c o o K 0 7yo 7dro 7do11" r Ay 7dao. ro < CdCC °w a n d B a o n a o ►ti b7 t k y y O C co `7 y o. w a w � � CL C o t� W. = a a a o r W y G�J � o rn � d07 � C1W =G T1 �G (� m o n " c a a s w CE,� I3 �r5 y ,Eoc c co Y ° c pf� ay_ o y a n �, • Trrw _ a ° a CD a oa n ' O d < `C 7 w D G � O O IO C, a = ? o y w w o w o c < o C C o a• I• E p x ^ m 7j o. O v: b ti d n C, C w p 0. O QO 60 r w O O a ^ P. w a c a n o a L r ^ y N 5. —�ro 0 O L W O N O — O N -• N � 00 'o N O w o0 w 00 Qt bo in ? \0o\ b N J W o1 A W W N T S 69^9 69 69 69 69 69 6'f G,l fA FA 69 N ro W J D1 N O w'D m Z b O\ N O w b b N A Ot A y W 00 A00 In tp d N Fn fA Cf w x v � w 00 a w a rn fA 00 0", 6s 69 fA FA 69 N fA 6s EA — O �] A N N W W A w J N a V O 00 oa'o o E' N N A A O% O� O� A J N A to w A ",70 t O — N w b H J co APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF INPUT FROM PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM. Following is a brief summary of the public outreach events that were conducted in regard to the East County Bikeway Plan, including topics discussed, comments offered, and the degree to which the comments are reflected in the plan. 1. May 3, 2001 — Discussion with the City of Oakley Trails 1%laster Plan Working Group. This meeting was convened by consultants working with the City of Oakley to update the Trails Master Plan for Oakley. TRANSPLAN staff was invited to discuss the East County Bikeway Plan as part of the exchange of information at this meeting. After describing the plan and its then-preliminary contents, attendees at the meeting expressed support for developing the bike plan and stressed the need for coordination among the many entities that have an interest in bike and trail-related issues, such as the East Bay Regional Park District, City of Oakley, East Bay Municipal Utility District, school districts and local parks and recreation districts. The group didn't comment on specific bikeways but asked to be kept apprised of the effort. 2. July 9, 2001 —Discussion with the Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council. TRANSPLAN was invited to discuss the Preliminary Draft East County Bikeway Plan with the Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council. This council provides advice and input to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors relating to issues on Bethel Island. At the meeting, council members made numerous helpful suggestions for additions to the planned bikeway network, including suggestions for bike routes along Willow Road and closing a gap in the planned bikeway network along East Cypress Road, which provides a link from Bethel Island to other parts of East County. The addition of these routes would serve a residential area on Bethel Island and a school planned for that portion East Cypress Road. Both of these suggested routes were added to the plan as a result of the discussion. Council members also asked if the map could be clarified to show that planned bike routes along Stone Road and Taylor Road were in fact on those roads, not levee routes as the map seems to indicate. TRANSPLAN staff indicated we would try to make this clarification, but it proved difficult. The two roads are so close to the levee that it is impossible to differentiate them from the levee, given the size and resolution of the map. The projects are accurately described in the project list in Appendix A. 35 3. July 18, 2001 —Discussion with the East Bay Area Trails Council. The East Bay Area Trails Council held its monthly meeting on July 18. The council is staffed and sponsored by the East Bay Regional Park District. The agenda included presentations on bikeway and trail planning efforts being conducted by TRANSPLAN, the City of Brentwood, and the City of Oakley. The discussion was wide-ranging, from funding sources for bike and trail projects, to the different uses for trails (equestrian, bicycle, pedestrian), to questions about specific bikeway projects such as that along the State Route 4 Bypass. Attendees pointed out some errors in the maps, which TRANSPLAN staff said would be corrected. We also were requested to label the trails on the maps (which wasn't done in the Preliminary Draft), and to indicate which trails are multi-use trails. For the maps in this final version of the plan, we have labeled the trails by name. We were not able to indicate which trails are officially designated multi- use trails due to the graphic limitations of our mapping system. i Some discussion also was devoted to whether Class 1 trails should be promoted as routes for commuters to get to work, or whether on-street routes (Class II and III) are better for commuters. Attendees had different perspectives on this. The East County Bikeway it Plan doesn't choose between the two. Staff believes bicycle commuters will choose II whatever route is most convenient for them. In many cases these will be on-street bike routes (which is the reason for developing the trunkline route linking all East County communities), although some may choose to commute on Class I trails. The latter may be difficult for commuting because trails usually aren't lit at night. i I Ili In response to the question about bikeway plans for the State Route 4 Bypass, a new i highway now under construction, staff has clarified that the bikeway in the Bypass II corridor will be a separate Class I facility alongside the Bypass. The new highway is being designed and built to freeway standard, and the Bypass project staff indicated this precludes thern from having a Class II bike lane on the facility itself. The State Route 4 II Bypass is a new highway that will extend from the current State Route 4/ 160 junction, I south to Vasco Road, with several interchanges along the way. i Presentations from staff of Oakley and Brentwood focused on their own local bikeway planning efforts, which have been reflected in the East County Bikeway Plan. The City of Brentwood staff indicated they are actively pursuing designation as a Bicycle Friendly I Community by the League of American Bicyclists (see Chapter 13, "Becoming a Bicycle Friendly Community"). 4. August 6, 2001 — Joint bikeway workshop sponsored by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and TRANSPLAN. About 35 persons interested in bicycle and pedestrian planning attended this workshop conducted in Antioch the evening of August 6. The event featured presentations on the { East County Bikeway Plan and the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that will be i developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). i i I i 36 Many comments and questions were offered about a wide variety of subjects ranging from general concerns to specific streets, intersections and trails that are used by bicyclists (or that bicyclists would like to use). Regarding East County bike routes, much of the discussion concerned on-street bikeway connections between Antioch and Brentwood, focusing on the new State Route 4 Bypass that is now under construction and on Lone Tree Way, a major arterial that links the two cities. Attendees urged TRANSPLAN staffto see if Class II bike lanes can be implemented on the shoulders of the State Route 4 Bypass. The East County Bikeway Plan calls for a Class I bike trail alongside the Bypass. This is the type of route currently planned by the State Route 4 Bypass Authority, which oversees construction of the new highway. However, bicyclists point out the Class I trail doesn't exist, whereas the shoulders already exist on the highway segment that is currently under construction. They requested a Class II facility be implemented for the short term. Use of the shoulders as an interim measure would help provide a direct on-street connection between Brentwood and Antioch. Later, when the highway is expanded to a full freeway, bicyclists could move off-road to a Class I facility. Staff indicated the issue would be examined, and it was agendized for a future meeting of the State Route 4 Bypass Authority. If it is determined that a Class II facility can be implemented on the Bypass as an interim measure, this will be reflected in the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan now being developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. It also will be reflected in future updates of this East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan. Other subjects included the need for adequate maintenance, sweeping and cleaning of bike routes, the need for bike routes to and within major regional parks, and requests that roads closed for construction should have detour signs for bicyclists as well as the usual detour signs for motorists. Attendees also pointed out several errors on the maps in the Preliminary Draft Plan, which will be corrected (see Appendix D, Errata, for one of these errors, the map location of the Oakley Library). 37 APPENDIX C HOW THIS PLAN MEETS STATE BICYCLE PLAN REQUIREMENTS The California Streets and Highways Code includes guidelines for locally adopted bicycle plans. The state requires plans to meet these guidelines if projects are to be eligible for State Bicycle Transportation Account grants. The guidelines are found in Streets and Highways Code Section 890-894.2 Following is a listing of each guideline, and how and where the required information can be found in the East County Bikeway Plan. 891.2 A city of county may prepare a bicycle transportation plan, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. —see Chapter 7 beginning on page 18. (b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. —see Figures 1 through 6 which show all major activity centers and communities in East County; see also Chapter 3 beginning on page S for a description of the East County community, its needs, and its forecasted groivtlL ©A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. —see Figures I through 6 and Appendii A. (d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. —see Chapter S beginning on page 16 for a description of bicycle parking facilities. We could not accommodate these locations on our map because there are too many of them-- inclusion of these locations would make the map illegible. (e) A map of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. —see Figures 1 through 6 tivhich show these 38 locations at the region's one BART station, at park-and-ride lots Also the text on pages 6 and 16 refer to bicycle parking at transit facilities and on transit vehicles. (f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. —Facilities of this nature don't existfor bicyclists in East County. (g)A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists. —See Chapter 6 beginning on page I Z I (h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but not limited to, letters of support. —see Chapter 8 beginning on page 19, and Appen(li_x:B. Letters of support mill be requested following adoption of this plan by TRANSPLAN on August 9, 2001. (i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting. —see Chapter 9 beginning on page 20. Currently there aren't any local or regional bikeway plans, but some are in development as indicated in the te-vt just. referenced I 0) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation. —see Figures I through 6 and Chapter 4 beginning on page Z See also Appendix A. Tl:e text in Chapter 12, beginning on page 21, recommends completion of the trunkline route system and routes that access major activity centers as priorities for TRANSPLAN. This bikeway plan doesn't include rankings or prioritizations for all projects in the plan. Further prioritization will occur through future funding cycles and updates of this plan. I (k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area. — j See Chapter 10 beginning on page 20, and Appendix A,for cost information, which comprises the financial need Data on past expenditures for bicycle facilities aren't 1 available but Figures I and 2 show the e-rtent of the existing bicycle network in eastern { Contra Costa County. I ,I 39 APPENDIX D ERRATA 1. The Oakley Library has moved from the location shown on the maps in Figures 1 through 6. The new location is at Freedom High School on.Neroly Road. The maps used here are based on a commercial map that still shows the library in its old location. 2. The following bikeway projects were inadvertently omitted from the maps or the project list in Appendix A. Future editions of the plan will add them to the maps or list. Brentwood Grant Street from Lone Oak Road to O'Hara Avenue extension, Proposed Class II Map in Figure 3 shows as Proposed Class I Balfour Road from Brentwood Blvd. to Armstrong Road, Existing and Proposed Class Il Omitted from list in Appendix A Fairview Avenue crossing at Balfour Road, Proposed Class I Map in Figure 4 shows as Proposed Class II Oakley Big Break/Marsh Creek Trail from 0.5-mile n. of origin of Big Break to existing trail Omitted from map in Figure 4 Pittsburg Contra Costa Canal Trail from Bay Point to the Antioch city limits, Proposed Class I Omitted from list in Appendix A and map in Figure 3 Frontage Road (SR 4) from Los Medanos School to Crestview, Proposed Class II Omitted from list in Appendix A and map in Figure 3 Kirker Pass Road from Buchanan Road to south city limits, Existing Class III Omitted from. list in Appendix A • San Marco Blvd. from SR 4 to south of West Leland extension, Proposed Class II Omitted from list in Appendix A and map in Figure 3 Stoneman Avenue from Loveridge Road to Harbor Street, Proposed Class Il This project is added to the plan, and will be shown in future editions in the list in Appendix A and the map in Figure 3. - 40 West Leland Road from Woodhill Drive to Bailey Road at city limits, Proposed Class I Omitted from list in Appendix A Unincorporated county areas BART access trail to Bailey Road, Proposed Class I Omitted fi•oni list in Appendix A and map in Figure 3 Wharf Drive from Pacifica Avenue to south of Marina Road, Proposed Class II I Omitted from list in Appendix A I Alves Lane gap closure from Willow Pass Road to Winterbrook Drive, Proposed Class II Omitted from list in Appendix A and map in Figure 3 I I. I II j I I j I I i ,I I i i i i 41 I i Acknowledgements The following persons are acknowledged for their contributions to the East County Bikeway Plan. They are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Ahmed Abu-Aly, City of Antioch John Cunningham, Contra Costa County Steven Goetz, Contra Costa County John Greitzer, TRANSPLAN Gina Haynes, City of Pittsburg Hillary Heard, Contra Costa County Val Menotti, BART Susan Miller, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Dann Myers, Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council Crystal Najera, Contra Costa County Bruce Ohlson, Delta Pedalers and East Bay Bicycle Coalition Lynn Osborn, TRANSPAC/TRANSPLAN Transportation Demand Management Jamie Perkins, East Bay Regional Park District Steven Ponte, Tri Delta Transit (Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority) Paul Reinders, City of Pittsburg Jeff Rogers, City of Antioch Al Schaal, Contra Costa County Ellen Smith, BART Lowell Tunison, State Route 4 Bypass Authority Jason Vogan, City of Oakley Karen Wahl, City of Brentwood We also acknowledge the efforts of any other persons who may have assisted the above in their bikeway planning contributions. 42